Insights

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

HMA Insights – including our new podcast – puts the vast depth of HMA’s expertise at your fingertips, helping you stay informed about the latest healthcare trends and topics. Below, you can easily search based on your topic of interest to find useful information from our podcast, blogs, webinars, case studies, reports and more.

Show All | Podcast | Blogs | Webinars | Weekly Roundup | Videos | Case Studies | Reports | News | Spotlight

Filter by topic:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

Select Topics

16 Results found.

Blog

H.R. 1 Signed Into Law—What It Means for Medicaid and Public Coverage

Read Blog

Just one week after we reviewed the Senate’s version of the budget reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, President Trump has now signed the legislation into law. The final iteration of H.R. 1 includes sweeping changes to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces, and Medicare—several of which diverge significantly from the version that the House passed May 22, 2025.

This update outlines many of the most consequential healthcare provisions, with a focus on Medicaid financing, eligibility, and operational impacts. It also highlights how stakeholders can act now to prepare for what happens next.

From Proposal to Policy: What Changed

The Senate’s amended version of H.R. 1, approved on July 1 and passed by the House on July 3, 2025, reshaped several key provisions in the earlier version of the House bill. Although the bill retains its core focus on tax policy and entitlement reforms, it further constrains state Medicaid financing and eligibility and scales back Marketplace subsidies for certain populations.

According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the final bill will reduce federal healthcare spending by approximately $1.15 trillion over the next decade but also will increase the number of uninsured individuals by 11.8 million by 2034 because of changes to both Medicaid and Marketplace programs.

Medicaid Eligibility: A New Era of Policy and Operational Complexity

Mandatory Community Engagement Requirements

By December 31, 2026, states must implement community engagement (work) requirements for certain Medicaid enrollees. These requirements cannot be waived under Section 1115, though states may request “good faith” exemptions through 2028.

States must notify enrollees through multiple channels and develop the infrastructure needed to track compliance. Managed care organizations and other entities that have financial relationships with Medicaid services are prohibited from determining compliance.

Tighter Eligibility and Redetermination Requirements

States must now conduct Medicaid eligibility redeterminations every six months for expansion populations. The bill also delays implementation of previously finalized rules that would have streamlined enrollment and imposes new verification requirements, including address checks. For immigrants, H.R. 1 narrows the definition of “qualified” individuals who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, removing coverage for refugees, asylees, and other humanitarian categories.

Cost Sharing for Expansion Adults

Starting in 2028, states must apply cost-sharing requirements to Medicaid expansion adults with incomes greater than 100 percent of the federal poverty level. Though primary care, mental health, and certain other services are exempt, the policy introduces new administrative burdens for states and many providers.

Medicaid Financing: A Structural Shift

Provider Tax Restrictions

H.R. 1 freezes existing provider tax programs and bars any new taxes. Also, Medicaid expansion states must phase down the maximum allowable tax rate from 6 percent to 3.5 percent by 2032. This change will significantly constrain states’ ability to use provider taxes to finance Medicaid and draw down federal matching funds.

Limits on State-Directed Payments

The bill caps state-directed payments at either 100 percent or 110 percent of Medicare rates, depending on the state’s expansion status. Grandfathered payment arrangements will be phased down by 10 percent annually beginning in 2028. These provisions will require states to reassess supplemental payment strategies and may affect provider participation and access to care.

Other Key Provisions

The Rural Health Transformation Program provides $50 billion over five years to support financially distressed rural providers. H.R. 1 requires that each state submit a plan, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator must approve or deny the plan by December 31, 2025, giving CMS and the US Department of Health and Human Services significant authority to shape the approval/denial processes, as well as critical details of the program and funding decisions.

For the Marketplace, the law eliminates ACA subsidy eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants, ends conditional eligibility for ACA subsidies as well as passive re-enrollment, and eliminates the cap on ACA subsidy repayment at tax time. It also prohibits individuals who are not enrolled in Medicaid because of a failure to satisfy community engagement requirements from receiving any subsidies.

In addition, a new 1915(c) waiver option allows states to offer home and community-based services (HCBS) without requiring that they provide institutional level of care but only if waiting lists for existing services are not extended. Another provision excludes family planning and abortion service providers from receiving Medicaid funding if they received at least $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in 2023.

Finally, the law includes a one-year, 2.5 percent increase to the Medicare physician fee schedule conversion factor, which will be in effect for calendar year 2026 and expire thereafter.

What Stakeholders Should Do Now

States can begin planning for eligibility system changes, redetermination volume, and community engagement implementation, all of which require an understanding of the potential interactions of the federal Medicaid, Medicare, and ACA Marketplace policy changes. In addition, state officials should consider reassessing provider tax structures and supplemental payment strategies, where applicable. They need to engage early on rural health transformation funding opportunities and other provider supports.

Health plans can forecast enrollment and risk mix changes. They have opportunities to support states in compliance efforts to avoid federal funding recoupments. In addition, plans must prepare for new administrative requirements related to cost sharing and work requirements, among other policy changes on the horizon. Consumer communications should also be a focus area.

Providers and community-based organizations will need to prepare for greater uncompensated care needs and costs, which can lead to potential revenue loss, as well as new reporting and program integrity expectations. They also will play an integral role in assisting patients in maintaining coverage and navigating new requirements.

