Innovations in Publicly Sponsored Healthcare: How Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplaces Are Driving Value, Equity, and Growth
Pre-Conference Workshop: October 29, 2023 Conference: October 30−31, 2023 Location: Fairmont Chicago, Millennium Park
Health Management Associates has announced the preliminary lineup of speakers for its sixth annual conference, Innovations in Publicly Sponsored Healthcare: How Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplaces Are Driving Value, Equity, and Growth.
Hundreds of executives from health plans, providers, state and federal government, investment firms, and community-based organizations will convene to enjoy top-notch content, make new connections, and garner fresh ideas and best practices.
A pre-conference workshop, Behavioral Health at the Intersection of General Health and Human Services, will take place Sunday, October 29.
Confirmed speakers to date include (in alphabetical order):
Jacey Cooper, State Medicaid Director, Chief Deputy Director, California Department of Health Care Services
Kelly Cunningham, Administrator, Division of Medical Programs, Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
Karen Dale, Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer, AmeriHealth Caritas
Peter Lee, Health Care Policy Catalyst and former Executive Director, Covered California
John Lovelace, President, Government Programs, Individual Advantage, UPMC Health Plan
Julie Morita, MD, Executive Vice President, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Anne Rote, President, Medicaid, Health Care Service Corp.
Drew Snyder, Executive Director, Mississippi Division of Medicaid
Tim Spilker, CEO, UnitedHealthcare Community & State
Stacie Weeks, Administrator/Medicaid Director, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
Lisa Wright, President and CEO, Community Health Choice
Publicly sponsored programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Marketplaces are leading the charge in driving value, equity, and growth in the U.S. healthcare system. This year’s event will highlight the innovations, initiatives, emerging models, and growth strategies designed to drive improved patient outcomes, increased affordability, and expanded access.
Early bird registration ends July 31. Questions may be directed to Carl Mercurio. Group rates, government discounts, and sponsorships are available.
HMA is pleased to welcome new experts to our family of companies in April 2023.
Jed Abell – Consulting Actuary Wakely
Jed Abell is a professional health insurance actuary with over 20 years of experience focusing on Medicare Advantage, Part D, and commercial employer group plans.
Surah Alsawaf – Senior Consultant HMA
Surah Alsawaf is a senior consultant with experience in creating and implementing regulatory strategies and workflows, conducting reviews and audits, and leading cross-functional teams to complete complex deliverables.
Elrycc Berkman – Consulting Actuary Edrington
Elrycc Berkman is experienced in Medicaid managed care rate development including managed long-term services and supports (MLTSS) and program of all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE) rate development.
Monica Bonds – Associate Principal HMA
Monica Bonds is an experienced managed care professional with over 15 years of experience working in large and diverse organizations.
Yucheng Feng – Senior Consulting Actuary Wakely
Yucheng Feng has over 15 years of experience providing actuarial support for Medicare Advantage clients, including bid preparation, reserve, actuarial analytics and providing strategic recommendations. Read more about Yucheng.
Melanie Hobbs – Associate Principal HMA
Melanie Hobbs is an accomplished healthcare executive, consultant, and thought leader specializing in Medicare, Medicaid, and Special Needs Plans (SNPs).
Daniel Katzman – Consulting Actuary Wakely
Daniel Katzman is experienced in Medicare Advantage bid pricing and modeling as well as claims trend analytics and affordability/cost-savings analysis. Read more about Daniel.
Supriya Laknidhi – Principal HMA
Supriya Laknidhi has over 20 years of experience in the healthcare industry and a proven track record in driving growth and innovation for companies.
Donald Larsen – Principal HMA
Dr. Donald Larsen is a C-suite physician executive with over 30 years of experience spanning complex academic medical centers, community health systems, acute care hospitals, and research institutes.
Ryan McEntee – Senior Consultant Wakely
Ryan McEntee is an experienced managed care executive specializing in strategic leadership within Medicare Advantage plans. Read more about Ryan.
Nicole Oishi – Principal HMA
Nicole Oishi has over 30 years of experience in senior leadership roles as a healthcare clinician and executive.
This week our In Focus section reviews the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) announcement of initial guidance for the new Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for 2026. This initial guidance is one of many steps CMS described in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program timeline for the first year of negotiation.
The Drug Price Negotiation Program was approved as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117- 169) in August 2022. As discussed in our previous In Focus, the IRA includes several other policies aimed at addressing cost, affordability and access to prescription drugs within the Medicare program.
The Drug Negotiation Program allows the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate maximum fair prices (MFPs) for Part D drugs. Negotiations between HHS and prescription drug manufactures will begin in 2023 and continue into 2024 before negotiated prices go into effect Jan. 1, 2026.
For Medicare payment in 2026, HHS can negotiate prices for up to 10 Part D drugs that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. CMS can increase the number of Part D drugs selected for price negotiation each subsequent year. Starting in 2028, the agency can annually add up to 20 new Part B or Part D drugs to the program.
