Exhibit 300 (BY2009) - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

1. Date of Submission:

2008-02-04

2. Agency:

009

3. Bureau:

33

4. Name of this Capital Asset:

AHRQ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS)

5. Unique Project Identifier:

009-33-01-02-01-0011-00

6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?

Mixed Life Cycle

7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?

FY2003

8. Provide a brief summary and justification for this investment, including a brief description of how this closes in part or in whole an identified agency performance gap.

The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is the major Federal source of high-quality data for estimates of healthcare use, expenditures, types of medical services used, healthcare quality and sources of payment for medical care. MEPS, a unique, central, consolidated database is mandated by Title IX of the Public Health Service Act and its 1999 amendment (P.L.106-129). MEPS provides Federal and other governmental policymakers, researchers, healthcare administrators, businesses, and the public with timely, comprehensive information to evaluate health reform policies, the effect of tax code changes on health expenditures and tax revenue, and proposed changes in government health programs such as Medicare. MEPS, the most recent in a series of medical expenditure surveys, has three IT components: 1) survey; 2) data center and analytic capability and 3) a website. It is a mixed life cycle investment: all three components are steady state operations, but the survey is being modernized. The survey consists of a Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) program, related databases and programs that transform the interviews into usable statistical information. The ongoing CAPI software modernization (DME) effort will convert the current proprietary DOS product to a COTS Windows application, thus filling a program GAP since the DOS-base systems will no longer be supported and laptops used in the data collection will no longer be able to properly function in that mode. MEPS helps achieve three AHRQ Strategic Goals: (1) Improve healthcare safety and quality for All Americans - by providing essential data for the National Healthcare Quality Report and the National Healthcare Disparities Report; (2) Achieve wider access to effective healthcare services and reduce healthcare costs - by furnishing vital data on health insurance usage, coverage and cost; and (3) Assure that providers and consumers use beneficial and timely healthcare data to make decisions -by providing timely, accurate information for healthcare purchasers and governmental and business policymakers. MEPS directly supports PMA Initiative, Expanded Electronic Government, by providing extensive, current and comprehensive data to the public, researchers, and policy makers (i.e., government-to-citizen; government-to-business). MEPS was initially approved through the AHRQ CPIC and budget review process and subsequently approved by the HHS ITIRB.

9. Did the Agency's Executive/Investment Committee approve this request?

yes

9.a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?

2006-06-23

10. Did the Project Manager review this Exhibit?

yes

11.a. What is the current FAC-P/PM certification level of the project/program manager?

Senior/Expert-level

12. Has the agency developed and/or promoted cost effective, energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable techniques or practices for this project.

no

12.a. Will this investment include electronic assets (including computers)?

yes

12.b. Is this investment for new construction or major retrofit of a Federal building or facility? (answer applicable to non-IT assets only)

no

13. Does this investment directly support one of the PMA initiatives?

yes

If yes, select the initiatives that apply:

Initiative Name
Broadening Health Insurance Coverage through State Initiatives
Expanded E-Government

13.a. Briefly and specifically describe for each selected how this asset directly supports the identified initiative(s)? (e.g. If E-Gov is selected, is it an approved shared service provider or the managing partner?)

MEPS supports both the Expanded E-Government and Broadening Health Insurance Coverage Through State initiatives by providing timely, comprehensive information on the use of and payment for medical care, health insurance and health/chronic conditions. MEPS is also used extensively by nearly 50 State governments in evaluating their population's health insurance profiles, focusing on eligibility, enrollment rates, and respective premium costs for employer sponsored health insurance coverage.

14. Does this investment support a program assessed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)?

yes

14.a. If yes, does this investment address a weakness found during the PART review?

no

14.b. If yes, what is the name of the PARTed program?

2002: AHRQ - Data Collection and Dissemination

14.c. If yes, what rating did the PART receive?

