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

139 Results found. Clear filters.

Blog

Highlights from HMA survey on state approaches to managing the Medicaid pharmacy benefit

Read Blog

This week’s In Focus covers key takeaways and insights from a recently released HMA report, State Approaches to Managing the Medicaid Pharmacy Benefit: Insights from a National Survey for State Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024.

The report, released in August 2024 with support from Arnold Ventures, includes survey responses from 47 states (including DC) for state fiscal years (SFYs) 2023 and 2024. The survey instrument builds on questions posed in the 2019 Medicaid Pharmacy Study of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which HMA and the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted.  

The report discusses state trends for how Medicaid pharmacy benefits are administered across the country, including planned priorities and anticipated challenges in SFY 2025 and beyond. The findings are based on information provided by the nation’s state Medicaid Directors, Medicaid Pharmacy Directors, and other Medicaid agency experts. 

Pharmacy Benefit Administration  

In many states, managed care delivery systems play a pivotal role in administering Medicaid benefits, including prescription drugs. As of July 1, 2023, survey results found that:  

  • A total of 33 states carved pharmacy benefits into managed care organization (MCO) contracts, with one state, Kentucky, directing its MCOs to use a single state-selected pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). 
  • Eight states carve-out the pharmacy benefit—double the number in 2019. 

MCO states were surveyed about their use of carve outs for certain drug products/classes, inclusive of physician-administered drugs covered under the medical benefit.  

  • In all, 19 states reported carving out one or more drug classes or select agents within a drug class—often high-cost specialty drugs. 
  • Of those states, 13 reported using the carve-out as part of a risk mitigation strategy.  
Bar chart titled "MCO PBM Contract Requirements as of July 1, 2023," showing various requirements for PBM contracts. The chart indicates that 25 states prohibit spread pricing, 17 states have PBM transparency/reporting requirements, 10 states have any willing pharmacy requirements, and 2 states plan changes in FY 2024. Notes at the bottom mention that Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, and Ohio did not respond.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers 

The significant role and market power of PBMs have prompted many state legislatures to enact greater transparency practices and require health plans to accept more responsibility for monitoring the PBMs they contract with, which reflect notable changes since the 2019 survey. More specifically: 

  • A total of 33 states reported contracting with a PBM.  
  • The most frequently reported PBM functions included utilization management, drug utilization review, claims processing and/or payment, and rebate administration activities.  

The 30 MCO states that carve in pharmacy benefits responded to survey questions about PBM transparency and spread pricing requirements. Of these states:  

  • 25 prohibit spread pricing in MCO PBM contracts—more than double the number of states reporting prohibitions on spread pricing in 2019.  
  • 17 reported having PBM transparency reporting requirements.  
  • 10 states reported having “any willing” pharmacy requirements.  

The Role of PDLs, Prior Authorization, and Step Therapy in Controlling Drug Costs and Utilization  

HMA’s experts also sought information on state payment strategies and utilization management protocols that are used to manage pharmacy expenditures. Nearly all responding states (44) have a preferred drug list (PDL) in place for fee-for-service prescriptions, which allow states to drive the use of lower cost drugs by encouraging providers to prescribe preferred drugs. Further, nearly two-thirds of responding MCO states (19 of 30 states) that do not carve out the pharmacy benefit reported having a uniform PDL for some or all drug classes, requiring all MCOs to cover the same drugs.  

Many states have implemented step therapy and prior authorization (PA) guardrails in their Medicaid programs through legislation. However, 85.1 percent of responding states (40 of 47) report utilization controls like PA or step therapy applied to drugs that are reimbursed through the medical benefit to control utilization and costs. States also play an active role in managing MCO clinical protocols or medical necessity criteria, with 22 out of 30 MCO pharmacy carve-in states reporting that they require uniform clinical protocols for some or all drugs with clinical criteria. Approximately one-half of responding MCO carve-in states also require review and approval of MCOs’ PA criteria (15 of 30 states) and step therapy criteria (14 of 30 states).  