The published guidance describes CMS’ approach for identifying the drugs selected for the initial year of the program. However, CMS is finalizing these policies as announced for the initial drug negotiation year.
The initial guidance also details the requirements and procedures for implementing the process for the first set of negotiations. For example, the guidance details aspects related to the offer-counter-offer exchange process, confidentiality terms following an agreement, penalties for violations, and the dispute resolution process.
Key Considerations
The drug negotiation program presents numerous operational and policy questions for CMS, manufacturers, and the healthcare sector broadly. The program is expected to have a direct impact on prices and affordability for the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. Additionally, other public and commercial payers will want to consider the potential downstream impacts on their costs. Ongoing monitoring of HHS’ implantation of the drug negotiation program and the pharmaceutical industry’s response to the drug negotiation program will help health plans, providers, and other interested stakeholders navigate this new landscape.
What’s Next
In the short-run, CMS will benefit from feedback from stakeholders about the outstanding policy and operational issues the agency has identified. Comments can be submitted until April 14, 2023
CMS anticipates issuing revised guidance for the first year of negotiation in Summer 2023. By September 1, 2023, CMS plans to publish the first 10 Part D drugs selected for the initial program year. The negotiated maximum fair prices for these drugs will be published by September 1, 2024 and prices will be in effect starting January 1, 2026.
HMA and HMA companies will continue to analyze this and subsequent guidance. We have analytical capabilities and expertise to assist with tailored analysis for manufacturers, providers, patient groups, health plans, and other stakeholders. HMA has the ability to model policy impacts of the drug negotiation program, support the drafting of feedback to CMS as the program is designed and implemented, and provide technical assistance in considering how this new program may interact with other Medicare and Medicaid initiatives.
If you have questions about the Drug Negotiation Program or other aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act and how it will affect manufacturers, Medicare providers, Medicaid programs and patients, contact Kevin Kirby ([email protected]), Amy Bassano ([email protected]) or Andrea Maresca ([email protected]).
This week our In Focus section reviews the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) announcement that the agency will explore three new prescription drug payment models in the Medicare and Medicaid programs:
Medicare High-Value Drug List Model
Cell and Gene Therapy (CGT) Access Model
Accelerating Clinical Evidence Model
The announcement – and accompanying report – responds to President Biden’s October 2022 Executive Order directing CMS’ Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (the Innovation Center) to identify models that could lower cost sharing for commonly used drugs and include value-based payment for drugs.
Notably, the Innovation Center offered varying levels of specificity about the models, leaving unanswered many questions about the structures and timelines for the potential models. The Innovation Center will need to conduct more robust analysis to determine the design specifications for each model, stakeholder interest, and practical and political feasibility for each. In addition, each model will need to have its own application or rulemaking process to identify participants and other key model parameters. While this makes it difficult for the Innovation Center to specify timelines, it provides stakeholders some flexibility to analyze and develop recommendations for the potential models over the next several months.
HMA’s experts are also closely tracking CMS’ work on additional areas identified for the agency to research. For example, CMS could consider other regulatory pathways, partnerships, or campaigns to promote the following changes:
Opportunities to encourage price transparency for prescription drugs
Options to improve biosimilar adoption
Medicare fee-for-service options to support CGT access and affordability
The drug payment models build on other federal and state-level efforts to address prescription drug costs and total cost of care initiatives. For example, CMS’ drug payment model announcement comes just a week after the agency released its implementation approach for the drug payment policies approved as part of the inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) (P.L. 117-169). CMS is balancing the extensive implementation needs for the IRA while also acknowledging the new law may not directly address other value-based considerations impacting cost and access for certain prescription medications.
Below are some of the highlights of the Innovation Center’s drug payment models.
Medicare High Value Drug List Model
The Medicare High Value Drug List model would provide standardized approach to cost sharing for specified Part D medications. CMS suggests a standardized list with consistent cost-sharing to allow providers to easily identify and prescribe appropriate medications. Part D Sponsors could offer a Medicare-defined standard set of approximately 150 high-value generic drugs with a maximum co-payment of $2 for a month’s supply. Under this model, generic drugs included in the standardized list would not be subject to step therapy, prior authorization, quantity limits, or pharmacy network restrictions.
According to the report, CMS could explore leveraging existing systems, which would allow for a streamlined implementation. CMS also plans to seek input from beneficiaries, Part D Sponsors, manufacturers, and providers, but the agency did not provide a more specific timeline for announcing the Model specifications and start date.
