Insights

HMA Insights: Your source for healthcare news, ideas and analysis.

HMA Insights—including briefs, webinars, and our podcast—gives you easy access to HMA’s deep expertise, helping you stay current on the latest healthcare trends and topics. Search for a topic of interest or browse the latest insights below.

or
or
Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

1297 Results found.

CMS Proposes New Budget Neutrality Framework for Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstrations 

Read Blog

New guidance outlines how CMS intends to implement Chief Actuary certification and a fundamentally different approach to budget neutrality beginning January 1, 2027.

[HMA’s analysis on this and related Medicaid changes is ongoing; this blog reflects an initial understanding of the 6/11 SMDL; additional analysis is forthcoming.]

On June 11, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released State Medicaid Director Letter (SMDL) #26-003, which provides long-anticipated guidance on how the agency intends to implement new statutory budget neutrality requirements for Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations beginning January 1, 2027.

The SMDL provides guidance on CMS’s implementation of provisions enacted in Public Law 119-21 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA), which CMS now refers to as the Working Families Tax Cut (WFTC) Act. The law requires the CMS Chief Actuary to certify that Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations will not increase federal Medicaid expenditures before CMS may approve new demonstrations, amendments, or renewals.

While the SMDL includes discussion of CMS’s preference that states rely on Medicaid state plan and other Title XIX authorities when available, the guidance primarily focuses on implementing the new budget neutrality requirements under section 1115(g).

The result is a proposed framework that could fundamentally change how states design, finance, evaluate, and renew section 1115 demonstrations.

Key Takeaway #1: Budget Neutrality framework is changing to become more accurate, detailed, and subject to enhanced review.

For decades, Medicaid Demonstrations under Section 1115 required budget neutrality calculations that relied on comparisons of projected with and without waiver expenditure. Retrospective assessments against established “without waiver” budget neutrality limits then occurred.

CMS now proposes a different model that includes enhancements to how the budget neutrality calculations are developed and reviewed. This will include an actuarial certification requirement that shows how the budget neutrality meets actuarially sound principles.

Beginning with applications, renewals, or amendments submitted after January 1, 2027, the following must occur:

  • CMS’ Chief Actuary must certify that there will be no increase in federal expenditures compared to the expenditures projected in the absence of the Demonstration.
  • A rigorous actuarial analysis of the projected financial impacts of individual demonstration activities must be performed. The budget neutrality analysis is certified by CMS’ Chief Actuary prior to Demonstration approval. This is a change from the historical “without waiver” expenditure cap calculation.
  • With the review above, there is now no expenditure limit or budget neutrality cap. Instead, the budget neutrality is not approved if there is a projected increase in Federal Medicaid expenditures. (Note, approval of historical Demonstration applications and budget neutrality required a projection of reduced overall expenditures.)
  • Monitoring budget neutrality in the Demonstration time period will utilize new special terms and conditions (STCs). There will be corrective actions implemented if expenditure substantially deviates from the State projections. Historically, quarterly and annual reporting was required, and States were subject to return to CMS any excess federal funds. The new guidance appears similar in that ongoing monitor will occur and action will be needed to the extent expenditures are not at or below projections.

For states to be compliant with this guidance, detailed actuarial analyses, methodology, assumptions, data, and documentation demonstrating the federal fiscal impact of each demonstration component will be necessary. States must provide sufficient information for CMS’s Chief Actuary to evaluate and certify budget neutrality, including the populations affected, covered services, payment methodologies, payment rates, administrative costs, and estimated federal expenditures associated with demonstration authorities.

Key Takeaway #2: Beginning January 1, 2027, certain benefits and services may be treated differently under Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations.

A central feature of the new framework is CMS’s proposed classification of demonstration activities into two categories.

The first category is Medicaid Authorizable Populations and Services (MAPS). These are populations and services that could otherwise be covered through the Medicaid state plan or another Title XIX authority. For budget neutrality purposes, CMS proposes treating MAPS expenditures as having a zero net financial impact because they represent expenditures that could have occurred absent the demonstration. This is similar to how current hypothetical expenditures are treated.

The second category consists of section 1115-only activities; that is, activities that could not otherwise be authorized through existing Medicaid authorities. These activities would become the primary focus of budget neutrality review.

States would be required to identify, measure, and document both the costs and savings associated with each section 1115-only activity, including administrative costs. CMS would then evaluate the aggregate financial impact of those activities when determining whether a demonstration qualifies for certification.

Key Takeaway #3: Medicaid 1115 demonstration savings will become more difficult to accumulate and carry forward.

CMS also proposes significant changes to the treatment of demonstration savings.

Historically, states have been able to accumulate budget neutrality savings and, under certain circumstances, carry those savings into future renewal periods. Many demonstrations have relied on these accumulated savings to support cost-not-otherwise-matchable expenditures and other demonstration initiatives.