State Adoption of VBAs: Improving Patient Access to Cell and Gene Therapies  

A growing number of states are actively considering entering into value-based arrangements (VBAs) with manufacturers, as pressure to improve patient access to cell and gene therapies increases. Nine states have at least one VBA in place, and 23 states reported that VBAs are among their future solutions for addressing coverage of new high-cost therapies. States will need to address common barriers to VBA implementation, which involves more upfront costs and operational challenges to implement than traditional contracts. 

Subsequent to the submission of survey responses, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a Cell and Gene Therapy (CGT) Access Model, which begins with a focus on sickle cell disease, anticipated to go live on January 1, 2025. Under the model, CMS will negotiate outcomes-based agreements with manufacturers on behalf of the state to ensure that treatment pricing is related to treatment effectiveness. In the coming years, experiences with this model will help determine whether a CMS-led approach to developing and administering VBAs for CGTs improves Medicaid member access to innovative treatment and their impact on expenditures, if any.  

Map of the United States titled "States with Approved VBA State Plan Amendments as of March 14, 2024," showing states that have CMS-approved SPAs to enter into VBP-based SRAs with manufacturers. Each state is color-coded to represent its original effective date of approval, ranging from 01/01/2019 to 01/01/2023. The map includes a key indicating the original effective dates for each state, such as Arizona (01/01/2019), New York (04/01/2022), and Ohio (01/01/2021), among others. Source: CMS Medicaid Prescription Drugs website.
Source: VBPUpdate (medicaid.gov)

Looking Ahead  

Managing the Medicaid pharmacy benefit has never been more challenging. In FY 2025 and beyond, most states will be focused on managing their Medicaid pharmacy budgets, especially the development of VBAs and other policies and strategies for managing new high-cost therapies. Other top priorities and challenges cited by multiple states include management of PBM arrangements and considering coverage of the new generation of GLP-1 anti-obesity medications. States also must react to changing drug marketplace conditions driven, in part, by federal policy changes to the Medicaid drug rebate formula and changes designed to lower Medicare drug costs. Drug manufacturer responses to these changes have implications for Medicaid state budgets, but also for state PDL management decisions and beneficiary access to needed medications. 

Connect with Us 

The upcoming event, Unlocking Solutions in Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplace, hosted by HMA, will offer more opportunities to engage with report author Kathy Gifford at the pre-conference workshop Paying for Innovative Pharmaceuticals: State and Federal Trends Shaping Public Programs. Leaders from various sectors will join Kathy to discuss trends in prescription drug policies in public and commercial insurance programs. 

For details about the report, contact our featured experts below.

Blog

Decoding your defense: a playbook to help your plan increase your Star rating

Read Blog

Watch a replay of our webinar Mastering Star Performance: Strategies from the HMA Stars Accelerator Program.

WATCH NOW

HMA works with managed care plans to maximize Star ratings and improve program quality.

Star Ratings have been on a steady decline over the last two years resulting in large reductions in quality bonus and rebate payments, potentially impacting opportunities to improve member health outcomes.

How HMA can help improve a plan’s
Star rating:

We have developed a playbook that captures The HMA Stars Accelerator Solution with proven strategies for Stars improvement based on our diverse and extensive expertise in managed care plan (MCP) operations, MCP strategy, performance improvement, actuarial science, data analytics, risk adjustment, and federal and state policy.

Using our vast experience in the Medicare and Medicaid space, HMA can help you maximize ratings in programs like Medicare Stars and Medicaid quality performance. Together with our actuarial colleagues from Wakely Consulting Group and federal policy expert colleagues from Leavitt Partners, both HMA companies, we can provide the assistance you need to move your organization to a higher Star rating level. With guidance from HMA experts, the Accelerator is scalable for both functional and matrix organizations.

Want a copy of HMA’s
Stars Accelerator Playbook?

Fill out this form and one of our consultants will get back to you.

HMA can help your organization create momentum by combining HMA’s programmatic strategies with a robust actuarial and analytical basis, inclusive of integrated risk adjustment.