Cell and Gene Therapy (CGT) Access
The Cell and Gene Therapy (CGT) Access model would be a voluntary opportunity for states and manufacturers. The model builds on existing state Medicaid initiatives to develop outcomes-based agreements (OBAs) with certain manufacturers of high-cost and breakthrough medications. CMS suggests the multistate test could inform a more permanent framework for evaluating, financing, and delivering CGTs on a broader scale. This model may also help address complexities with the federal drug rebate requirements in states that wish to pursue value-based contracting arrangements. Under this model a state Medicaid agency could choose to adopt the CMS structure for multi-state OBAs with participating manufacturers. CMS would be responsible for implementing, monitoring, reconciling, and evaluating financial and clinical outcomes. Initially the model would focus on CGTs for illnesses like sickle cell disease and cancer. This approach could remove some of the barriers that have slowed state uptake of OBAs.
CMS plans to begin model development in 2023, announce the model sometime in 2024-25, and test it as early as 2026.
Accelerating Clinical Evidence Model
The Innovation Center is considering mandatory participation for Medicare Part B providers in the Accelerating Clinical Evidence Model. Under this potential model, the agency would adjust Medicare Part B payment amounts for Accelerated Approval Program (AAP) drugs to determine if adjustments incentivize manufacturers to timely complete trials, which in turn may facilitate earlier availability of clinical evidence.
The Innovation Center identified some challenging aspects for this model and stated the agency will need to consult with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2023 to consider approaches for this model. Statements from agency officials about the model also indicate the need for consultation with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and other stakeholders, including through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
If the Innovation Center determines this model is feasible, the agency will provide more details about a targeted launch. The Innovation Center has previously attempted to implement mandatory Part B drug payment models but never implemented them due to legal challenges and stakeholder opposition.
HMA and HMA companies will continue to analyze these potential models and initiatives developing in parallel with the Innovation Center’s work. We have the depth and breadth of expertise to assist with tailored analysis, to model policy impacts of the potential models, and to support the drafting of feedback to CMS as it considers these options.
If you have questions about the Innovation Center’s proposed models and how it will affect manufacturers, Medicare providers, Medicaid programs and patients, contact Amy Bassano ([email protected]), Kevin Kirby ([email protected]) or Andrea Maresca ([email protected]).
Join us on Monday, March 6, 2023, at the Fairmont Chicago, Millennium Park, for “Healthcare Quality Conference: A Deep Dive on What’s Next for Providers, Payers, and Policymakers,” where Lee Fleisher, MD, chief medical officer and director of CMS’ Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, will deliver the keynote titled A Vision for Healthcare Quality: How Policy Can Drive Improved Outcomes.
HMA’s first annual quality conference will provide organizations the opportunity to “Focus on Quality to Improve Patients’ Lives.” Attendees will hear from industry leaders and policy makers about evolving health care quality initiatives and participate in substantive workshops where they will learn about and discuss solutions that are using quality frameworks to create a more equitable health system.
In addition to Fleisher, featured speakers will executives from ANCOR, CareOregon, Commonwealth Care Alliance, Council on Quality and Leadership, Intermountain Healthcare, NCQA, Reema Health, Kaiser Permanente, United Hospital Fund, and others.
Working sessions will provide expert-led discussions about how quality is driving federal and state policy, behavioral health integration, approaches to improving equity and measuring the social determinants of health, integration of disability support services, stronger Medicaid core measures, strategies for Medicare Star Ratings, value-based payments, and digital measures and measurement tools. Speakers will provide case studies and innovative approaches to ensuring quality efforts result in lasting improvements in health outcomes.
“What’s different about this conference is that participants will engage in working sessions that provide healthcare executives tools and models for directly impacting quality at their organizations,” said Carl Mercurio, Principal and Publisher, HMA Information Services.
View the Full Agenda
Early Bird registration ends January 30. Visit the conference website for complete details or contact Carl Mercurio at 212-575-5929/[email protected]. Group rates and sponsorships are available.
This week, our In Focus section reviews a rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on December 14, 2022, that would revise regulations governing Medicare Advantage (MA or Part C), the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (Part D), Medicare cost plans and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE).
Background
The proposed rule reflects the agency’s focus on increasing transparency, improving health equity, reducing the cost of care, and improving access to behavioral health services. Collectively, these are among the most impactful policy changes CMS has proposed to the MA and Part D programs in recent years. CMS also writes that many of the policy proposals are informed by public comments to the agency’s earlier requests for input.
MA and Part D stakeholders will want to consider providing feedback and analysis to CMS regarding the impact of these changes. The changes would begin to take effect for contract year 2024, but stakeholders can begin gap assessments and strategic planning now. Comments on the proposed rule are due by February 13, 2023.
Increased Transparency in Utilization Management and Marketing Policies
The rule proposes to increase the transparency of MA plans’ utilization management and prior authorization policies, with the goal of ensuring that MA enrollees receive the same access to medically necessary care they would receive in Traditional Medicare.