Vendors and health information exchanges have several opportunities to support the implementation of new requirements in H.R. 1 alongside the changing regulatory priorities. Examples include reviewing system capabilities to support new eligibility, verification, and reporting requirements and coordinating with states to ensure smooth implementation and program integrity.

Looking Ahead

The passage of H.R. 1 marks a turning point in federal health policy. Although the law’s fiscal goals are clear, its operational impacts will unfold over the coming months and years. States, plans, providers, and community organizations must now pivot from policy analysis to implementation readiness.

HMA will continue to monitor federal guidance, state responses, and stakeholder strategies. For more detailed analysis or support with scenario planning, contact our experts below.

Blog

What the Senate’s Budget Approval Means for the Future

Read Blog

On July 1, 2025, the US Senate voted 51–50, to advance its version of H.R. 1, continuing the budget reconciliation process. Like the bill that the House passed in May, the Senate language calls for making significant changes to the Medicare, Medicaid, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace programs, as well as health savings accounts (HSAs) and publicly funded programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Relative to the House bill, however, the Senate differs substantially in approach and scope. Thus, the bill has been sent back to the House for consideration. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) intends to accelerate voting with the goal of clearing the legislation in the House by July 4, 2025.

Key Differences Between House and Senate Bills

Notable differences between the House and Senate packages pertain to the following:

  • Medicaid Provider Payments: The Senate version includes more restrictive changes to federal Medicaid provider taxes and state-directed payment policies. These changes are expected to affect hospitals that rely on Medicaid supplemental payments. The Senate bill also would create a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program to mitigate financial strain on healthcare providers in rural communities. The provision includes several stipulations regarding distributions, allocations, eligibility standards, and permissible uses of the funds, which will likely prompt considerable ongoing engagement from stakeholders if signed into law, particularly among hospitals and clinics that will face substantial headwinds under other components of the legislation.
  • ACA Marketplaces: Like the House bill, the Senate version includes provisions to recapture full ACA subsidy amounts, restrict subsidy eligibility for certain immigrant populations, and require verification of ACA subsidy eligibility. The Senate bill neither appropriates funding for cost sharing reduction subsidies nor includes provisions regarding the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule, which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized on June 20, 2025. In addition, the Senate bill offers several smaller flexibilities intended to increase usage of HSAs but does not include the full suite of HSA changes included in the House bill. The Senate language also does not call for expanding individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs).
  • More Limited Medicare Package: Although the Senate language restores the ORPHAN Cures Act and adds a modest one-year payment increase under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), the bill omits a number of significant Medicare policies included in the House version, including a much broader PFS investment tied to the Medicare Economic Index, as well as multiple pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reforms under Medicare Part D. The Senate legislation also excludes two Medicaid PBM provisions that the House had included.

Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has provided several estimates of the cost and coverage impacts of the healthcare and tax provisions in multiple versions of the reconciliation legislation. CBO has provided cost estimates for the House-passed bill, as well as the Senate substitute amendment, but has yet to release information on the final Senate version. Of note, CBO estimated the following:

  • The Medicaid, Medicare, and ACA related provisions in the Senate substitute amendment would reduce healthcare spending by approximately $1.15 trillion over the next 10 years.
  • The House bill would, by 2034, add 10.9 million people to the number of uninsured individuals in the United States.

What to Watch

Stakeholders should plan for the financial, policy, and operational impacts of the many provisions that could be enacted, including:

  • New administrative requirements for enrollment that will place additional obligations on individuals seeking coverage and which will require more state resources to implement and manage. Community engagement and work requirements are scheduled to take effect December 31, 2026.
  • Downward Medicaid financial pressures due to fewer federal funds, which will stress state budgets and states’ ability to maintain existing programs. This situation could lead some states to scale back eligibility for Medicaid, limitenrollment for optional programs, or some combination of these. Additionally, states could be expected to address increases in uncompensated care among their providers.
  • A pause on implementation of previously finalized regulations that streamlined the Medicaid enrollment process for individuals.

The combination of the House and Senate reconciliation bills and the recently finalized Marketplace Program Integrity and Affordability rule indicate an uncertain future for cost sharing subsides and enhanced premium tax credits in Marketplace programs. Healthcare stakeholders should prepare for the impact of the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits would have on benefit packages, enrollee risk profiles, uncompensated care, and other key issues affecting access, cost, and outcomes.

Connect with Us

To learn more about the these policy changes and the impact on your organization, contact our featured experts below.

Webinar

Webinar Replay – The Future of the ACA Individual Market: Policy Shifts and the Proposals Before Congress

Watch Now

This webinar was held on July 10, 2025.

Watch for an in-depth discussion on the future of the individual market and the impacts of potential Congressional and regulatory changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This webinar explored findings from a new Wakely report which estimates that ACA enrollment could decrease by 11 to 13 million as a result of these pending changes, representing a 47% to 57% decline. The report also projects that market average premiums could increase between 7% and 11.5% on top of claims trend. The report’s analysis considers a range of influential factors, including provisions in the House budget reconciliation bill, the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability regulation, and the scheduled expiration of enhanced premium tax credits in 2026. HMA, Wakely, and Leavitt Partners experts unpacked the current federal and state policy landscape and their potential effects on coverage access, affordability, and the long-term viability of the individual market.

Learning Objectives:

  • Interpret the projected coverage and premium impacts
  • Understand the role of expiring premium tax credits
  • Assess potential responses and strategies

Download the webinar transcript here.