Meaningful data analysis ensures plans can prioritize the most important areas for strategic focus. Improving performance in Stars requires a multi-pronged, multifactorial approach. The HMA Stars Accelerator Solution is consumer-oriented and customizable to meet the unique needs of your members’ needs. It facilitates understanding of the organization’s current state, identifies opportunities for improvement, provides best practices for design of meaningful solutions to implement, and measures the effectiveness of improvements.

This image shows a diagram composed of hexagonal shapes connected in a circular flow, centering around the term "Continuous Improvement Methodology." Surrounding the center hexagon are six other hexagons, each representing a different element of a strategic process: Gap or SWOT Analysis & Assessment (top-right) Journey Mapping (right) Plan Preference & Plan Access (bottom-right) Member Outreach, Communication (bottom-left) Stratification, Co-Enrollment, Gap Support, Provider Support (left) Measure Strategies, Digital Readiness, Analytics (top-left) The visual implies a systematic and continuous approach to improvement, integrating these steps for enhancing operational or business strategies.

Why is a high Star rating important for a health plan?

This image shows a rating table with three columns: Numeric, Graphic, and Description. It uses a star system to visually represent performance or quality levels, with the following details:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes the Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) and Medicare Part D Star ratings each year to measure the quality of health and drug services received by consumers enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) and Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs or Part D plans). Star ratings impact a managed care plan’s financial performance, competitiveness, growth, and member retention. They are based on measures of multiple aspects of plan performance including:

Member experience and satisfaction

Administrative performance

Medication safety and/or adherence

Hospital readmissions

Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) and Health Outcomes Survey (HOS), both of which measure performance improvement.

Contracts are rated on a scale of one to five stars (rounded to nearest half star) based on approximately 45 measures related to preventive care, member experience (health plan customer service, physician point of service care, and perceived health), prescription drug monitoring, health plan operations, etc.

The industry has meaningfully improved traditional quality metrics (e.g. preventative care and medication adherence rates). As performance peaks in those measures, CMS is placing increasing emphasis on the member experience with their health plan and their providers during care.

Plans with 5 stars can market year-round.

The marketing advantage is a distinction for a high rated plan.

Poor performers (under 3 Star rating for 3 years) receive a Poor Performance Icon and may not be able to renew with CMS.

In 2024 there were 29 Part C (Medicare Parts A & B) and 11 Part D (Pharmacy) measures, and they can change every year. CMS recently released plan preview Star performance data for health plans to review. Final scores and Star ratings will be released by CMS in early October 2024 for Star Year 2025 based upon 2023 dates of service.

Star Rating High Level Timeline

CMS Star Ratings are a lagged pay-for-performance system. For 2026 Star Ratings, 2024 and early 2025 performance timeframes are critical to success, even though payments for this performance will not be received until 2027.

This image shows a high-level timeline for CMS Star Ratings from 2024 to 2027. It highlights key milestones and includes the following steps: 2024 / 2025: Performance; 2025: Data Collection; 2026: Star Ratings (Published October 2025); 2027: MA/MAPD Payments (Star Ratings used in bids filed in June 2026).

What plans do in 2024 and 2025 impacts your 2026 Star rating which will affect your plan’s revenues in 2027.

Is your plan building a strategy for next year based upon underperforming measures?  Are you looking for ways to lean in on any remaining Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and HOS opportunities? Do you know where to start?

See our HMA Solutions page, Star Rating: We Can Help You Navigate to a Higher Level, for more information.

Contact our experts below for more information about HMA’s Stars Accelerator Solution.

Headshot of Amy Bassano

Amy Bassano

Managing Director, Medicare

Headshot of Tom Lutzow

Tom Lutzow

Principal

Headshot of Daniela Simpson

Daniela Simpson

Senior Consultant II

Headshot of Mary Walter

Mary Walter

Principal

Blog

How states are shaping Medicaid managed care and marketplace participation

Read Blog

This week, our In Focus section reviews state policies designed to increase insurer participation in Medicaid managed care and Marketplace programs. As states seek to address healthcare costs, affordability, and consumer experiences, they are exploring a range of initiatives—from the rise of prescription drug affordability boards to cost containment commissions, cost growth benchmarks, transparency, and examination of mergers and acquisitions.  