CMS proposes that MA organizations must include current evidence in widely used treatment guidelines or clinical literature made publicly available to CMS, enrollees, and providers when creating internal clinical coverage criteria, in situations when no applicable Medicare statute, regulation, National Coverage Determinations (NCD), or Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) establishes when an item or service must be covered.
The proposed rule also would streamline prior authorization requirements, including adding continuity of care requirements in ongoing care for beneficiaries by requiring that when an enrollee is granted prior authorization approval it will remain valid for the full course of treatment.
The rule would require all MA plans to establish a Utilization Management Committee to review policies annually and ensure consistency with Traditional Medicare’s national and local coverage decisions and guidelines.
The proposed rule also takes steps to address potentially misleading marketing while also ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have accurate information to make coverage choices.
Increased Focus on Health Equity and Culturally Competent Care
The prosed rule includes several policies designed to increase health equity across the program.
In addition to a number of other changes in the Star Ratings program, which measures the quality of care across MA and Part D plans, the proposed rule introduces a health equity index (HEI) reward, beginning with the 2027 plan year. This reward will use data from 2024 and 2025 and is intended to further encourage MA and Part D plans to improve care for enrollees with certain social risk factors (dual eligibility, low-income subsidies, and disability).
CMS also proposes clarification of a current requirement for MA organizations to expand the list of populations that they must provide services to in a culturally competent manner.
CMS proposes requiring MA organizations to develop and maintain procedures to offer digital health education to enrollees to improve access to medically necessary covered telehealth benefits.
In addition, CMS proposes requiring MA organizations to include providers’ cultural and linguistic capabilities in provider directories.
CMS proposes that MA organizations must address health disparities as part of existing requirements to develop and maintain quality improvement programs.
CMS also proposes to specify in Medicare regulations that MA organizations, cost plans, and Part D sponsors must provide materials to enrollees on a standing basis in any non-English language that is the primary language of at least 5 percent of the individuals in a plan benefit package service area or accessible format using auxiliary aids and services upon receiving a request for the materials or otherwise learning of the enrollee’s preferred language and/or need for an accessible format using auxiliary aids and services. The agency also proposes to extend this requirement to individualized plans of care for special needs plans.
Improving Access to Behavioral Health
CMS proposes policies to strengthen network adequacy requirements and reaffirms the responsibility of MA organizations to provide behavioral health services.
Specifically, CMS proposes to specify certain types of mental health professionals as specialty types for which there are specific minimum standards and on which MA networks are evaluated by CMS; amend general access to services standards to explicitly include behavioral health services; codify standards for appointment wait times for both primary care and behavioral health services; clarify that the emergency medical services that must not be subject to prior authorization include behavioral health services to evaluate and stabilize an emergency medical condition; require that MA organizations notify enrollees when the enrollee’s behavioral health or primary care provider(s) are dropped midyear from networks; and require MA organizations to establish care coordination programs, including coordination of community, social, and behavioral health services.
CMS also proposes to require organizations to identify certain providers waived to treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their provider directories.
Improving Drug Affordability and Access in Part D
CMS proposes greater formulary flexibility for MA and Part D plans for certain biological products and authorized generics. CMS proposes to permit Part D sponsors to immediately substitute: (1) a new interchangeable biological product for its corresponding reference product; (2) a new unbranded biological product for its corresponding brand name biological product; and (3) a new authorized generic for its corresponding brand name equivalent.
In addition, CMS proposes several new requirements for Part D sponsors related to Medication Therapy Management (MTM) programs.
Part D sponsors are required to provide an MTM program that ensures Part D drugs are appropriately used to optimize health outcomes through improved medication use and to reduce the risk of adverse events.
CMS is proposing several changes to MTM eligibility criteria with the goal of promoting more consistent, equitable, and expanded access to MTM services.
Making Permanent the Limited Income Newly Eligible Transition (LI NET) Program
The LI NET program currently operates as a demonstration program that provides immediate and retroactive Part D coverage for eligible low-income beneficiaries who do not yet have prescription drug coverage. In this proposed rule, CMS proposes making the LI NET program a permanent part of Medicare Part D, as required by statute.
Expanding Low-Income Subsidies Under Part D
CMS proposes to implement a section of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in August 2022, which expands eligibility under the Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) program. Under the provision, individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) and who meet statutory resource requirements will qualify for the full low-income subsidy beginning on or after January 1, 2024. This change will provide the full subsidy to those who currently qualify for only a partial subsidy.
Strengthening Current Policies for MA Plans Serving Populations with Special Needs
The proposed rule includes several proposals to codify existing policies that govern special needs
plans (SNP), which are MA plans specifically designed to provide targeted care and limit enrollment to special needs individuals. Specifically, CMS proposes to codify recent statutory requirements concerning the definition of severe or disabling chronic condition and several other provisions relating to the definition of a Chronic Condition SNP. The rule also proposes several updates to policies governing Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), including technical changes to PACE contracting and application evaluation processes, requirements for medical clearance of PACE personnel, requirements for contracting for specialty services, and codification of certain care planning and care coordination requirements.