Moderately Effective

15. Is this investment for information technology?

yes

16. What is the level of the IT Project (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)?

Level 2

17. What project management qualifications does the Project Manager have? (per CIO Council's PM Guidance)

(1) Project manager has been validated as qualified for this investment

18. Is this investment identified as high risk on the Q4 - FY 2007 agency high risk report (per OMB memorandum M-05-23)?

no

19. Is this a financial management system?

no

19.a.2. If no, what does it address?

Health Care Survey information.

20. What is the percentage breakout for the total FY2009 funding request for the following? (This should total 100%)

Area	Percentage
Hardware	0
Software	0
Services	0
Other	100

21. If this project produces information dissemination products for the public, are these products published to the Internet in conformance with OMB Memorandum 05-04 and included in your agency inventory, schedules and priorities?

n/a

22. Contact information of individual responsible for privacy related questions.

Name	Timothy Erny
Phone Number	301-427-1760
Title	Senior Official for Privacy
Email	Tim.Erny@ahrq.hhs.gov

23. Are the records produced by this investment appropriately scheduled with the National Archives and Records Administration's approval?

yes

24. Does this investment directly support one of the GAO High Risk Areas?

no

1. Provide the total estimated life-cycle cost for this investment by completing the following table. All amounts represent budget authority in millions, and are rounded to three decimal places. Federal personnel costs should be included only in the row designated Government FTE Cost, and should be excluded from the amounts shown for Planning, Full Acquisition, and Operation/Maintenance. The total estimated annual cost of the investment is the sum of costs for Planning, Full Acquisition, and Operation/Maintenance. For Federal buildings and facilities, life-cycle costs should include long term energy, environmental, decommissioning, and/or restoration costs. The costs associated with the entire life-cycle of the investment should be included in this report.

All amounts represent Budget Authority

Note: For the cross-agency investments, this table should include all funding (both managing partner and partner agencies).

Government FTE Costs should not be included as part of the TOTAL represented.

Cost Type	Py-1 & Earlier -2006	PY 2007	CY 2008	BY 2009
Planning Budgetary Resources	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Acquisition Budgetary Resources	8.500	2.100	0.300	0.000
Maintenance Budgetary Resources	40.903	20.633	21.094	21.587
Government FTE Cost	0.568	0.301	0.313	0.000
# of FTEs	6	3	3	0

2. Will this project require the agency to hire additional FTE's?

no

3. If the summary of spending has changed from the FY2008 President's budget request, briefly explain those changes.

(1) Current contracts do not extend beyond 2010 and hence can not be accurately estimated beyond then. It is anticipated, however, that MEPS will continue in some form because of the importance of the data and analyses to many customers and stakeholders. (2) Totals are for 2002 to 2010 (historical funding not represented totals $155.409) (2011 is an estimate), the "modern" era of the MEPS project.

Agencies must use the following table to report performance goals and measures for the major investment and use the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Performance Reference Model (PRM). Map all Measurement Indicators to the corresponding Measurement Area and Measurement Grouping identified in the PRM. There should be at least one Measurement Indicator for each of the four different Measurement Areas (for each fiscal year). The PRM is available at www.egov.gov. The table can be extended to include performance measures for years beyond FY 2009.