Under the new approach, savings generally would be limited to those generated during the current demonstration period and could only be applied to the next immediate renewal period. CMS also proposes limiting rollover calculations to the most recent five years of demonstration experience and eliminating the longstanding ability to carry forward legacy savings across multiple renewal cycles.

CMS would provide a transition period for the first renewal after January 1, 2027, allowing states to use savings calculated under the current methodology. Over time, however, the proposed framework is expected to reduce the amount of demonstration savings available to states.

For states that have historically relied on demonstration savings as a key financing mechanism, these changes could require significant strategic and financial planning.

Key Takeaway #4: States and Medicaid-focused organizations should begin to identify alternative approaches, authorities, and partnerships to continue to advance the goals of certain 1115 demonstration initiatives.

One of the more closely watched aspects of the guidance involves CMS’s discussion of the relationship between section 1115 authority and other Medicaid authorities.

The final guidance stops short of directing states to systematically move authorities out of section 1115 demonstrations. Instead, CMS encourages states to reduce reliance on section 1115 authority when alternative Medicaid authorities are available, noting that doing so would strengthen oversight while reserving section 1115 authority for innovation and demonstration purposes. The agency specifically references Medicaid state plan authorities and other Title XIX authorities as potential alternatives where appropriate.

At the same time, CMS recognizes that, in certain circumstances, states may require concurrent section 1115 authority layered over other Medicaid authorities to achieve program goals and has indicated that it will provide technical assistance in those situations.

The interaction between this policy and the new MAPS framework may be particularly important. CMS provides examples showing that many authorities currently treated as hypothetical expenditures—including certain home- and community-based services (HCBS), managed care-related authorities, and other services that could be authorized elsewhere under Medicaid—would now be treated as MAPS activities for budget neutrality purposes.

For states, the immediate significance may be less about whether authorities remain within a section 1115 demonstration and more about how those authorities are treated under the new budget neutrality framework. As states assess the implications of the guidance, they may want to consider how various authorities are structured across section 1115 demonstrations, state plan authorities, and other Title XIX pathways. CMS’s discussion suggests that these decisions may increasingly be informed by both programmatic objectives and budget neutrality considerations.

Key Takeaway #5: States and Medicaid organizations can begin scenario planning and assessments now and monitor additional guidance and clarifications critical to operational issues.

Although CMS provides substantial detail regarding its intended direction, several important implementation questions remain unanswered. Among the issues states are likely to focus on over the coming months:

  • How will CMS apply the new requirements to renewals that are already under review—or that are submitted before January 1, 2027—but remain pending after that date?
  • How long will CMS’s Chief Actuary review take, and how should states adjust renewal and amendment timelines to account for the new certification process?
  • How aggressively will CMS apply its stated preference for using state plan and other Title XIX authorities when alternative pathways exist?
  • What level of documentation, modeling, and actuarial support will CMS ultimately require to support certification?
  • How will CMS define acceptable methodologies and assumptions in the forthcoming rulemaking process?

CMS repeatedly notes that additional technical guidance, technical assistance, and formal rulemaking are forthcoming, suggesting that many operational details remain under development.

Key Takeaway #6: States should build additional time into future section 1115 renewal and amendment planning

Although significant details remain unresolved, the overall direction of federal policy is becoming clearer.

States with upcoming section 1115 renewals, amendments, or major demonstration redesign efforts should begin assessing which components of their demonstrations are likely to be classified as MAPS activities versus section 1115-only activities. They should also evaluate the extent to which future financing strategies depend on rollover savings or other elements of the current framework that may no longer be available after January 1, 2027.

In addition, states may want to assess whether certain demonstration authorities could be more appropriately administered through state plan, managed care, HCBS, or other Medicaid authorities, particularly given CMS’s stated preference for relying on alternative Title XIX pathways when available.

Most importantly, states should prepare for a future in which section 1115 approval decisions are increasingly driven by prospective actuarial analyses of the financial impact of individual demonstration activities that include detailed supporting documentation for CMS’s Chief Actuary to utilize for approval.

The forthcoming proposed rule will provide critical details; however, this guidance makes clear that CMS intends to reshape how section 1115 demonstrations are financed, evaluated, and renewed in the years ahead.

How HMA Can Help

HMA is actively helping states, health plans, providers, and other stakeholders assess the implications of CMS’s proposed budget neutrality framework and prepare for upcoming section 1115 renewals and amendments, as well as other changes due to recent guidance on community engagement requirements, state directed payments, and program integrity. Our experts bring deep experience in section 1115 demonstrations, Medicaid financing, budget neutrality modeling, actuarial analysis, managed care authorities, HCBS programs, waiver strategy, and federal negotiations.