The HMA Medicare team will continue to analyze these proposed changes. We have the depth and breadth of expertise to assist with tailored analysis, to model policy impacts, and to support the drafting of comment letters to this rule.
If you have questions about the contents of CMS’s Medicare Advantage proposed rule and how it will impact MA plans, providers, and patients, please contact John Richardson ([email protected]), Julie Faulhaber ([email protected]), Amy Bassano ([email protected]), or Andrea Maresca ([email protected]).
The holiday season is grounded in gratitude. At HMA, we are grateful for successful partnerships that have fueled change to improve lives.
We are proud to be trusted advisors to our clients and partners. Their success is our success. In 2022 our clients and partners made significant strides tackling the biggest healthcare challenges, seizing opportunities for growth and innovation, and shaping the healthcare landscape in a way that improves the health and wellness of individuals and communities.
HMA partnered with the Colorado Department of Human Services to support the planning and implementation of a new Behavioral Health Administration (BHA). HMA provided technical research and extensive stakeholder engagement, drafted models for forming and implementing the BHA, employed an extensive change management approach, and created a detailed implementation plan with ongoing support. Today the BHA is a cabinet member-led agency that collaborates across agencies and sectors to drive a comprehensive and coordinated strategic approach to behavioral health.
Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA Company, was engaged to support the launch of a Medicare Advantage (MA) joint venture partnership between a health plan and a provider system. Wakely was responsible for preparing and certifying MA and Medicare Part D (PD) bids, a highly complex, exacting, and iterative effort. The Wakely team quickly became a trusted advisor and go-to resource for the joint venture decision makers. The joint venture has driven significant market growth over its initial years, fueled by a competitive benefit package determined by the client product team.
In 2021 Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb appointed a 15-member commission to assess Indiana’s public health system and make recommendations for improvements. The Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) engaged HMA to provide extensive project management and support for six workstreams. HMA prepared a draft report summarizing public input as well as research findings and recommendations. The commission’s final report will form the basis of proposed 2023 legislation, including proposals to substantially increase public health service and funding across the state.
In early 2022 HMA and Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA Company, assisted multiple clients with their applications to participate in the new CMS ACO REACH model. The purpose of this model is to improve quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries through better care coordination and increased engagement between providers and patients including those who are underserved. The team tailored their support depending on each client’s needs. The application selection process was highly competitive. Of the 271 applications received, CMS accepted just under 50 percent. Notably, nine out of the 10 organizations HMA and Wakely supported were accepted into the model.
HMA, and subsidiaries The Moran Company and Leavitt Partners, were selected by a large pharmaceutical manufacturer to analyze the current pipeline of innovative therapies, examine reimbursement policies to assess long-term compatibility with the adoption of innovative therapies and novel delivery mechanisms, and make policy recommendations to address any challenges identified through the process. The project equipped the client with a holistic understanding of future potential impacts and actions to address challenges in a detailed pipeline analysis of innovative therapies.
This week, our In Focus highlights a Leavitt Partners white paper, The Impact of the 340B Program on Drug Prices Charged by Manufacturers and Covered Entities, published in November 2022. Leavitt Partners examined publicly available resources to determine the 340B Drug Pricing Program’s (340B) impact on drug prices charged by both covered entities and pharmaceutical manufacturers. To answer these questions, Leavitt Partners undertook a comprehensive literature review of publicly available governmental reports, peer-reviewed journal articles, white papers, news articles, and other publicly available sources to identify the degree to which, and to what extent, the 340B program may impact drug prices. To supplement this literature review, Leavitt Partners also conducted interviews with ten subject matter experts representing the perspectives of covered entities (including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White Clinics, and Disproportionate Share Hospitals) and drug manufacturers, as well as the analysis of health economists and academic researchers.
Insights/Key Findings:
The 340B program is a mandatory program for pharmaceutical manufacturers wishing to participate in the Medicaid drug rebate program. Today, the program has more than 53,000 participating covered entities and the total amount of drugs purchased at the 340B ceiling price under the program is almost $44 billion (Drug Channels).
Drug list prices, like other prices in health care, are increasing. The research for this white paper suggests that 340B is one of many factors putting upward pressure on launch prices.
Covered entities can generate savings from the prices charged for 340B drugs. There are no requirements for hospitals for how they use the savings, so pricing for services vary.
Lack of comprehensive data across the program limits insights on pricing and discount strategies.
