Exhibit 300 (BY2009) for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Retiree Drug Subsidy

PART ONE

OVERVIEW

1. Date of Submission:: 2008-02-04

2. Agency:: 009

3. Bureau:: 38

4. Name of this Capital Asset:: CMS Retiree Drug Subsidy

5. Unique Project Identifier:: 009-38-01-02-01-1200-00

6. What kind of investment will this be in FY2009?: Operations and Maintenance

7. What was the first budget year this investment was submitted to OMB?: FY2007

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 Retiree Drug Subsidy (RDS) program was authorized by statute in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Congress mandated that the RDS program be implemented to create a financial incentive to sponsors of retiree drug plans to continue offering high quality drug coverage to retirees. In order to increase the likelihood of plan sponsors' participation in the RDS program, CMS decided to implement a system solution that would: * Enable sponsors to submit an application, actuarial attestation, drug cost data, and subsidy payment requests to CMS using the Internet without the burden of a paper intensive inefficient reporting system; * Give sponsors the flexibility to leverage existing business arrangements they have with benefit consulting companies, pharmacy benefit managers, and third party administrators to electronically submit required data to CMS on their behalf, thus reducing the burden on the plan sponsor and increasing the likelihood of participation in the program; * Enable CMS to collect and process in an automated way the high volume applications, retiree data, and drug costs data needed to pay retiree drug subsidies to plan sponsors. In order to implement the RDS program in a way that delivered the above system attributes in the timeframe mandated by Congress, CMS decided to implement a new system that would not introduce unacceptable levels of risk to other existing systems. The RDS system is developed using standard system development lifecycle processes. The system consists of a public website, secure online application and payment processing system, Oracle and DB2 databases, dedicated and secure communications lines, and the required CMS standard security, access control, and monitoring software and hardware. In addition, a key tenet of Expanded Electronic Government is to reduce the reporting burden on businesses. All transactions in the RDS program will be performed electronically thus increasing public access to the program while reducing burden through the use of the Internet and electronic business technology. These transactions include, but are not limited to, payment of plan sponsors via electronic funds transfer (EFT), sending remittance advice to plan sponsors, submission of retiree data, including actuarial attestations by plan sponsors, etc.

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

9.a. If "yes," what was the date of this approval?: 2007-06-26

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?: TBD

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
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?): RDS enable sponsors to submit applications, actuarial attestations, drug cost data, and subsidy payment requests to CMS using the Internet. RDS also gives sponsors the flexibility to leverage existing business arrangements they have with benefit consulting companies, pharmacy benefit managers, and third party administrators to electronically submit required data to CMS on their behalf, thus reducing the burden on the plan sponsor.

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?: yes

14.b. If yes, what is the name of the PARTed program?: 2003: CMS - Medicare Program

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 3

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

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

Area	Percentage
Hardware	13
Software	3
Services	83
Other	0

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?: yes

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

Name	Maribel Franey
Phone Number	410-786-0757
Title	Director, Privacy Compliance
Email	Maribel.Franey@cms.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?: yes

SUMMARY OF SPEND

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	8.890	0.000	0.000	0.000
Maintenance Budgetary Resources	21.951	20.594	17.696	22.984
Government FTE Cost	0.660	0.680	0.700	0.720
# of FTEs	5	5	5	5

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.: Not applicable.

PERFORMANCE

In order to successfully address this area of the exhibit 300, performance goals must be provided for the agency and be linked to the annual performance plan. The investment must discuss the agency's mission and strategic goals, and performance measures (indicators) must be provided. These goals need to map to the gap in the agency's strategic goals and objectives this investment is designed to fill. They are the internal and external performance benefits this investment is expected to deliver to the agency (e.g., improve efficiency by 60 percent, increase citizen participation by 300 percent a year to achieve an overall citizen participation rate of 75 percent by FY 2xxx, etc.). The goals must be clearly measurable investment outcomes, and if applicable, investment outputs. They do not include the completion date of the module, milestones, or investment, or general goals, such as, significant, better, improved that do not have a quantitative measure.