Row	Fiscal Year	Strategic Goal Supported	Measurement Area	Measurement Grouping	Measurement Indicator	Baseline	Planned Improvement to the Baseline	Actual Results
1	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Research and Practitioner Education	Establish MEPS Data Center for User statistics	None	New Service and support area; Establish Baseline	Baseline Established
2	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	MEPS use and demographic data available sooner after data collected	12 months	1 month improvement	Met target - 11 months
3	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Maintain Steady State for time between data collection and data availability in all file and table categories	Various baselines	Maintain Steady State	Maintain Steady State
4	2005	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	Increase the number of topical tables included.	None	1 topical area added access	1 topical area added access
5	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Research and Practitioner Education	Maintain Steady State # of MEPS data center projects	Maintain established baseline of 31 projects	Maintain Number of data center projects	Maintain Baseline
6	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	MEPS Expenditure data available sooner after data collection	12 months	Maintain Steady State	Maintain Steady State - data is available after 12 months of end of data collection
7	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Maintain Steady State	Various baselines	Maintain Steady State	Maintain Steady State
8	2006	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	Eliminate dependency on DOS systems	Conversion to Windows	Produce functional Windows instrument	Windows Instrument Fielded 2/07
9	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Research and Practitioner Education	Increase number of MEPS data center projects	To be determined from 2006	Increase Number of data center projects	30 user/projects last year; 34 this year
10	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections	6 months	Maintain baseline of 6 months collection	Data available 6 months after collection
11	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Maintain Steady State	Various baselines	Maintain current delivery schedule through technology transition	All dates met
12	2007	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	Eliminate dependency on DOS systems	Windows Instrument established	Windows instrument successfully fielded and data collected in Windows environment.	Transistion on schedule
13	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Research and Practitioner Education	Increase the number of MEPS data center projects by 5%	To be determined from 2007 30 active project	Increase Number of data center projects by 5%	TBD
14	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections	6 months	Maintain baseline of 6 months collection	TBD
15	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Maintain Steady State	Various baselines	Maintain current delivery schedule through technology transition	TBD
16	2008	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	Eliminate dependency on DOS systems	Data successfully collected in Windows	Data files produced from Windows based data collection.	TBD
17	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Research and Practitioner Education	Increase the number of MEPS data center projects by 5% over prior year	To be determined from 2008	Increase Number of data center projects	TBD
18	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections	6 months	Maintain baseline of 6 months collection	TBD
19	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	100% of all laptops used to collect survey data will have the windows operating system. (Technology)	Data successfully collected in Windows	Data files produced from Windows based data collection.	TBD
20	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	Decrease the time between collection and availability of use and demographic data by at least 1 month.	12 months	1 month improvement	TBD
21	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	Increase the number of state level topical tables by at least one (1).	1 table	Additional state level tables to be added	TBD
22	2009	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Full Year Expenditure data will be available within 12 months of end of data collection	12 months	Have data available at the end of the 11th month	TBD
23	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Research and Practitioner Education	Increase the number of MEPS data center projects by 5% over prior year	To be determined from 2009	Increase Number of data center projects	TBD
24	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	Insurance component tables will be available within 6 months of collections	6 months	Maintain baseline of 6 months collection	TBD
25	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	100% of all laptops used to collect survey data will have the windows operating system. (Technology)	Data successfully collected in Windows	Data files produced from Windows based data collection.	TBD
26	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Customer Results	Delivery Time	Decrease the time between collection and availability of use and demographic data by at least 1 month.	12 months	1 month improvement	TBD
27	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Technology	Data Storage	Increase the number of state level topical tables by at least one (1).	1 table	Additional state level tables to be added	TBD
28	2010	S.O. 1.3 - Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value	Processes and Activities	Timeliness	Full Year Expenditure data will be available within 12 months of end of data collection	12 months	Have data available at the end of the 11th month	TBD

1. Is this investment included in your agency's target enterprise architecture?

yes

2. Is this investment included in the agency's EA Transition Strategy?

yes

2.a. If yes, provide the investment name as identified in the Transition Strategy provided in the agency's most recent annual EA Assessment.

AHRQ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS)

3. Is this investment identified in a completed (contains a target architecture) and approved segment architecture?

no

4. Identify the service components funded by this major IT investment (e.g., knowledge management, content management, customer relationship management, etc.). Provide this information in the format of the following table. For detailed guidance regarding components, please refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/.

Component: Use existing SRM Components or identify as NEW. A NEW component is one not already identified as a service component in the FEA SRM.

Reused Name and UPI: A reused component is one being funded by another investment, but being used by this investment. Rather than answer yes or no, identify the reused service component funded by the other investment and identify the other investment using the Unique Project Identifier (UPI) code from the OMB Ex 300 or Ex 53 submission.