This week, our In Focus section reviews highlights and shares key takeaways from the 22nd annual Medicaid Budget Survey conducted by The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and Health Management Associates (HMA). Survey results were released on October 25, 2022, in two new reports: How the Pandemic Continues to Shape Medicaid Priorities: Results from an Annual Medicaid Budget Survey for State Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023 and Medicaid Enrollment & Spending Growth: FY 2022 & 2023. The report was prepared by Elizabeth Hinton, Madeline Guth, Jada Raphael, Sweta Haldar, and Robin Rudowitz from the Kaiser Family Foundation and by Kathleen Gifford, Aimee Lashbrook, and Matt Wimmer from HMA; and Mike Nardone. The survey was conducted in collaboration with the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD).
This survey reports on policies in place or planned for FY 2022 and FY 2023, including state experiences with policies adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conclusions are based on information provided by the nation’s state Medicaid Directors.
Key Report Highlights
In the following sections, we highlight a few of the major findings from the reports. This is a fraction of what is covered in the 50-state survey reports, which include significant detail and findings on policy changes and initiatives related to delivery systems, health equity, benefits, telehealth, provider rates and taxes, and pharmacy. The reports also look at the opportunities, challenges, and priorities facing Medicaid programs.
Medicaid Enrollment and Spending Growth
The COVID-19 pandemic created significant implications for Medicaid. During this time, Medicaid enrollment has reached record highs due to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), enacted in March 2020, which authorized a 6.2 percentage point increase in the federal match rate, or Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), retroactive to January 1, 2020, and until the Public Health Emergency (PHE) ends. The increase was available to states that meet certain “maintenance of eligibility” (MOE) requirements. Since the survey, the PHE was extended to mid-January 2023, somewhat delaying the anticipated effects described in survey.
Medicaid enrollment growth slowed to 8.4 percent in FY 2022, after a sharp increase in FY 2021 (11.2 percent). Almost all responding states reported that the MOE continuous enrollment requirement was the most significant factor driving FY 2022 enrollment growth. Responding states expect Medicaid enrollment growth to decline (-0.4 percent) in FY 2023, based largely on the assumption that the PHE and the related MOE requirements would end by mid-FY 2023. States anticipate larger declines as Medicaid redeterminations and renewals resume.
In FY 2022, total Medicaid spending is expected to reach a peak growth of 12.5 percent, with enrollment growth as the primary driver. For FY 2023, total spending growth is expected to slow to 4.2 percent, assuming slower enrollment growth after the unwinding of the PHE. State Medicaid spending grew by 9.9 percent in FY 2022 and is projected to increase by 16.3 percent in FY 2023 once enhanced federal fiscal relief expires. If the PHE is extended, state spending increases and enrollment decreases that states anticipated for FY 2023 could occur later.
Figure 1 – Percent Change in Medicaid Spending and Enrollment, FY 1998-23
SOURCE: FY 2022-2023 spending data and FY 2023 enrollment data are derived from the KFF survey of Medicaid officials in 50 states and DC conducted by Health Management Associates, October 2022. 49 states submitted survey responses by Oct. 2022; state response rates varied across questions. Historic data reflects growth across all 50 states and DC and comes from various sources.
Delivery Systems
Capitated managed care remains the predominant delivery system for Medicaid in most states. Forty-six states operated some form of Medicaid managed care (managed care organizations (MCOs) and/or primary care case management (PCCM)). Forty-one states contracted with risk-based MCOs. Of these, only Colorado and Nevada did not offer MCOs statewide. Only five states – Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Wyoming – lacked a comprehensive Medicaid managed care model.
Thirty-four states, including Distrct of Columbia, operate MCOs only, five states operate PCCM programs only, and seven states operate both MCOs and a PCCM program.
Twenty-seven states contracted with one or more PHPs to provide Medicaid benefits, including behavioral health care, dental care, vision care, non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT), and long-term services and supports (LTSS).
Of the forty-one states that contracted with MCOs, 35 reported that 75 percent or more of their Medicaid beneficiaries were enrolled in MCOs as of July 1, 2022.
Figure 2 – MCO Managed Care Penetration Rates for Select Groups of Medicaid Beneficiaries as of July 1, 2022
SOURCE: KFF survey of Medicaid officials in 50 states and DC conducted by HMA, October 2022.
Medicaid Managed Care and Delivery System Changes
California, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York reported expanding mandatory MCO enrollment for targeted populations.
Missouri and Ohio reported introducing specialized managed care programs for children with complex needs.
California, Nevada, and Tennessee indicated that they were carving in certain long-term services and supports (LTSS) into their managed care programs.
California and Ohio reported carving out pharmacy services in FY 2022 or FY 2023, respectively. The District of Columbia carved out emergency medical transportation from its MCO contracts in FY 2022.
Maine, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington reported changes to their PCCM programs.
Virginia plans to implement Cardinal Care in FY 2023, merging the state’s two existing managed care programs: Medallion 4.0 (serving children, pregnant individuals, and adults) and Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus (CCC Plus) (serving seniors, children and adults with disabilities, and individuals who require LTSS).