Blog

Medicaid Redetermination Ripple Effects in the Individual Market

Read Blog

As Congress intensifies negotiations over budget reconciliation, including potential changes to Medicaid financing and Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, new data from Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA (Health Management Associates) company, sheds light on how the effects of the Medicaid redetermination process continued to unfold well into 2024. Appendix A of the May 2025 white paper Medicaid Redetermination Impacts on the Individual Market, provides a full-year view of enrollment and morbidity trends, showing that the influx of former Medicaid enrollees had some negative effects on risk scores. In fact, relative risk increased across all market types—state-based exchanges (SBEs), in federally facilitated exchange (FFE) Medicaid expansion states, and FFEs in non-expansion states—despite substantial enrollment growth.

Data presented in Wakely’s white paper and their experts’ findings challenge the conventional assumption that higher enrollment dilutes risk and suggest that many new enrollees may have had unmet health needs or delayed care. The data also show that states with the highest enrollment growth did not necessarily experience the greatest morbidity shifts. This decoupling of enrollment and morbidity complicates forecasting for insurers and policymakers alike, especially as Congress debates Medicaid funding and ACA subsidy structures in the ongoing budget reconciliation process.

What to Watch

As federal lawmakers consider reforms that could alter Medicaid eligibility, subsidies, and risk adjustment mechanics, these findings underscore the importance of monitoring not just how many people enroll, but who they are and the type of care they need. The individual market’s evolving risk profile will have direct implications for premium setting, subsidy design, and the financial stability of plans that serve this population.

Connect with Us

Wakely is experienced in all facets of the healthcare industry—from carriers to providers to government agencies. Wakely’s actuarial experts and policy analysts continually monitor and analyze potential changes to inform clients’ strategies and propel their success.

For more questions about the analysis contact our experts below.

Blog

CSR Funding, Budget Debates, and the Future of Marketplace Affordability

Read Blog

In May 2025, the US House of Representatives passed a budget bill that includes funding for cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, marking a potential end to the “silver loading” practice that has shaped pricing in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace pricing since 2017. The US Senate is now considering this legislation as part of a broader budget reconciliation package that includes major Medicaid reforms, such as new work requirements and changes to eligibility and financing rules.

This evolving policy landscape has significant implications for states, payers, providers, and consumers. Wakely, an HMA Company, recently published Implications of Ending Silver-Loading on the Individual Market, which outlines how reinstating CSR payments could reshape ACA marketplace plan pricing, enrollment patterns, and federal subsidy flows. It also highlights the operational and financial risks stakeholders must prepare for in 2026.

Broad Loading and Silver Loading

Because CSR loading increases premium costs on silver plans that determine subsidies, they also increase federal payments for premium tax credit (PTC) subsidies. Guidance from the US Department of Health and Human Services on silver plan pricing has evolved over time. Three types of CSR loading are occurring in ACA markets, specifically:

  • Broad loading: Increasing premiums for all metal level qualified health plans (QHPs) in the individual market to collect enough revenue to offset the CSR costs of the silver plan variants enrollees
  • Two means of silver loading:
    • Increasing premiums for only silver QHPs in the individual market to collect enough revenue to offset the CSR costs of the silver plan variant enrollees
    • Raising premiums, functionally, for only on-exchange silver QHPs

As discussed in the Wakely paper, the impact of silver loading is that the federal government is likely paying out more in additional PTC subsidies than would be paid if CSR payments were fully funded. On Friday, May 2, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidance related to silver loading and CSR payments for 2026 rate filings. This action was urgently needed, especially for states with May filing deadlines.

What’s at Stake

If Congress does appropriate funding for CSR payments, some issuers will be reimbursed for the difference in cost sharing between standard and CSR-enhanced silver plans. Issuers that cover nonemergency pregnancy termination services, would be ineligible for CSR payments; however, as the Wakely paper indicates, these payments would not cover the additional utilization driven by richer benefits. For example, it is anticipated that a member in a 94 percent actuarial value CSR plan will use more services (i.e., four primary care visits versus three in a standard plan), but reimbursement would only reflect the cost-sharing difference—not the increased volume of care.

States like Georgia and New Mexico, which mandate silver loading, could see significant shifts in premium relativities and enrollment behavior. Wakely’s modeling suggests that changes in CSR policy—especially if paired with the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025—could lead to higher net premiums, reduced enrollment, and a deterioration in risk pool morbidity.

What to Watch

The Senate’s deliberations will determine whether CSR funding is restored and could have significant implications on whether enhanced premium subsidies are extended beyond 2025. These decisions will directly affect the following:

  • 2026 rate filings and benefit designs
  • Marketplace affordability and enrollment stability
  • State reinsurance funding and 1332 waiver dynamics
  • Consumer costs and plan switching behavior

Wakely’s analysis also cautions that if CSR funding is restored without accounting for induced utilization, issuers may still need to price for higher service use—potentially leading to premium volatility. In addition, if broad loading is mandated instead of silver loading, it could raise premiums across all metal tiers and reduce the value of premium tax credits for many enrollees.

Key Considerations for Stakeholders

  • States should assess how CSR policy changes affect reinsurance programs, waiver funding, and Medicaid redeterminations.
  • Payers must prepare for multiple pricing scenarios and evaluate how changes in subsidy structures influence enrollment and risk adjustment, 1332 reinsurance programs, and overall market risk.
  • Providers should anticipate shifts in patient mix and utilization (i.e., more uncompensated care with more uninsured patients).
  • Advocates need to monitor how policy changes affect access and affordability for low-income and underserved populations.