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. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less.	95%	95%	89%
2	2005	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	90%	90%	83%
3	2005	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	RDS System has no unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities	0	0	0
4	2005	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS website is available to the public.	95%	95%	87%
5	2005	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt	N/A	N\A	N\A
6	2005	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	89%	95%	95%
7	2006	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	83%	85%	90%
8	2006	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities	0	0	0
9	2006	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS secure web site is available to the public	87%	90%	95%
10	2006	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of payment request processed within 30 days of receipt	95%	95%	100%
11	2006	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	95%	95%	95%
12	2007	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	84%	90%	97%
13	2007	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities	0	0	0
14	2007	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS secure website is available to the public	90%	95%	97%
15	2007	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt	100%	95%	100%
16	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities.	0	0	TBD
17	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of time that RDS website is available to the public.	95%	95%	TBD
18	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS secure website is available to the public.	95%	95%	TBD
19	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt.	TBD	95%	TBD
20	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS secure website is available to the public.	TBD	90%	TBD
21	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt.	TBD	95%	TBD
22	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS secure website is available to the public.	TBD	90%	TBD
23	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt.	TBD	95%	TBD
24	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Technology	Availability	% of time that RDS secure website is available to the public.	TBD	90%	TBD
25	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt.	TBD	95%	TBD
26	2006	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Number of Unique sponsors in the RDS Program	0	3000	4237
27	2007	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Number of Unique sponsors in the RDS Program	4237	3100	3924
28	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Number of Unique sponsors in the RDS Program	3924	3100	TBD
29	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Mission and Business Results	Health Care Administration	Number of Unique sponsors in the RDS Program	TBD	3100	TBD
30	2007	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	95%	95%	97%
31	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	97%	95%	TBD
32	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	97%	90%	TBD
33	2008	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Delivery Time	% of all payment requests processed within 30 days of receipt.	100%	95%	TBD
34	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	TBD	90%	TBD
35	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities.	TBD	0	TBD
36	2009	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	TBD	95%	TBD
37	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	TBD	90%	TBD
38	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities.	TBD	0	TBD
39	2010	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	TBD	95%	TBD
40	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	TBD	90%	TBD
41	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities.	TBD	0	TBD
42	2011	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	TBD	95%	TBD
43	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% phone calls answered within 90 seconds	TBD	90%	TBD
44	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Processes and Activities	Security	Number of unmitigated high level system vulnerabilities.	TBD	0	TBD
45	2012	S.O. 1.2 - Increase health care service availability and accessibility	Customer Results	Response Time	% written inquiries answered in 5 days or less	TBD	95%	TBD

Enterprise Architecture

In order to successfully address this area of the business case and capital asset plan you must ensure the investment is included in the agency's EA and Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process, and is mapped to and supports the FEA. You must also ensure the business case demonstrates the relationship between the investment and the business, performance, data, services, application, and technology layers of the agency's EA.

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.: CMS MMA Retiree Drug Subsidy (RDS). Renamed for FY08.

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	Internal or External Reuse?	Funding %
1	Audit Trail Capture and Analysis	Audit Trail Capture and Analysis - Support the identification and monitoring of activities within an application, system, or network.	Security Management	Audit Trail Capture and Analysis	No Reuse	3
2	Identification and Authentication	Defines the set of capabilities that support obtaining information about those parties attempting to log on to a system or application for security purposes and the validation of those users.	Security Management	Identification and Authentication	No Reuse	3
3	Standardized / Canned	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of pre-conceived or pre-written reports.	Reporting	Standardized / Canned	No Reuse	10
4	Ad Hoc	Defines the set of capabilities that support the use of dynamic reports on an as needed basis.	Reporting	Ad Hoc	No Reuse	10
5	Debt Collection	Defines the set of capabilities that support the process of accounts receivable.	Financial Management	Debt Collection	No Reuse	5
6	Billing and Accounting	Defines the set of capabilities that support the charging, collection and reporting of an organization's accounts.	Financial Management	Billing and Accounting	No Reuse	20
7	Payment / Settlement	Defines the set of capabilities that support the process of accounts payable.	Financial Management	Payment / Settlement	No Reuse	5
8	Software Development	Defines the set of capabilities that support the creation of both graphical and process application or system software.	Development and Integration	Software Development	No Reuse	20
9	Business Rule Management	Defines the set of capabilities that manage the enterprise processes that support an organization and its policies.	Management of Processes	Business Rule Management	No Reuse	3
10	Internal Controls	Support the methods and procedures used by the organization to safeguard its assets, produce accurate accounting data and reports, contribute to efficient operations, and encourage staff to adhere to management policies and mission requirements	Financial Management	Internal Controls	No Reuse	5