Internal or External Reuse?: Internal reuse is within an agency. For example, one agency within a department is reusing a service component provided by another agency within the same department. External reuse is one agency within a department reusing a service component provided by another agency in another department. A good example of this is an E-Gov initiative service being reused by multiple organizations across the federal government.

Funding Percentage: Please provide the percentage of the BY requested funding amount used for each service component listed in the table. If external, provide the funding level transferred to another agency to pay for the service.

Row	Agency Component Name	Agency Component Description	Service Type	Component	Reused Component Name	Reused UPI	Internal or External Reuse?	Funding %
1	Query	Defines the set of capabilities that support retrieval of records that satisfy specific query selection criteria.	Search	Query			No Reuse	6
2	Classification	Defines the set of capabilities that support the categorization of documents.	Document Management	Classification			No Reuse	6
3	Content Authoring	Defines the capabilities that allow for the creation of tutorials, CBT courseware, web sites, CD-ROMs and other interactive programs.	Content Management	Content Authoring			No Reuse	6
4	Content Publishing and Delivery	Defines the set of capabilities that allow for the propagation of interactive programs.	Content Management	Content Publishing and Delivery			No Reuse	6
5	Tagging and Aggregation	Defines the set of capabilities that support the identification of specific content within a larger set of content for collection and summarization.	Content Management	Tagging and Aggregation			No Reuse	6
6	Knowledge Capture	Defines the set of capabilities that facilitate collection of data and information.	Knowledge Management	Knowledge Capture			No Reuse	6
7	Categorization	Defines the set of capabilities that allow classification of data and information into specific layers or types to support an organization.	Knowledge Management	Categorization			No Reuse	6
8	Knowledge Distribution and Delivery	Defines the set of capabilities that support the transfer of knowledge to the end customer.	Knowledge Management	Knowledge Distribution and Delivery			No Reuse	6
9	Information Sharing	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of documents and data in a multi-user environment for use by an organization and its stakeholders.	Knowledge Management	Information Sharing			No Reuse	6
10	Information Retrieval	Defines the set of capabilities that allow access to data and information for use by an organization and its stakeholders.	Knowledge Management	Information Retrieval			No Reuse	6
11	Information Mapping / Taxonomy	Defines the set of capabilities that support the creation and maintenance of relationships between data entities, naming standards and categorization.	Knowledge Management	Information Mapping / Taxonomy			No Reuse	6
12	Standardized / Canned	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports.	Reporting	Standardized / Canned			No Reuse	6
13	Ad Hoc	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis.	Reporting	Ad Hoc			No Reuse	6
14	Mathematical	Defines the set of capabilities that support the formulation and mathematical analysis of probabilistic models for random phenomena and the development and investigation of methods and principles for statistical inference.	Analysis and Statistics	Mathematical			No Reuse	6
15	Assistance Request	Defines the set of capabilities that support the solicitation of support from a customer.	Customer Initiated Assistance	Assistance Request			No Reuse	6
16	Online Help	Defines the set of capabilities that provide an electronic interface to customer assistance.	Customer Initiated Assistance	Online Help			No Reuse	6
17	Self-Service	Defines the set of capabilities that allow an organization's customers to sign up for a particular service at their own initiative.	Customer Initiated Assistance	Self-Service			No Reuse	6
18	Surveys	Defines the set of capabilities that are used to collect useful information from an organization's customers.	Customer Relationship Management	Surveys			No Reuse	6

5. To demonstrate how this major IT investment aligns with the FEA Technical Reference Model (TRM), please list the Service Areas, Categories, Standards, and Service Specifications supporting this IT investment.

FEA SRM Component: Service Components identified in the previous question should be entered in this column. Please enter multiple rows for FEA SRM Components supported by multiple TRM Service Specifications.

Service Specification: In the Service Specification field, Agencies should provide information on the specified technical standard or vendor product mapped to the FEA TRM Service Standard, including model or version numbers, as appropriate.