These developments also create more opportunities for movement between Medicaid, Marketplace, and uninsured populations, underscoring renewed opportunity for integrated eligibility systems and coordinated outreach.

Connect with Us

Health Management Associates (HMA), experts are actively advising stakeholders on how to navigate these complex changes. Whether you’re a state policymaker, health plan executive, provider leader, or advocate, we can help you assess the impact and plan strategically.

These issues will also be explored in depth at the HMA Conference in October 2025. To discuss how these developments will affect your organization, contact our featured expert below.

Blog

House Committees Consider Policies to Meet Budget Reconciliation Instructions

Read Blog

This week, key committees in the House of Representatives released recommendations for legislative language that meets their federal savings and spending targets required in the fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget resolution. On May 11, 2025, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released legislation—and subsequently a substitute amendment—that contains several substantive Medicaid proposals designed to address eligibility and enrollment; financing; fraud waste, and abuse; and to institute mandatory work and community engagement requirements and cost sharing. The Committee completed its markup on May 14, 2025, voting to approve the provisions in the substitute amendment.

The release of text and committee markups are key steps in Congress’s budget reconciliation process; however, proposals may change during Senate proceedings.

Health Management Associates (HMA), and Leavitt Partners, an HMA company, are tracking these developments and analyzing the extensive health and health-related legislative text, including the Medicaid, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace proposals. Below, we review the status of congressional efforts and key policies.

Background

The budget reconciliation process is a powerful tool for enacting significant fiscal policy changes, as it allows for expedited consideration and passage of budget-related legislation. It has been used in the past to enact major tax reforms, healthcare legislation, and other important budgetary measures.

In 2025, Congress has been actively working to develop its budget bills through a series of steps. The House adopted a budget resolution on February 25, 2025, which sets the framework for federal spending, revenue, and the debt limit for fiscal year 2025 and outlines budgetary levels for the following years through 2034. The Senate passed an amended version of the budget resolution on April 5, 2025. The Senate’s amendments included reconciliation instructions that require $4 billion in gross deficit reductions and allow a $5.8 trillion net deficit increase. On April 10, 2025, the House agreed to the Senate’s amendments with a vote of 216−214. This agreement set the stage for the development of a reconciliation bill.

House Energy and Commerce Markup

On May 14, 2025, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce completed its second day of marking up legislative language to comply with the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2025, voting to advance the proposals out of committee. The committee’s proposal excluded certain significant structural reforms that had generated concern among some members and stakeholders, such as broad reductions in the federal matching rate (enhanced federal matching assistance percentage (FMAP)) for Medicaid expansion populations, per-capita caps on federal Medicaid cost growth, or reductions in the safe harbor threshold for state Medicaid provider taxes. The proposal does, however, contain more than a dozen provisions that would reduce federal health care spending by $715 billion with the funding reductions mostly focused on Medicaid, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will reduce the federal share of Medicaid spending, including:

  • Adding mandatory work and community engagement requirements for individuals ages 19−64 without dependents, subject to exceptions for pregnant women, people who are medically frail, people with disabilities, people in compliance with other government program work requirements, people living in areas experiencing a temporary hardship, and other individuals
  • Adding cost sharing for beneficiaries in the expansion population who earn more than 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, not to exceed $35 per item or service
  • Pausing implementation of several final rules published during the Biden Administration, including: the final rule published September 21, 2023, “Streamlining Medicaid; Medicare Savings Program Eligibility Determination and Enrollment”; the April 2, 2024 rule, “Streamlining the Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Basic Health Program Application, Eligibility Determination, Enrollment, and Renewal Processes”; and the May 10, 2024, final rule, “Minimum Staffing Standards for Long Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting”
  • Adding provider screening requirements
  • Increasing frequency of eligibility redeterminations for certain individuals and adding enrollee address verification policies
  • Reducing expansion FMAP for certain states that provide Medicaid coverage to undocumented individuals and families, regardless of the source of funding
  • Preventing certain spread pricing arrangements in Medicaid between states and pharmacy benefit managers
  • Restricting funding for certain essential community providers that furnish family planning services, reproductive health, and related healthcare services
  • Ending a temporary increased FMAP to new states adopting Medicaid expansion, revising policies governing the use of Medicaid provider taxes, and payment limits for state directed payments

Committee Markups

Various other House committees have begun holding markups for the reconciliation package. The Committee on Ways and Means conducted its markup on May 13, 2025, to discuss its portion of the reconciliation bill, which involves $4.5 trillion in deficit increases. The initial Ways and Means proposal did not include many significant healthcare proposals, but on May 12, 2025, the committee released a substitute amendment that includes several changes that would affect private insurance coverage and Medicare. Key provisions include:

  • Changes to Medicare and ACA premium tax credit (PTC) eligibility requirements related to immigration status
  • Improvements to ACA PTC eligibility verification checks
  • Changes to Health Savings Account flexibilities
  • Codification and renaming of individual coverage health reimbursement accounts, which serve as a defined contribution that employees can use to purchase insurance in the individual market

Other committees, such as the Education and Workforce, Judiciary, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees, also have conducted markups and approved their respective portions of the reconciliation bill.