Forty-one states reported at least one specified delivery system and payment reform initiative (e.g. Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), ACA Health Homes, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Episode of Care Initiatives, All-Payer Claims Database (APCD)).
Health Equity
Twenty-five states reported using at least one specified strategy to improve race, ethnicity, and language (REL) data completeness. Of the 45 responding states, 16 states reported requiring MCOs and other applicable contractors to collect REL data, 12 states reported that eligibility, renewal materials, and/or applications explain how REL data will be used and/or why reporting these data are important, nine states reported linking Medicaid enrollment data with public health department vital records data, and eight states reported partnering with one or more health information exchanges (HIEs) to obtain additional REL data for Medicaid enrollees.
Twelve of 44 responding states reported at least one financial incentive tied to health equity in place in FY 2022. The vast majority of these incentives were in place in managed care arrangements (11 of 13). Within managed care arrangements, states most commonly reported linking or planning to link capitation withholds, pay for performance incentives, and/or state-directed provider payments to health equity-related quality measures. Only two states (Connecticut and Minnesota), reported a FFS financial incentive in FY 2022. Five additional states report plans to implement financial incentives linked to health equity in FY 2023.
Sixteen of 37 responding MCO states reported at least one specified health equity MCO requirement in place in FY 2022. The number of MCO states with at least one specified health equity MCO requirement in place is expected to grow significantly in FY 2023, from 16 to 25 states. Examples of MCO requirements to address health equity include having a health equity plan, designating a Health Equity Officer, and staff training on health equity and/or implicit bias.
Figure 3 – MCO Requirements to Address Health Equity, FYs 2022-23
SOURCE: KFF survey of Medicaid officials conducted by HMA, October 2022; n=37 states.
Benefits
Thirty-three states reported new or enhanced benefits in FY 2022 and 34 states are adding or enhancing benefits in FY 2023. Two states reported benefit cuts or limitations in FY 2022 and no states reported cuts or limitations in FY 2023.
Figure 4 – Select Categories of Benefit Enhancements or Additions, FYs 2022-23
SOURCE: KFF survey of Medicaid officials conducted by HMA, October 2022; Arkansas and Georgia did not respond.
Behavioral Health Services. States reported service expansions across the behavioral health care continuum, including institutional, intensive, outpatient, home and community-based, and crisis services. States reported addressing SUD outcomes, including coverage of opioid treatment programs, peer supports, and enhanced care management. At least ten states are expanding coverage of crisis services, which aim to connect Medicaid enrollees experiencing behavioral health crises to appropriate community-based care, including mobile crisis response services and crisis stabilization centers.
Pregnancy and Postpartum Services. In April 2022, a temporary option under ARPA to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months took effect. In addition to the states that took advantage of this eligibility change, some states are enhancing coverage of pregnancy and post-partum services. Nine states (California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Virginia) are adding coverage of services provided by doulas and seven states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont) are investing in the implementation or expansion of home visiting programs.
Preventive Services. Sixteen states reported expansions of preventive care in FY 2022 or FY 2023. For example, seven states are expanding services to prevent and/or manage diabetes, such as continuous glucose monitoring. Other reported preventive benefit enhancements relate to asthma services, vaccinations, and genetic testing and/or counseling.
Services Targeting Social Determinants of Health. Many states reported new and expanded benefits targeting social determinants of health. Twelve states reported new or expanded housing-related supports, as well as other services and programs tailored for individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of being homeless.
Dental Services. Nine states are adding comprehensive adult dental coverage, while additional states report expanding specific dental services for adults.
Telehealth
Most states have or plan to adopt permanent Medicaid FFS telehealth expansions that will remain in place even after the pandemic, though some are considering guardrails on such policies. Nearly all responding states that contract MCOs reported that changes to FFS telehealth policies would also apply to MCOs.
Figure 5 – Changes to FFS Medicaid Telehealth Policy, FY 2022 or FY 2023
SOURCE: KFF survey of Medicaid officials conducted by HMA, October 2022; n=48 states.
Nearly all responding states added or expanded audio-only telehealth coverage in Medicaid in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty-eight states reported that they newly added audio-only coverage while 19 states expanded existing coverage. Nearly all states reported audio-only coverage of mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) services. States least frequently reported audio-only coverage of home and community-based services (HCBS) and dental services. Two states (Mississippi and Wyoming) reported no coverage of audio-only telehealth for the services in question.
Telehealth utilization by Medicaid enrollees has been high during the pandemic but has decreased and/or leveled off more recently. States noted that telehealth utilization trends over time correspond to COVID-19 outbreaks, with higher utilization during COVID-19 surges and lower utilization when case counts are lower. In general, states reported that telehealth utilization was projected to continue at higher levels than before the pandemic, at least for some service categories.