As states evaluate the operational, financial, and policy implications of the new requirements, HMA can support strategic assessments, renewal planning, demonstration redesign, financial modeling, actuarial coordination, federal negotiations, and implementation planning. We are also tracking forthcoming rulemaking and additional CMS guidance that will further shape how section 1115(g) is implemented.

Be sure to register for our upcoming webinar, Understanding Work and Community Engagement Requirements and New Section 1115 Guidance, on July 15.

Act Now to Implement Community Engagement Requirements

Read Blog

On June 2, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the highly anticipated Interim Final Rule (IFR) on implementing the Medicaid work and community engagement requirements set forth in the 2025 budget reconciliation act, P.L. 119-21. States are expected to implement the requirements by January 1, 2027, leaving Medicaid authorities, health plans, providers, and community-based partners with a compressed timeline to design, test, and deploy new workflows that will fundamentally change how eligibility and compliance are administered.

This article builds on Health Management Associates (HMA) colleagues’ ongoing analysis of federal Medicaid policy changes stemming from the Working Families Tax Cut Act and evolving federal priorities (see Connecting the Dots here and here) and explores the implications for enrollees, state agencies, health plans, and providers. 

Community engagement requirements create risk and exposure for all of these interest-holders, opening them to the possibility of increased enrollment churn, particularly during the early stages of implementation as enrollees and administrators adapt to new processes. Even Medicaid enrollees who meet compliance requirements or qualify for exemptions could experience temporary coverage losses or disruptions because of delays in documentation, notice response, or case processing.

Plans and providers, meanwhile, may encounter downstream effects on capitation rate adequacy, financial and membership forecasting, risk adjustment, care management continuity, quality performance, and network stability.

From Policy to Practice: A Systemwide Operational Shift 

Many elements of the IFR align with statutory provisions; however, it introduces new operational expectations that will reshape eligibility processes, including: 

  • Structured verification and documentation requirements 
  • Expanded exemption frameworks tied to functional ability to work 
  • New reporting and oversight obligations 
  • Increased reliance on enrollee notifications and engagement 

Collectively, these changes introduce a new layer of administrative expectations that extend beyond traditional eligibility and enrollment functions and require coordination across state and local agencies, health plans and providers, and community partners. 

Notably, CMS has provided targeted flexibilities—particularly through income-based compliance pathways—which will allow states to leverage existing data sources and potentially reduce administrative burden, if implemented effectively. 

States Need to Build an Operational Foundation 

For state Medicaid agencies, the immediate priority is translating federal requirements into scalable, consistent processes. 

Key actions include: 

  • Redesign eligibility and compliance workflows. States will need to identify affected populations, track compliance, adjudicate exemptions and hardships, and manage appeals—all within tight implementation timelines. 
  • Invest in verification infrastructure. Although automation opportunities exist, particularly using income and existing eligibility data, many determinations (e.g., medical frailty, caregiving, hardship) will require individualized review and new documentation standards. 
  • Strengthen cross-agency coordination and data integration. Effective implementation will depend on integrating data from workforce, social services, and other programs to support compliance and reduce manual processes. 
  • Develop robust communication strategies. Experience from prior Medicaid initiatives demonstrates that coverage loss often results from administrative barriers, not ineligibility, making clear, proactive communication essential. 
  • Balance automation and administrative complexity. States that effectively leverage automation and streamline enrollee-facing processes will be better positioned to maintain coverage continuity while meeting federal requirements. 

Implications for Health Plans: Expanding the Role of Member Engagement 

Health plans will play a pivotal role in implementation, although they cannot determine enrollee compliance with the new requirements. States rely on plans to identify members who may be subject to community engagement requirements, to assist with member communications, and to connect members with resources that support compliance or exemption eligibility. Even though these activities occur outside the traditional managed care financing framework, plans may be called upon to accomplish the following: 

  • Enhance outreach and education capabilities. Plans are often the primary point of contact for members and will need to support awareness, compliance, and navigation of new requirements. 
  • Identify and support at-risk populations. Plans can help flag members likely to qualify for exemptions and assist with documentation and care coordination to reduce inappropriate disenrollment.
  • Prepare for enrollment volatility. Increased churn driven by documentation delays and administrative barriers may affect financial performance, care continuity, and quality outcomes. 
  • Align with state expectations and funding constraints. Because these activities fall outside traditional Medicaid benefits, states and plans must carefully define roles, accountability, and funding mechanisms. 