Connect With Us

These steps are part of the ongoing process to finalize the budget and reconciliation legislation for FY 2025. Our federal policy experts with Leavitt Partners and across HMA are monitoring the legislative policies and ongoing negotiations in Congress and with the administration. They work with healthcare organizations and industry to plan for the range of scenarios and policies Congress is debating.

For more information about the impact of these policies, contact our featured federal policy experts below.

Brief & Report

What’s Really Causing the Rise in Insurance Premiums, and What Can States Do About It?

Download

Healthcare cost increases are outpacing general inflation, which jeopardizes access to coverage and care, as well as investments in other priorities. As a result, states are looking for ways to reduce the cost burden for consumers, employers, and taxpayers. The State of Maine engaged Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA Company, to analyze historical medical trends and the associated impact on premiums in Maine’s health insurance market for the period of 2021 to 2025. The goal was to assess what factors are driving rising insurance costs. This project was supported by an HMA contract with Arnold Ventures, under which we provide technical assistance to states seeking to reduce healthcare cost growth.

Blog

Navigating CMS’s 2025 Marketplace Rule: What It Means for ACA Marketplaces, Insurers, and Consumers

Read Blog

This week, our In Focus section also reviews the 2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Proposed Rule, released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on March 10, 2025. The proposed rule calls for enhancing program integrity protections in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces through targeted changes to eligibility and enrollment policies and procedures.

This proposed rule aligns with the overarching policy priorities President Trump has identified, including reducing federal costs and reforming policies related to immigrants. It also takes aim at fraud, waste, and abuse practices in the ACA Marketplaces, which is the cornerstone from which the US Department of Health and Human Services explains and justifies its proposed initiatives.

Notably, the proposed changes will occur alongside other potential federal policy revisions, including the December 31, 2025, expiration of the ACA enhanced subsides for consumers, which led to historically high coverage levels—nearly 24 million people were enrolled in the Marketplace as of January 2025. The combined changes will have a varied but significant effect on all state health insurance markets, creating a need for scenario planning and preparation to start immediately.

CMS is providing the public 30 days to submit comments on the proposed rule. An overview of the proposed changes and key considerations follow.

Rule Components

Enrollment Timeline: CMS proposes shortening the open enrollment period for all individual market coverage, including for state-based marketplaces (SBMs), which traditionally have had flexibility to set later enrollment deadlines. If finalized, open enrollment will begin November 1 and end December 15, a month earlier than the current deadline of the following January 15.

Income Verification: The rule would require marketplaces to bolster their income verification processes to protect against manipulation of the authorization and calculation of advance premium tax credit (APTC) values. CMS policymakers believe these changes will be useful in addressing broker and consumer fraud and abuse of the APTC eligibility process. Proposed income verification changes include requirements that people provide the documentation of their income if they meet the following criteria:

  • The income on their application is between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), but the income returned from external data sources show they make less than 100 percent of the FPL
  • No tax data are available from external data sources to confirm the applicant’s self-attested income

Applicants who do not verify their income will have it adjusted to align with the income returned from external data sources, and their APTC eligibility will be updated accordingly. In some cases, such as when no returned income data are available, these individuals will become ineligible for the APTC.

CMS also plans to reinstate a 2015 policy that requires marketplaces to designate applicants or enrollees as ineligible for APTCs if they fail to file and reconcile their APTC on their federal income taxes. This requirement is known as the failure to file and reconcile (FTR). The Biden Administration changed the FTR requirements to find enrollees ineligible for APTCs if they fail to file and reconcile for two consecutive tax years.

Lastly, CMS proposes eliminating the additional 60 days consumers are granted to resolve income inconsistencies. Today, most marketplace consumers have up to 150 days to resolve income inconsistences. This proposal would return to the 90-day verification period that was in place prior to the Biden Administration.

CMS also requests input on alternative redetermination and re-enrollment policies for fully subsidized consumers, including whether $5 is the appropriate premium amount or should be higher or if fully subsidized consumers should be required to actively confirm their eligibility and reenroll every year.

Another proposal would remove the ability for marketplaces to automatically reenroll Bronze members who are eligible for a cost-sharing reduction (CSR) in a Silver plan if the Silver plan has the same provider network, is in the same product, and has a lower or equivalent net premium as the consumer’s Bronze plan.

Special Enrollment Period Changes: CMS is proposing multiple changes to special enrollment periods (SEPs), including the removal of monthly SEPs for individuals with household incomes that are projected to be at or below 150 percent of the FPL and a requirement that marketplaces verify eligibility for at least 75 percent of new enrollments during SEPs. CMS also proposes adopting a pre-enrollment income verification model for SEPs.

  • Bar Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from QHPs in the Marketplace and basic health programs, making them ineligible for APTCs and CSRs and returning to pre-Biden era DACA eligibility rules
  • Remove gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit
  • Allow insurers to require payment of past due premiums before effectuating new coverage, if state law permits
  • Increase cost sharing/lower premiums by increasing the maximum out-of-pocket limit and widening de minimis ranges

Implications

CMS is reverting to several policies that were put in place during President Trump’s first term, increasing the likelihood that CMS will finalize many of the changes as proposed or with minimal modification.

Insurers, SBMs, insurance departments and other stakeholders should engage in the federal policymaking process and begin planning immediately for the financial and operational changes that will be required to comply, as several of the requirements will take effect as soon as the rule is finalized. Stakeholders will also want to consider the direct impact on consumers.

