1. KATCH E VALUATION : P ROJECT O VERVIEW AND R ELATIONSHIP TO PRAMS Kansas Blue Ribbon Panel on Infant Mortality July 30, 2010 Caitlin McMurtry, Research Assistant Kansas Health Institute

2.  Kansas Access to Comprehensive Health  Funded through a State Health Access Program grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration to KHPA.  Intended to facilitate the expansion of public health insurance coverage.  Aims to facilitate the implementation of Presumptive Eligibility for pregnant women. W HAT IS KATCH?

3.  KHI serves as the evaluator of KHPA’s implementation of the KATCH grant.  KHI’s evaluation plan objectives:  To assess implementation and completion of key tasks and milestones  To evaluate the contribution of the KATCH program to the overall implementation of the state’s health care coverage expansion  To evaluate the impact of the KATCH program W HAT IS KHI’ S ROLE IN KATCH?

4.  To accomplish evaluation objectives 2 and 3, KHI will complete a baseline study that provides information necessary for:  Establishing baseline measures and setting targets for short-term and intermediate outcomes  Determining the magnitude of long-term KATCH project impacts W HAT IS KHI’ S ROLE IN KATCH?

5.  The household survey is an integral part of the baseline study to assess how many new mothers were eligible for Medicaid.  Baseline data on eligibility can be compared to administrative data that tells us how many women were actually given Medicaid support. The KATCH household survey has been designed using question from other states’ PRAMS surveys (e.g., Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma). W HY C ONDUCT A S URVEY ?

6.  HB 2454 amends former laws on the use of data contained in vital statistical records.  HB 2454 authorizes the Secretary of KDHE to permit the use of birth, death, and still birth certificates as identifiable data for purposes of maternal and child health (MCH) surveillance and monitoring.  Authorizes the Secretary to interview individuals for purposes of MCH surveillance and monitoring, if approved by the Health and Environmental Institutional Review Board. A CCESSING V ITAL S TATISTICS

7.  KHI modeled its survey after PRAMS questionnaires from contiguous states and Kansas’s BRFSS.  Reviewed questionnaires from Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska and Minnesota for content questions.  Used Kansas’ BRFSS as a model for language regarding confidentiality and informed consent.  KHI tried to build on other states’ PRAMS surveys by preserving their language. KHI’ S A DAPTATION OF PRAMS

8.  KHI’s household survey question 19: “During the time in 2009 that you were pregnant, was there any time that you were on WIC – the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children?”  Nebraska’s PRAMS question 27: “During your most recent pregnancy, were you on WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children)?” KHI’ S A DAPTATION OF PRAMS

9.  KHI’s survey before and after HB 2454:  Before: Screening survey, trying to find 42,000 women out of 2.8 million people. At least one quarter of a million dollars.  After: Targeted calls to women who gave live birth to a child in 2009, and whose infants are still alive. Approximately $100,000 dollars. KHI’s contracted survey research center will use various strategies to acquire the phone numbers of eligible women. C HALLENGES AND C OSTS

10.  Kansas Access to Comprehensive Health  KHI evaluates KHPA’s health insurance expansion and implementation efforts.  KHI’s household survey creates baseline Medicaid eligibility data on new mothers.  HB 2454 directly allows for this study and reduces its costs.  KHI’s household survey directly builds on PRAMS questionnaires from peer states. C ONCLUSION

11. Information for policy makers. Health for Kansans. K ANSAS H EALTH I NSTITUTE