Implications for Providers: A New Interface with Eligibility Systems 

Providers, particularly safety net organizations, will be directly affected by new documentation and enrollee support responsibilities and should be prepared to address the following: 

  • Expand administrative and clinical workflows. Providers will increasingly be asked to support medical frailty determinations, document functional limitations, and provide verification related to exemptions. 
  • Prepare for increased administrative burden. New documentation requirements and coordination with plans and states will require operational adjustments, particularly for organizations serving large Medicaid populations. 
  • Mitigate impacts of coverage disruption. Gaps in coverage—often tied to procedural barriers—may disrupt care continuity, particularly for high need populations, and increase uncompensated care. 
  • Serve as a critical partner in engagement efforts. Providers are uniquely positioned to identify at-risk individuals, educate patients, and support compliance, making them essential to implementation success. 

Many of the most complex determinations—such as medical frailty and caregiving—cannot be fully automated, requiring nuanced policy design and consistent operational execution. As a result, successful implementation will depend on the following: 

  • Standardized documentation and review processes 
  • Integrated data systems and verification pathways 
  • Clear division of responsibilities across interest-holders 
  • Coordination across policy, operations, and frontline personnel 

Act Now to Influence Community Engagement Rollout 

States and stakeholders face dual, immediate priorities—preparing for implementation and engaging in the federal rulemaking process. CMS is accepting comments on the IFR through July 31, 2026, creating a critical opportunity to shape final policy while building operational readiness. At the same time, the compressed timeline to 2027 for implementation underscores the need for rapid decision-making on policy design, systems investments, and partner engagement. 

The Medicaid community engagement requirements represent one of the most significant operational transformations in the program’s 60-year history. To succeed, organizations should act early, coordinate with interest-holders, and design implementation strategies that balance compliance, administrative efficiency, and coverage continuity. 

Now is the time to: 

  • Establish cross-functional governance and implementation plans 
  • Evaluate verification strategies and data integration opportunities 
  • Define roles and expectations across plans, providers, and partners 
  • Develop targeted communication and engagement strategies 
  • Conduct readiness assessments and system testing 

HMA can actively support state policymakers, health plans, and providers as they in navigate these challenges. For details, access the full HMA Issue Brief and explore the Community Engagement State Support Hub.

New Funding Approaches Prompt Maryland Healthcare Leaders to Reassess Strategies for Affordable Coverage

Read Blog

Strategies to improve healthcare delivery, sustain coverage, and manage growing cost pressures resulting from federal policy changes and state budget dynamics were key topics of discussion at this year’s Maryland health policy conference, May 21, 2026, in Baltimore, MD. Hosted by State of Reform (SOR), an HMA Company, the program convened state policymakers and leaders of health plans, provider groups, and community-based organizations to examine the most pressing healthcare issues in Maryland.

Across sessions, participants explored key policy priorities, including Maryland’s implementation of the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP), efforts to stabilize and expand health insurance coverage, and early lessons from implementing the AHEAD (Achieving Healthcare Efficiency through Accountable Design) total cost of care (TCOC) model. 

Sustaining Medicaid and Marketplace Accessibility Amid Federal Policy Changes 

Throughout the conference speakers and attendees engaged on myriad issues and concerns resulting from the 2025 budget reconciliation act, now referred to as the Working Families Tax Cuts (WFTC) Act, and its potential impact on state Medicaid programs and coverage stability. Maryland Deputy Secretary for Healthcare Financing and Medicaid Director Perrie Briskin joined Johanna Fabian-Marks, Deputy Executive Director of the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange (MHBE), and Melissa Horn, Director of State Legislative Affairs at the Arthritis Foundation, to examine strategies for mitigating coverage loss and maintaining affordability. 

Speakers emphasized the need for improved coordination between Medicaid and the MHBE, including clear and consistent consumer communications and targeted outreach in counties most affected by federal policy changes. 

For example, Maryland leaders described several innovative approaches the MHBE is using to help people in the state maintain Marketplace coverage, including state-funded subsidies to offset the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, streamlined auto-renewals, and simplified enrollment pathways for individuals identified as uninsured based on their tax and employment records. The state reported an 8 percent decline in enrollment in April 2026, noting that without these mitigation strategies, enrollment could have dropped by as much as one-third. 

The MHBE is using artificial intelligence (AI) to support document verification and is deploying a chatbot to help consumers navigate common questions. 

On the Medicaid side, the state is consulting multiple data sources—including CRISP (Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients), labor, and education data—to verify eligibility and, compliance with community engagement requirements to reduce administrative burdens.

Rural Health Transformation Program Implementation and Early Priorities 

Maryland’s RHTP, supported by nearly $168.2 million in first-year funding from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was a hot topic at the conference. State leaders and implementation partners emphasized the program’s role in addressing rural health disparities, strengthening care delivery infrastructure, and improving chronic disease outcomes.

Elizabeth Kromm, PhD, Assistant Secretary, Maryland Department of Health, outlined the three pillars of the state’s RHTP plan: 

  • Expand the rural healthcare workforce 
  • Increase access to integrated primary, specialty, and behavioral health services 
  • Address the underlying drivers of chronic disease through nutrition and food system interventions 

Together, these initiatives highlight Maryland’s focus on both clinical care delivery and broader population health strategies. 