Health Management Associates (HMA) Marketplace experts identified the six key considerations for stakeholders:

  • Market share and risk. The proposed changes are projected to decrease Marketplace enrollment and Insurers and states need to plan for shifts in their market and consider approaches to manage these changes.
  • Administrative operations. A shorter enrollment period and additional eligibility and enrollment requirements may increase administrative actions for enrollees, insurers, and marketplaces. Examples include:
    • Marketplaces will need to make system and operational changes to comply with the new income verification, SEP, and open enrollment period requirements.
    • Departments of Insurance may need to adjust their rate and form filing instructions and timelines to give insurers the clarity and time they need to comply with new requirements.
  • Consumer education. Insurers and marketplaces will need to consider the effectiveness of their marketing and outreach and education strategies, given the shorter open enrollment period.
  • Interactions with the expiration of the enhanced subsidies in 2026. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the uninsured population will increase by 2.2 million in 2026 and up to 3.8 million by 2028 if the enhanced ACA subsidies expire. While it is too early to project or measure the impact of this proposed rule and the expiring subsidies, together they undoubtedly will have direct impacts on eligibility, enrollment levels, market dynamics including pricing and risk mix, and the overall stability of the Marketplaces in the long term. Congress may also take action on other policies related to Marketplace stability for which stakeholders should prepare.
  • State-level mitigation. States interested in mitigating the impacts of this proposed rule, as well as the expiring subsidies, will need to consider legislation to address the resulting affordability gaps and coverage losses. For example, states may look to state-funded subsidy wraps or reinsurance programs to minimize the net premium rate increases that most Marketplace plan members will experience when the enhanced subsidies expire in 2026.
  • Federal engagement. CMS is providing the public 30 days to comment on the proposed rule. This provides stakeholders the opportunity to voice their positions on the impact of this and future Marketplace policies. Comments on the proposed rule may also be shared with congressional policymakers and staff to help shape future legislative proposals.

HMA experts have considerable experience working with marketplaces, Departments of Insurance, insurers, and federal policymakers with jurisdiction over the Marketplace. They work with these entities to inform, analyze, and influence federal policies and conduct impact analyses on pricing, enrollment, administration, and operations. HMA also provides strategic and project management support for the implementation of finalized policies.

To learn more about how the proposed rule and the scheduled sunsetting of enhanced subsidies may affect your organization contact HMA Marketplace experts below.

Brief & Report

State Cost Growth Benchmarking Programs: An Evaluation of Eight States’ Experiences and the Lessons Stakeholders Have Learned

Download

Background

In 2024, Health Management Associates (HMA) evaluated programs implemented by eight states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington) aimed at controlling healthcare cost growth. In recent years, these states have tried to address the trend of escalating healthcare costs using an approach referred to as cost growth benchmarking (CGB). This is the act of setting a target for annual healthcare cost growth and measuring actual performance against the target. Since 2018, the Peterson-Milbank Program (PMP) for Sustainable Health Care Costs has invested in state-based CGB efforts by funding program development, implementation, and technical assistance. HMA evaluated the Peterson Center on Healthcare’s cost growth benchmarking efforts across the eight states.

Methodology

HMA’s evaluation for the Peterson Center on Healthcare included a detailed landscape review for each of the eight states and interviews with 45 state officials, providers, payers, and other stakeholders in these states. The HMA team synthesized findings from the landscape review and the key informant interviews and produced an internal evaluation report.

Analytic Approach

The landscape review captured the state’s CGB program chronology, governance structure, growth targets, enforcement authority, and performance against the target. The interviews examined the contextual factors, stakeholder influence, implementation developments, capacity to control costs, facilitators and barriers to developing cost control capabilities, and the lessons learned based on the states’ experience. The interview discussion guide included a scoring component which enabled quantitative analysis in addition to the qualitative findings. HMA analyzed these findings by state, category of interviewee (state officials, payers, providers, or others) and implementation stage (early vs. more recent adopters).

Findings

States’ efforts to engage and gather stakeholders, establish cost growth targets, collect and report data, and identify cost drivers have been successful, but states have had challenges to date in developing policies aimed at containing costs.

Utility

The findings from this analysis can be useful to the existing states in enhancing their CGB programs and to states interested in launching new CGB initiatives.

Blog

Health policy priorities on the table: Understanding the post-election landscape for Marketplace, Medicaid, and Medicare programs

Read Blog

This week’s In Focus section addresses post-election implications and initial considerations for understanding President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s possible federal healthcare policy agenda. Though healthcare was not the highest priority campaign issue, the president-elect and his team have signaled the policy agenda could include changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid, and the nation’s public health programs. 

Additionally, President Trump’s first term policy agenda and how these policies fared, provide critical insights into the policy direction for his second term, including policies on Medicare drug pricing, ACA marketplaces, and interoperability. Also vital to understanding and planning for a second term will be the appointees to key healthcare positions at the Department of Health and Human Services and in the White House. 

Policy officials and specific policy agendas are still nascent, and Health Management Associates, Inc., federal and state experts are continuing to monitor these developments. The remainder of this article focuses on a few key considerations for the Marketplace, Medicaid, and Medicare healthcare insurance programs heading into 2025. 