Row	SRM Component	>Service Area	Service Category	Service Standard	Service Specification (i.e., vendor and product name)
1	Content Publishing and Delivery	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Static Display	Hyper Text Markup Language
2	Information Sharing	Service Access and Delivery	Delivery Channels	Internet	Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.1
3	Content Publishing and Delivery	Service Access and Delivery	Access Channels	Web Browser	Internet Explorer
4	Content Authoring	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
5	Knowledge Capture	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
6	Assistance Request	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
7	Online Help	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
8	Self-Service	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
9	Surveys	Component Framework	Business Logic	Platform Independent	Java 2 Enterprise Edition
10	Information Sharing	Service Access and Delivery	Access Channels	Collaboration / Communications	Meps WebSite (www.ahrq.meps.gov)
11	Knowledge Distribution and Delivery	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Delivery Servers	Web Servers	Microsoft Internet Information Services 6.0
12	Knowledge Capture	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Support Platforms	Platform Dependent	Microsoft Windows NT
13	Classification	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Oracle
14	Knowledge Capture	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Oracle
15	Categorization	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Oracle
16	Information Mapping / Taxonomy	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	Oracle
17	Standardized / Canned	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Oracle
18	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Oracle
19	Query	Service Interface and Integration	Integration	Middleware	PL/SQL
20	Information Retrieval	Service Interface and Integration	Integration	Middleware	PL/SQL
21	Query	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	SAS Enterprise
22	Tagging and Aggregation	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	SAS Enterprise
23	Standardized / Canned	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	SAS Enterprise
24	Mathematical	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	SAS Enterprise
25	Information Sharing	Service Access and Delivery	Service Transport	Service Transport	TCP/IP
26	Content Publishing and Delivery	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Content Rendering	XHTML

6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?

yes

6.a. If yes, please describe.

This investment leverages: Federal Health Architecture (FHA)

1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?

yes

1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?

2007-03-30

1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?

yes

1.c. If yes, describe any significant changes:

The Risk Assessment plan was revised in response to our remediation plan. The revised risk management plan formalizes and regularizes management procedures including regular reporting and review of the risk environment that had already been operational for some time. Risks are reviewed twice a year (March and September) and at major milestones, including procurement actions. Several management areas (EVM, Privacy, Performance) viewed silmultaneously for risk management as result of risk plan revision.

3. Briefly describe how investment risks are reflected in the life cycle cost estimate and investment schedule:

The investment schedule and life cycle cost estimate recognize risks to the project and the approach to the project has been specifically structured to recognize and to the extent possible, mitigate these risks. One key element of our approach to mitigating risks is iterative testing along multiple development paths. The converted questionnaire for each round of the study undergoes extensive in-office testing by contractor and government staff, which is followed by field pretesting. At each stage of testing, detected problems are documented in standard format and problem reports are regularly reviewed and prioritized for action. The approach to the development of the operations management system follows a similar course, with iterative in-office testing followed by field testing of the management system joined with the questionnaire. A fundamental requirement for the converted questionnaire is ensuring data continuity with the current project operations. To ensure continuity, the data captured through the converted instrument undergo testing to ensure proper flow through post-collection processing into the existing data delivery systems. The multiple stages of testing and assessment, spread over the full development period, provide regular points for reviewing progress against detailed milestone schedules, adjusting priorities as needed, and assessing risks to schedule, cost, and technical objectives associated with alternatives. The extended time between the projected development freeze for the new instrument and its production use will allow for full integration testing of all components, mitigating the risk to complex new software applications of minor problems that, although relatively simple to fix, can be particularly costly to schedules. The phased introduction of the new application over two cycles of national field work mitigates risk to the project and provides a framework for fallback options if necessary. Project costs are reviewed monthly. Proposals for changes to the design or specifications for the converted instrument are assessed in terms of potential technical contribution, cost, and schedule impact.

1. Does the earned value management system meet the criteria in ANSI/EIA Standard 748?

no

2. Is the CV% or SV% greater than ± 10%?

no

3. Has the investment re-baselined during the past fiscal year?

no