Title of Rule:	CBHP Eligibility identification and affadavit documentation  	
Rule Number:	MSB 06-07-13-A	
Division / Contact / Phone:	Children's Basic Health Plan / Joanne C. Lindsay / 3144	
REGULATORY ANALYSIS

1.	Describe the classes of persons who will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from the proposed rule.
On and after August 1, 2006, this rule will require CBHP eligible persons eighteen years of age or older to present identification that verifies their lawful presence in the United States at the time of enrollment in order to receive CBHP benefits.  In addition, the eligible person shall be required to execute an affidavit stating that he or she is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident, or that he or she is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law.

Per HB 06S-1023, each applicant eighteen years of age or older shall produce the following identification: 1) a valid Colorado driver's license or Colorado identification card; 2) a United States military card or a military dependent's identification card; 3) a United States Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card; or 4) a Native American Tribal document.

County departments of social service and medical assistance sites shall be required to obtain and verify applicant identification and obtain the signed affidavit required by HB 06S-1023.  Affidavits do not need to be verified.

For an applicant who has executed an affidavit stating that he or she is an alien lawfully present in the United States, the  county or MA site will need to perform verification of lawful presence through the Federal Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement Program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security.

2.	To the extent practicable, describe the probable quantitative and qualitative impact of the proposed rule, economic or otherwise, upon affected classes of persons.
The affected clients will be required to submit documentation that is not currently required.  This may be an administrative burden to some clients who cannot easily retrieve the required forms.  In addition, the inability to obtain the documentation may affect citizens from receiving timely health care.  It is also possible that the process will identify illegal immigrants who have been receiving services, and those clients would only be able to obtain emergency services from this point forward.  The Department believes that there will also be a cost for accessing the Federal Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement Program (SAVE), including by month and per query charges.

County departments of social services and medical assistance sites who process eligibility for these clients will be required to take on additional tasks and costs to comply with the rules.

3.	Discuss the probable costs to the Department and to any other agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues.
The Department expects that there are costs for the Department to oversee compliance with this rule (statute), for the county departments of social services, Medical Assistance sites and contractors to process and file additional paperwork, and system changes to record the information.  However, the bill indicates that the "general assembly anticipates that there may be a need for supplemental appropriations to comply with the provisions of this act that cannot be accommodated within existing resources."  Therefore, the Department plans to submit a request for an emergency supplemental to address these costs in September 2006.

4.	Compare the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of inaction.
The costs of inaction are noncompliance with State statute, which is not an option at this time.  

5.	Determine whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule.
The Department proposed a process that is least intrusive for the State, counties, and providers, while still being able to ensure that the law was implemented.  

6.	Describe any alternative methods for achieving the purpose for the proposed rule that were seriously considered by the Department and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule.
The Department considered doing all verifications on August 1, 2006, and this was discarded due to the dramatic impact that processing all clients at once, each year, would have on the entire welfare system for years to come.  Therefore, the Department decided to complete verifications at the clients' annual redetermination time.  The Department also considered requiring in person visits so original documents could be viewed.  This option was discarded because many clients mail-in or drop off applications.  Allowing notarized copies allows for the intent of the statute to be met while still permitting mail in or drop off applications.