State officials also discussed the funding opportunities announced in April 2026, one of which seeks to support care delivery innovation, improve chronic condition management, and advance value-based care models. Speakers emphasized that connection is central to the program’s success—both the strength of community relationships, the connections enabled through technology, and the integration of clinical and nonclinical services. 

AHEAD Model: Advancing Total Cost of Care and Population Health 

Maryland’s participation in CMS’s AHEAD Model represents a significant shift toward healthcare cost containment and system transformation. As one of the first states to implement the framework, Maryland is testing a statewide approach to managing TCOC while improving quality and population health outcomes. 

A panel discussion including leaders from the MedChi, Johns Hopkins, CareFirst Blue Shield, and Kaiser Permanente, addressed implementation considerations, open policy implications, and how providers and payers were approaching these changes in payment for healthcare services. Reimbursement strategies for primary care services were still uncertain and may differ significantly from those used under the Maryland TCOC model. Panelists also discussed what this model means in the broader healthcare environment of reductions in Medicaid payments resulting from the reconciliation legislation and additional funding coming from the Rural Health Transformation Fund. They also described how Maryland could serve as an example for other states working to implement AHEAD in the coming years. 

Speakers noted that successful implementation will require strong coordination among providers, payers, and state agencies, and more details are necessary to fulfill the requirements. The model’s 10-year timeline positions Maryland as a leading test case for future federal and state efforts to scale TCOC approaches. 

AI in Healthcare: From Innovation to Real-World Impact 

AI’s role in healthcare delivery and policy continues to evolve, with growing attention on its practical applications and regulatory implications. A session led by Health Management Associates (HMA) Principal Brandon Greife, JD, and speakers from Microsoft AI, the Pair Team, the Center for Virtual Care, and b.well Connected Health explored how healthcare organizations conceptualize AI use cases to deploy solutions that demonstrate measurable impact. 

AI holds promise for improving care delivery, but realizing that potential requires navigating ethical, regulatory, and operational challenges. Mr. Greife led a panel discussion on how the healthcare industry is transitioning from abstract use cases for AI toward evaluating the real-world impact of deployed solutions. 

Session speakers also explored how healthcare is advancing from AI tools that support clinicians and payers to patient-facing AI that supports care navigation, chronic disease management, and community outreach. They rounded out the session with a focus on fundamentals of healthcare—concepts like data quality, clinical trust, patient safety, and demonstrated value at the point of care. 

Looking Ahead 

If you are looking for strategies and solutions to address urgent healthcare policy and operational challenges, HMA experts are available to help you navigate these complex changes and identify practical paths forward. 

Through the HMA National ConferenceState of Reform partnership events, and other HMA convenings across the country, we connect state leaders, providers, health plans, and community stakeholders to share insights, elevate lessons, and advance solutions. Join us at an upcoming event—including our next HMA National Conference in New Orleans, LA on October 5-7, 2026—or explore additional opportunities to engage with HMA and access the full schedule of conferences and resources. 

State of Reform develops its conference agendas through collaboration with HMA subject matter experts/market leads and stakeholders across the public and private sectors, including state officials, community-based organizations, providers, payers, and more. 

What Medicaid Policy Changes Should Healthcare Leaders Be Paying Attention to Right Now? 

Read More

HMA Solutions

What Medicaid Policy Changes Should Healthcare Leaders Be Paying Attention to Right Now? 

Medicaid policy is undergoing a massive regulatory shift driven by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) legislation. 

To maintain financial stability, compliance, and continuity of care during these Medicaid policy changes, healthcare leaders must focus their attention on four highly critical, interconnected policy domains. 

Changes to Section 1115 Demonstration Waivers

The federal approach to approving, extending, and evaluating Section 1115 waivers is experiencing a significant pivot, holding space for true innovation and pilots.

Shifting Federal Alignments: CMS is reshaping the criteria for waiver flexibilities. For instance, recent guidance has rolled back certain previous pathways used to cover health-related social needs (HRSNs) under Section 1115 authority. CMS issued a letter to State Medicaid Directors explaining its planned revisions to the program.

Strategic Scenario Planning: As outlined in HMA’s analysis on The Medicaid Pivot: New Developments in Section 1115 Demonstration Policy, state changes or extensions will trigger comprehensive CMS reviews. Leaders must transition toward alternative authorities (such as 1915(c) or managed care options) while monitoring emerging federal priorities around substance use disorders (SUD) and carceral reentry initiatives

Updated Eligibility & Community Engagement/Work Requirements

The eligibility path for Medicaid enrollees is tightening dramatically, introducing significant risks of coverage disruption that will create coverage churn in state insurance markets. 