Thirty-seven states (out of 47 responding) reported that behavioral health services were among those with the highest utilization. Additionally, a majority of states reported high utilization of evaluation and management (E/M) services and/or other physician/qualified health care professional office/outpatient services, including primary care.
States reported ACA expansion adults as one of the groups most likely to use telehealth (about one-third of responding states), followed by children and individuals with disabilities (each identified by about one-sixth of responding states).
Concerns regarding services delivered via telehealth included the quality of diagnoses, whether audio-only telehealth may be less effective, and inadequate access.
Key issues that may influence future Medicaid telehealth policy decisions include analysis of data, state legislation and federal guidance, and cost concerns.
Provider Rates and Taxes
In FY 2022, all 49 responding states reported implementing rate increases for at least one category of provider and 19 states reported implementing rate restrictions. In FY 2023, 48 states reported at least one planned rate increase and the number of states planning to restrict rates increased to 25 states.
States reported rate increases for nursing facilities and home and community-based services (HCBS) providers more often than other provider categories. The survey also found an increased focus on dental rates with about half of reporting states (20 in FY 2022 and 25 in FY 2023) reporting implementing or plans to implement a dental rate increase
Figure 6 – FFS Provider Rate Changes Implemented in FY 2022 and Adopted for FY 2023
SOURCE: KFF survey of Medicaid officials in 50 states and DC conducted by HMA, October 2022.
States continue to rely on provider taxes and fees to fund a portion of the non-federal share of Medicaid costs. All states but Alaska have at least one provider tax or fee in place. Thirty-eight states had three or more provider taxes in place in FY 2022 and eight other states had two provider taxes in place.
The most common Medicaid provider taxes in place in FY 2022 were taxes on nursing facilities (46 states), followed by taxes on hospitals (44 states), intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (33 states), and MCOs (18 states).
Three states (Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming) reported plans to add new ambulance taxes in FY 2023.
Pharmacy
Most states that contract with MCOs report that the pharmacy benefit is carved into managed care (34 out of 41 states that contract with MCOs). Six states (California, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and West Virginia) report that pharmacy benefits are carved out of MCO contracts as of July 1, 2022. California was the latest to carve out pharmacy benefits as of January 1, 2022. Two states (New York and Ohio) report plans to carve out pharmacy from MCO contracts in state FY 2023 or later.
In FY 2022, Kentucky began contracting with a single PBM for the managed care population. Louisiana and Mississippi report that they will require MCOs to contract with a single PBM designated by the state in FY 2023 and FY 2024, respectively.
Seven states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Washington) have value-based arrangements (VBAs) in place with one or more drug manufacturers.
More than half of responding states reported newly implementing or expanding at least one initiative to contain prescription drug costs in FY 2022 or FY 2023.
Six states (Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada) reported recently implemented or planned policies to prohibit spread pricing or require pass through pricing in MCO contracts with PBMs.
Key Opportunities, Challenges, and Priorities in FY 2023 and Beyond
When asked to identify the top challenges for FY 2023 and beyond, Medicaid directors listed the following:
The unwinding of PHE emergency measures and the resumption of redeterminations.
Expiration of emergency authorities.
Lasting focus on COVID-19, including vaccinations, long-COVID, decreased utilization of preventive care services, and future emergency preparedness.
Medicaid directors stated that future priorities shaped by COVID-19 include:
Health equity.
Specific populations and service categories, including behavioral health, long-term services and supports, and maternal and child health.
Health care workforce challenges.
Payment and delivery system initiatives and operations.
IT system modernization.
Social determinants of health.
Medicaid directors note that COVID-19 has presented both new opportunities and challenges and has also shifted and shaped ongoing Medicaid priorities.
This week, our In Focus section highlights an issue brief from Wakely, an HMA Company, The Basics of Evaluating PBM Contracts, published September 2022. The brief provides an overview of the basic financial elements of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) contract. Evaluation of a traditional request for proposals (RFP) or PBM contract should begin with financial analysis of the following four key elements: discount guarantees (typically understood as point-of-sale ingredient costs), dispensing fees, rebate guarantees, and PBM administrative fees. This paper addresses various points of consideration when attempting a financial analysis of these contract elements.
Payors today face unprecedented degrees of complexity when conducting a PBM RFP or evaluating PBM contracts. To stay competitive, payors must navigate an ambiguous and changing pricing environment. That requires a solid understanding of PBM contracting. In a proposal, some PBMs may offer better AWP discounts while other PBMs offer better rebate guarantees. Alternatively, a payor may find a PBM that offers the best discounts and rebates but charges significantly higher administrative fees. Such analysis will consider the impacts of these key components together with historical and projected drug mix. While any PBM analysis must start with the elements discussed in this paper, a complete analysis must dive below the surface and into the fine print underlying these items.