ACA Marketplace Issues to Watch 

President-Elect Trump signaled he is uninterested in revisiting a legislative initiative to repeal and replace the ACA. However, one of the major defining issues facing the president-elect and the next Congress is the temporary policy providing enhanced tax credits that lower ACA premiums, which expires at the end of 2025. This and other tax policies are very likely to be on the table, particularly as budget reconciliation is an available tool in unified government. 

Key considerations for healthcare stakeholders regarding the subsidy policy and federal funding for Marketplace outreach and education programs include: 

  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that extending the present enhanced subsidy policies would cost more than $300 billion over 10 years. The CBO also reports that ACA marketplace enrollment would drop from 22.8 million in 2025 to 18.9 million in 2026 if the subsidy policy is not renewed. 
  • The loss of subsidies would increase the number of uninsured individuals in the United States, but the size of the increase would depend on the state-specific landscape. For example, states that have not adopted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion for adults are expected to have a higher increase relative to states that have more expansive Medicaid eligibility. One potential approach is for lawmakers to modify the enhanced subsidy policy, rather than let it expire entirely.  
  • Marketplace plans should be prepared for a change in the acuity mix of enrollees while providers should expect a change in their payer mix, with more uninsured individuals in states that have not expanded Medicaid. 

Federal and state policymakers may pursue a combination of alternatives to fill gaps in access to healthcare coverage and services. For example, the president-elect and incoming congressional leaders may focus on alternative coverage options and other state-driven reforms to Marketplace programs. Alternatives that could become part of the regulatory policy agenda include: 

  • Supporting association health plans (AHPs) and high-risk pools 
  • Reverting to a federal regulatory environment that supports short-term limited-duration healthcare insurance (STLDI) plans 
  • Approving Section 1332 waivers to allow state-designed programs 

Medicaid Policy Outlook 

During Mr. Trump’s first term, one of his administration’s signature Medicaid initiatives was approving Section 1115 demonstrations that allowed states to apply work requirements to certain populations, including adult expansion populations. The first Trump Administration also revised the demonstration parameters for Section 1115 Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD), allowed coverage lockout for beneficiary noncompliance with premium payments, and approved a pilot program to test interventions addressing health-related social needs (HRSNs). 

Key considerations for healthcare stakeholders regarding Medicaid flexibilities and funding include: 

  • Officials in the first Trump Administration approved North Carolina’s Medicaid 1115 demonstration program to address HRSNs. President Biden’s Administration expanded these policies and approved demonstrations in more than 10 states, with additional state applications pending. Incoming officials may maintain the overall policy direction  with regard to HRSNs. However, they could pivot to narrow the scope of future state HRSN proposals. Another approach could include directing states to use in lieu of services (ILOS) authority in managed care delivery systems to address HRSN.  
  • During President-Elect Trump’s first term, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) officials prioritized work requirements and capped allotments for certain components of a state’s Medicaid program. Some states might consider revisiting these options, with modifications. If this policy direction is refreshed, federal and state officials would benefit from the foundational work conducted during the first term. 
  • New CMS officials could prioritize work on transparency in Medicaid financing and reimbursement to providers. Federal officials, regardless of political affiliation, historically have sought to improve their understanding of the flow of Medicaid funding. Incoming officials could prioritize this issue again, which would have a varied effect on health plans and providers. 

Medicare Priorities: 

Relative to Marketplace and Medicaid, first term Trump Medicare policies were advanced with less conflict. Notable policy initiatives included a focus on healthcare-related challenges in rural communities, improving transparency, and reducing provider burden —all of which were also cross-cutting issues that encompassed policy work beyond Medicare and could continue to be central to the next Medicare policy agenda.  

Key considerations for healthcare stakeholders regarding Medicare policy are as follows: 

  • The president-elect’s first term approach to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans sought to maximize enrollment in MA and encourage innovation and value-based design. It’s reasonable to expect second term CMS officials to maintain an overall favorable approach to MA too. Incoming officials could narrow their scrutiny of MA plans to bipartisan concerns, for example MA plans’ prior authorization policies. 
  • While improving outcomes for dually eligibles beneficiaries generally is a bipartisan issue, state agencies, MA and Medicaid managed care plans, and other interested stakeholders should monitor the incoming Administration’s policy agenda for dually enrolled beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. During the Biden Administration, CMS issued final rules for Medicare Advantage Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) to improve integration for the Medicare-Medicaid dually eligible population., Incoming Trump officials could revisit the approach, including the breadth of requirements and compliance timelines.  
  • During his first term, President Trump was highly engaged in elevating concerns about prescription drug prices and HHS and CMS announced models and policies to lower drug prices for patients. In his second term, however, the President could seek to rein in certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), while revisiting some of his prior proposals. 

What to Watch 

The incoming Administration and its transition team are moving expeditiously to nominate new Cabinet Secretaries and to identify key staffers. The individuals appointed to departmental, agency, and advisory leadership positions will have significant leeway in shaping the federal and state healthcare policy landscapes – determining which existing policies to review and potentially revise, new policies to develop, and the approach to working with state and local officials and stakeholders. This includes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, CMS Administrator, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, and Director of the National Institutes of Health, all of which require Senate confirmation. Additionally, healthcare stakeholders should continue to monitor the leadership races for the House and Senate and the primary congressional committees with jurisdiction over healthcare programs. These leaders will be key to a second term Trump legislative policy agenda. 