Mandatory Community Engagement: Under federal mandates, able-bodied adults without young children must demonstrate at least 80 hours per month of qualifying activities (employment, education, or community service). 

Accelerated Churn Risks: As evaluated in HMA’s report on the Medicaid Community Engagement Interim Final Rule, states are shifting to an accelerated six-month redetermination cycle for expansion populations. Managed care organizations (MCOs) and health systems face immediate operational hurdles to track compliance and prevent massive lapses in continuous enrollment. 

Focus on Managed Care Oversight & Program Integrity to Reduce Fraud, Waste, & Abuse

Federal regulators are pairing stricter oversight with direct financial consequences to reduce administrative inefficiencies and improper payments and crack down on fraud and abuse. 

Error Rate Financial Sanctions: Beginning in FY 2030, states exceeding a 3% eligibility error rate face severe pullbacks in federal funding for files lacking insufficient verification data. 

Aggressive Auditing and MCO Risk: Enhanced program integrity frameworks require monthly network audits to root out terminated providers and quarterly data matching for deceased enrollees. Healthcare leaders must brace for tighter risk adjustments, standardized plan requirements, and intensive fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) strategies.

Changes to State Directed Payments (SDPs) & Reimbursement 

CMS is fundamentally altering provider reimbursement limits and closing localized financing mechanisms to ensure a more regulated environment. 

Medicare-Linked Caps: Moving away from average commercial rate benchmarks, CMS is establishing rigid ceilings. As captured in HMA’s brief on Proposed Changes to Medicaid State Directed Payments, new limits cap SDPs at 100% of Medicare rates for expansion states and 110% of Medicare rates for non-expansion states. 

Choking Provider Tax Revenue: Effective October 2026, states are restricted from implementing new provider taxes beyond July 2025 thresholds. Furthermore, as detailed in HMA’s commentary on Medicaid State Directed Payments: CMS Proposes Major Changes to Financing and Oversight, existing provider taxes in expansion states will steadily choke down from 6% to 5.5% in 2028, and ultimately down to 3.5% by 2032, forcing health systems to rapidly recalibrate their financial baselines. 

How HMA Helps Leaders Respond 

Health Management Associates (HMA) turns high-stakes statutory mandates into functional, compliant operational strategies. We offer end-to-end strategic guidance, actuarial analytics, and technical assistance:

  • Strategic Planning & Financing Modeling: Developing innovative strategies to model state-directed payment caps, analyze provider tax restrictions, and structure financial baseline adjustments.
  • Operational & Workflow Overhauls: Redesigning eligibility systems to execute 6-month redeterminations and building automated tracking platforms for community engagement. 
  • Program Integrity & Compliance: Aligning FWA shielding strategies and conducting pre-audit assessments to mitigate the risk of eligibility error-rate penalties. 
  • Workforce & Stakeholder Alignment: Delivering targeted training and managing cross-functional change management to ensure seamless communication between state agencies, MCOs, and providers. 

With a deep bench that includes 10 former Medicaid and CHIP directors and active project experience across more than 35 state programs, HMA equips healthcare leaders to navigate this shifting regulatory landscape with absolute confidence. 

Stay Ahead of Medicaid Changes: Register for Webinars & Watch Replays

Final 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters Notice: What States and Issuers Need to Know

Download

What are the changes in the payment notice for 2027? On May 15, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the final Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (NBPP) for 2027, setting key rules for the individual and small group health insurance markets. This report explains the most important 2027 Payment Notice changes for health care payers, issuers, state regulators, and state-based exchanges—including what CMS finalized, what changed from the proposed rule, what takes effect in 2026, 2027, and 2028, and what the rule signals for future marketplace policy. Topics include ACA marketplace operations, eligibility and enrollment, marketing oversight, plan design flexibility, cost-sharing, Essential Health Benefits, QHP certification, and state authority. According to HHS, the final rule could reduce marketplace enrollment by 1.2 million to 2.0 million people, making it essential for decision makers to understand the operational, financial, and compliance implications now.

Need to understand how the final 2027 NBPP affects your organization? Connect with the report authors to discuss implications for pricing, product strategy, exchange operations, compliance, and state marketplace oversight. Whether you are evaluating operational changes, preparing for upcoming requirements, or assessing market impact, our experts can help you turn the final payment notice into a clear action plan. Click this link to set up a free 15-minute consultation with one of the report authors.