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	Business Rule Management	Service Access and Delivery	Service Requirements	Authentication / Single Sign-on	CMS Architecture Standards
2	Billing and Accounting	Component Framework	Presentation / Interface	Dynamic Server-Side Display	Oracle & DB2
3	Ad Hoc	Component Framework	Data Management	Reporting and Analysis	Oracle & DB2
4	Payment / Settlement	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Software Engineering	Test Management	RDS Contractor
5	Audit Trail Capture and Analysis	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Types / Validation	RDS Contractor & CMS
6	Debt Collection	Service Access and Delivery	Service Requirements	Legislative / Compliance	RDS Contractor & CMS
7	Internal Controls	Service Access and Delivery	Service Requirements	Legislative / Compliance	RDS Contractor & CMS
8	Software Development	Service Platform and Infrastructure	Database / Storage	Database	SQL
9	Software Development	Service Interface and Integration	Integration	Middleware	SQL
10	Standardized / Canned	Service Interface and Integration	Interoperability	Data Format / Classification	SQL, Microstrategy
11	Identification and Authentication	Component Framework	Security	Certificates / Digital Signatures	Verisgn

6. Will the application leverage existing components and/or applications across the Government (i.e., FirstGov, Pay.Gov, etc)?: no

PART THREE

RISK

You should perform a risk assessment during the early planning and initial concept phase of the investment's life-cycle, develop a risk-adjusted life-cycle cost estimate and a plan to eliminate, mitigate or manage risk, and be actively managing risk throughout the investment's life-cycle.

Answer the following questions to describe how you are managing investment risks.

1. Does the investment have a Risk Management Plan?: yes

1.a. If yes, what is the date of the plan?: 2006-10-19

1.b. Has the Risk Management Plan been significantly changed since last year's submission to OMB?: no

COST & SCHEDULE

1. Was operational analysis conducted?: yes

1.a. If yes, provide the date the analysis was completed.: 2007-07-31

What were the results of your operational analysis?: In conjunction with negotiating the second option year under the RDS contract, CMS completed an operational analysis on 10/31/2006. The results of the analysis show that RDS program (and its operational systems) are achieving the primary purpose of the RDS program (to provide a financial incentive to plan sponsors to continue offering high-quality drug benefits to retirees). Further, the RDS contractor is currently meeting critical program milestones within acceptable budget parameters. The following describes our analytical process/checkpoints for monitoring operations. CMS performs operational analysis to manage and evaluate the continue viability and user satisfaction with the RDS system (e.g. the RDS public and secure websites as well as data interchange mechanisms). In doing so, CMS reviews on a weekly basis technical support tickets to assess the level and type of support being requested by end users/customers. The end result of this analysis is to prioritize the allocation of resources and develop targeted outreach events and education materials to ensure critical program objectives (e.g. continued participation in the program by plan sponsors) are achieved. CMS also reviews system problem tickets on a weekly basis to allocate limited IT support resources and schedule the problem fixes in maintenance releases in a manner having the most direct impact on achieving the program's mission (e.g. continued participation in the program by plan sponsors). CMS also meets weekly with the RDS contractor to review program risks, open issues, progress towards achieving major program milestones, and budget expenditures. CMS has approved emergency problem fix maintenance releases as a result of the periodic reviews of problem logs with the contractor. CMS also reviews customer service reports as well as cost reports and invoices submitted by the RDS contractor on a monthly basis and proactively manages the RDS contractor's spending/burn rate to hit budget targets.