Connect with Us 

This article focuses in on a subset of issues within Marketplace, Medicaid, and Medicare and in the overall healthcare sector. Our 2024 Political Checkpoint webinar features our experts discussing these and other insights on the election results. They provided an overview of what to expect from Congress and the Administration, focusing on key legislative priorities and executive actions.  

Join us for our next two webinars in the series exploring the election results:  

Blog

Healthcare solutions unlocked: Key takeaways from the 2024 HMA Conference

Read Blog

The HMA Conference – Unlocking Solutions in Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplace – was held in early October in Chicago, drawing a crowd of 350 participants hailing from all parts of the healthcare ecosystem. In the words of one attendee, what made the HMA conference unique was that “it was very rare to have providers, CBOs, health systems, insurers, and public sector organizations in one place…I gained significant value by viewing similar issues from different perspectives.”

Attendees participated in plenary sessions and breakouts that were grounded in Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplace, with each session extending beyond the traditional topics for these public health insurance programs. Attendees were challenged and inspired to consider the cross-cutting work underway to address health equity, the integration of housing into healthcare, innovative strategies for behavioral health coverage for adults as well as children and families involved in the child welfare system, and the opportunities for federally qualified health clinics to engage in value-based care delivery to improve outcomes.

Signature HMA discussions with health plan leaders and Medicaid directors also provided valuable insights that will help guide the next phase of innovative programs and technologies designed and deployed to improve health. Breakout sessions offered in-depth exploration across Medicaid/Duals, Medicare/MA, and Marketplace/ACA tracks, alongside discussions on demand for innovation, advances in treating sickle cell disease, and creative workforce strategies. The conference concluded with a panel that prepared attendees for policymaking in the post-election, post-Chevron deference landscape.

The HMA event created opportunities to learn and network with potential partners against the background of the city of Chicago skyline, as one participant put it, “away from the daily craziness.” The discussions were robust and focused on new ideas that can be deployed by stakeholders all trying to improve the accessibility, quality, equity, and value of healthcare.

Listed below are conference takeaways that will be of interest and relevant to the broader healthcare ecosystem:

Systemize the little things that improve outcomes.

Keynote speaker Dr. Darshak Sanghavi from ARPA-H challenged people to focus on systematizing the “little things” that drive measurable improvements in outcomes as a source of meaningful innovation. His presentation focused on how ARPA-H is investing differently in private sector innovation – not just big breakthroughs, but also in data-informed approaches that produce consistent quality.

Housing is a healthcare issue.

There is increasing overlap between initiatives to address housing support in Medicare and Medicaid. Bridging diverse sectors and stakeholders is essential to address critical gaps in service delivery. HMA’s new Housing Services & Supports practice group recognizes that housing is part of healthcare, but it does not have to be fully funded by healthcare entities.

Cross-payer collaboration would improve behavioral health.

Behavioral health coverage has historically relied on the Medicaid-based chassis of coverage, but the breadth of needs and federal parity requirements have created an urgent need for new approaches to coverage across all systems and all payers. Cross-payer innovation and collaboration are essential, and systems need to position themselves to scale effective solutions that allow individuals to access services when they need them. In particular, youth and family voices must be part of the transformation of children’s mental health systems to smooth their experience.

The ACA is stable, but 2025 brings uncertainty.

The stability and future success of the ACA marketplaces hinge on the decisions of the 119th Congress regarding the extension of subsidies. If these subsidies are reduced or cancelled it could disrupt what has become a robust and reliable segment of the health insurance market, potentially requiring another pivotal transformation.

Community collaboration can bridge Medicaid health gaps.

New norms are emerging in the Medicaid program. There is unprecedented policy and programmatic work underway to ensure member experiences are informing the design of Medicaid programs as well as the type and pathways for accessing health and health adjacent services. Federal and state government, managed care plans, and providers must work together to bridge the gap to ensure Medicaid programs are best able to serve their members.

Interoperability remains foundational to quality improvement.

We have many different information systems, but when data is pushed to providers to help them manage their patient panel — ED visits, medications, and other data – higher quality care is more likely to be provided to patients.

Provider networks can be structured to ensure success in value.

Medicare providers are embracing value-based care on different timelines and in varied ways. Policymakers, health plans, and other stakeholders need to think carefully about how to structure networks with those providers who are doing it well to get the best results.

Clinics need help with data and financing to drive value-based outcomes.

Poverty is the primary diagnosis for patients of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), and payment can better recognize the connections FQHCs make to anti-poverty services and programs. As the healthcare industry moves providers along the trajectory of value-based payment, FQHCs will be positioned to deliver whole person care if their data and financing is aligned.

These – and other takeaways and partnerships – will inform strategic, policy, programmatic and operational decisions at the hundreds of organizations represented at the HMA conference. They are also key points as we shape the conversations for the 2025 event.

Webinar

Webinar Replay: Electoral Consequences: Impact on the ACA Marketplace

Watch Now

This webinar was held on November 20, 2024.

The 2024 elections could create dramatic changes in the ACA marketplace. Enhanced ACA subsidies passed during the pandemic are set to expire in 2025, and a new CMS administrator will shape policy and regulatory components that affect marketplace and consumer dynamics. This webinar is designed for health plans currently participating in the ACA marketplaces, plans who are considering attending, as well as state regulators and marketplace leaders who need to understand changes that might be coming their way. The webinar covered not only what is expected to change (2026 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, AVC) but also what could possibly change that will affect 2025 Marketplaces and beyond.

Ready to talk?