Medicaid Community Engagement Interim Final Rule: Key Implications for States, Payers, and Providers

Download

HMA’s issue brief on the Medicaid Community Engagement Interim Final Rule provides a clear, actionable summary of new Medicaid work requirements and community engagement requirements for states, Medicaid health plans, providers, community-based organizations, and technology vendors. The report explains key policy changes issued by CMS on June 1, 2026, including exemptions such as medical frailty, verification and reporting expectations, enrollee notification requirements, and the state systems changes needed to prepare for the January 1, 2027 implementation deadline. If you are searching for a summary of Medicaid work requirements, a summary of Medicaid community engagement requirements, the medical frailty definition, or guidance on Medicaid work requirements state systems changes, this brief helps translate complex federal regulation into practical next steps to support compliance, reduce coverage loss risk, and inform implementation strategy.

Please fill out this form to receive a copy of the issue brief.

Medicaid State Directed Payments: CMS Proposes Major Changes to Financing and Oversight

Read Blog


The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed changes to state directed payments mark a significant inflection point for Medicaid financing. For states, plans, and providers, the coming months will be critical in understanding the rule’s final shape—and how they can position themselves for a more constrained and standardized payment environment.

Federal Medicaid policy is entering a period of rapid change. Policymakers are advancing a series of interconnected proposals—including Medicaid community engagement (work) requirements, program integrity initiatives, and new scrutiny of financing mechanisms that shape how dollars flow through the program. 

Among the most significant developments: the CMS’s proposed changes to Medicaid state directed payments (SDPs). As outlined in HMA’s recent Issue Brief, the proposal signals a meaningful shift in how federal policymakers approach provider reimbursement, managed care financing, and oversight of supplemental payment arrangements. 

Health Management Associates (HMA) will further examine these developments in future articles, briefs, and its Medicaid summer webinar series, which will focus on SDPs, work requirements, and program integrity—three policy areas now moving in parallel and reshaping the Medicaid landscape. This article provides an executive overview of the SDP rule

What are Medicaid State Directed Payments? 

State directed payments (SDPs) are a key Medicaid financing tool that allows states to direct how managed care organizations reimburse providers. 

States use SDPs to: 

  • Increase provider payment levels 
  • Target specific provider types or services 
  • Support delivery system reforms 

Over time, SDPs have become a central component of Medicaid managed care financing. As the HMA issue brief emphasizes, their growing scale and complexity have drawn increased federal scrutiny. 

What Does CMS Propose to Change? 

The CMS proposed rule implements the statutory changes approved in the 2025 budget reconciliation act (P.L. 119-21, which CMS refers to as the Working Families Tax Cut Act, or WFTCA). The rule introduces a new framework for how SDPs are structured, regulated, and reviewed. Based on HMA’s analysis, the proposal advances several core policy shifts: 

  1. Expanded Federal Limits on Payment Levels. CMS proposes new constraints on how much states can direct plans to pay providers, extending payment limits across a broader range of services and delivery systems. Specifically, CMS proposes to lower the payment ceiling for all SDPs to either 100 percent of Medicare for states administering Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion programs or 110 percent of Medicare for states without an ACA expansion program. CMS plans to grandfather certain SDPs at levels above Medicare and provide a transition period with an annual 10 percent reduction until the payments are reduced to Medicare levels. In addition, this rule proposes limiting SDPs to the total published Medicare payment rate at the service level—a departure even from Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) upper payment limits, which are limited to a reasonable estimate of what Medicare would pay but are calculated at the aggregate level by ownership class. 
  2. Extends Limits Across Programs and Delivery Systems. The proposal seeks to align the limitations on practitioner payments under fee-for-service with the new limitations on SDPs. If a state makes payments to a subset of targeted practitioners, the new proposed limit would be actual Medicare payment rates applicable to the practitioner or provider for the same time period as the Medicaid state plan rate year. The crosswalk of Medicaid payment rates to Medicare will likely be administratively burdensome—especially for states that set Medicaid rates using an entirely different methodology than Medicare’s. Applying the Medicare payment limit at the service level will limit states’ ability to incentivize certain service types that may need enhanced reimbursement amounts to preserve access to care (e.g., primary care, neonatal, etc.). 
  3. Broader Applicability Across Providers. The changes extend beyond a narrow set of provider types, affecting a wider range of stakeholders participating in Medicaid financing and deliveryFor example, the WFTCA called for the reduced payment ceiling to be applied to the specified four classes of providers. This rule proposes that all providers be limited to the same ceiling and that the revised limits also apply to US territories. 

Why Is CMS Focusing on State Directed Payments Now? 

As highlighted in the HMA Issue Brief, federal policymakers are increasingly focused on the growth and complexity of SDPs as well as the role of SDPs in broader Medicaid financing strategies. In addition, CMS policy officials are prioritizing program integrity and fraud, waste, and abuse and have couched the current SDP policies as inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. 

These priorities align with a broader shift toward tighter federal oversight of Medicaid funding mechanisms. 

What Are the Implications for States, Plans, and Providers? 

The proposed changes have wide-ranging implications across the Medicaid ecosystem. 

States: SDPs have been a flexible tool for shaping payment policy and directing resources. New federal parameters may limit that flexibility and require states to reassess existing financing strategies. 

Health Plans: Plans may face a more standardized and regulated environment for implementing SDP arrangements, with less variation driven by state policy choices. 

Providers: Many providers rely on SDPs to supplement base Medicaid payment rates. Changes to these payments could affect reimbursement levels and financial stability, particularly for organizations serving large Medicaid populations. 

As the HMA brief underscores, the impact will vary significantly by state, depending on how SDPs are currently structured. 

How This Fits into Broader Medicaid Policy Changes 

CMS is advancing a broader recalibration of how SDPs fit within Medicaid policy. However, the SDP proposal is also part of a larger set of federal Medicaid policy developments, including: 

  • Medicaid community engagement (work) requirements and other changes to eligibility and redetermination rules included in a June 1, 2026, interim final rule 
  • Program integrity and oversight initiatives 
  • Changes to financing structures and supplemental payments 

Taken together, these policies signal a transition toward greater federal standardization and increased oversight of funding flows. 

What Should Stakeholders Watch Next? 

CMS’s proposed changes to Medicaid state directed payments mark a turning point in Medicaid financing policy. 

Stakeholders should expect continued movement toward greater oversight, tighter payment parameters, and increased consistency across the program. They should begin planning now for a more constrained and standardized payment environment. Key questions center on: 

  • How CMS will implement and phase in payment limits across states 
  • The extent to which existing arrangements will be grandfathered in or phased down 
  • How states respond in redesigning Medicaid payment strategies 

The proposed SDP rule is open for public comment through July 21, 2026, with final policy decisions expected following federal review. As pending issues are resolved, stakeholders across the Medicaid landscape will need to reassess financial models, policy approaches, and operational strategies. 

Stakeholders should begin evaluating potential impacts now, as the policy direction is clear, even if final details are still evolving. 

Staying Ahead of Medicaid Financing Changes 

Given the pace and breadth of these developments, staying informed is critical. HMA’s upcoming Medicaid summer webinar series will provide timely analysis of the SDP proposal alongside related policy changes, including community engagement and work requirements and program integrity initiatives. These sessions are designed to help states, plans, and providers understand policy changes and prepare for operational and financial implications, identify compliance gaps, and address sustainability issues. Register for one or multiple webinars here.  

To understand how these Medicaid policy changes affect your organization, contact one of HMA’s Medicaid experts

Ground Ambulance Payment Landscape: Challenges and Policy Options

Download

Ground ambulance transport is a critical piece of the US healthcare infrastructure and is currently facing several challenges, which may result in the loss of patient access to care. These life-saving services play a vital role in the patient care continuum and significantly impact acute care and long-term recovery. Often, at critical and tense moments before the patient is able to reach hospital care, ground ambulance paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) are the first point of healthcare contact for the patient. These medical professionals stabilize and treat patients to ensure they begin their care pathway smoothly and recover rapidly.

To address the challenges that the ground ambulance industry is experiencing today and lessen the impact of the various emerging issues, this report offers several recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders to consider.

A Summer Webinar Series: How New Program Integrity Expectations Affect Medicaid Payments

Register Now

As federal regulators introduce new Medicaid program integrity expectations to reshape the landscape, states, providers, and insurers across the country are facing intense pressure to adapt to changing eligibility and enrollment rules and financing policies while sustaining access to services and improving outcomes.

This webinar series will deliver timely analysis and actionable insights on the evolving policy and operational environment affecting Medicaid funding, enrollment, and access to services. Each session will feature up-to-the-moment information and perspectives from our subject matter experts, with content tailored to reflect the latest federal guidance, waiver activity, litigation, state implementation decisions, and market developments.

Webinar Replay – Summer Webinar Series: The Future of Medicaid State Directed Payments 

Watch Now

This webinar was held on June 10, 2026.

As CMS advances a proposed rule that would significantly reshape Medicaid State Directed Payments (SDPs), states, health plans, hospitals, and other providers face growing uncertainty around Medicaid financing, reimbursement, and access to care.

In this webinar, HMA experts examine the proposed SDP changes, including new Medicare-based payment limits, phase-down requirements for existing programs, and restrictions on supplemental payment structures. The discussion explores the potential financial, operational, and policy implications for Medicaid stakeholders and highlights key considerations for planning, advocacy, and implementation.

Learning Objectives

  • Explain the major provisions of CMS’s proposed Medicaid State Directed Payment rule.
  • Assess how new Medicare-based payment limits could affect provider reimbursement and Medicaid financing strategies.
  • Identify potential impacts on value-based payment arrangements, provider sustainability, and access to care.
  • Evaluate key considerations for states, health plans, and providers as they prepare for implementation and future policy changes.
Ready to talk?