A notable trend is the use of state policy and purchasing power to encourage or mandate that Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) offer Marketplace plans. Dual-market participation can help smooth coverage transitions, ensure continuity of care, and expand consumer choice. The remainder of this article addresses original research and analysis of this trend by our Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), featured experts.

Current Landscape  

In 2024, enrollment in the Marketplace program has surged to more than 21 million, approximately a 30 percent increase from 2023. This growth was largely attributed to the temporary enhanced subsidies that allowed more people to access affordable coverage. Over the past several regulatory cycles, federal policymakers also have taken steps to further align the Marketplace framework with Medicaid on key issues, such as essential community provider access, eligibility and enrollment processes, and plan design standards. In response, states are innovating to meet federal requirements while pursuing their own healthcare goals related to coverage, affordability, access, and healthcare outcomes.  

Value Proposition  

A compelling value proposition for Medicaid MCOs to participate in the Marketplace (and vice versa) includes the ability to market to and retain people moving from one program to another as life circumstances change. Dual-market participation also supports diversification and growth strategies. In fact, enrollment in the Marketplace has nearly doubled since 2020. For Medicaid MCOs in particular, expanding product offerings to include Marketplace plans presents a unique opportunity to leverage existing provider networks and reimbursement arrangements to deliver more competitive rates. 

Consumers benefit when the same organization participates in both markets. Families with parents and children who obtain coverage under different programs have an opportunity to work with a single organization and choose providers from the same or overlapping networks. Income fluctuations may result in disenrollment from one program (e.g., Medicaid) and eligibility for a new program (e.g., Marketplace subsidies). Continuity of care policies can smooth these transitions in areas such as prior authorization, care management, and provider network.  

State Strategies to Increase Dual-Market Participation 

The Affordable Care Act expanded access to affordable health insurance coverage for as many as 45 million individuals by giving states the option to expand Medicaid and provide federal subsidies to people who purchase Marketplace plans. States are now using various strategies to encourage or require insurer participation in both programs to ease transitions for individuals and families “churning” from one program to another, increase competition and choice of Marketplace plans, and reduce the risk of coverage gaps. For example:  

  • Nevada is requiring any bidder that plans to respond to its upcoming Medicaid MCO procurement to separately submit a “good faith” response to the Battle Born State Plans (BBSP) RFP. This state-contracted, public option will be available on the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange beginning in 2026. Failure to submit a good faith proposal will disqualify an organization from participating in the Medicaid MCO procurement later this fall. Nevada’s current Medicaid MCOs must participate in the Marketplace by offering at least one Silver and one Gold qualified health plan (QHP) that has overlapping provider networks, serves the same service area, and charges reasonable premiums. 
  • Rhode Island and New Mexico require or intend to require that their Medicaid MCOs participate in the Marketplace. As an awardee of Rhode Island’s recent Medicaid MCO procurement, UnitedHealthcare, must reenter the HealthSource Rhode Island market in 2027. These states also have designed their Medicaid MCO auto-assignment methodology to favor enrollment in a Medicaid MCO affiliated with an individual’s previous Marketplace plan or a family member’s Marketplace plan.  
  • In its last Medicaid MCO procurement (2018), North Carolina offered bonus points to any bidder that agrees to offer a Marketplace MCO. The resulting contract codified the market entry commitment and included implications for failure to follow through. Nonfulfillment could result in the highest level of contract noncompliance and associated penalties. 
  • Arkansas expanded its Medicaid program using federal matching funds to purchase QHP coverage through the Marketplace. Minnesota, one of the few states offering a basic health program, contracts with the same organizations to provide coverage under both programs.  
  • Iowa uses contract language to encourage, but not require, Medicaid MCOs to participate in the Marketplace to facilitate continuity of care during coverage transitions. 

The Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) collaborated with states to promote continuity of coverage following the end of the Medicaid continuous enrollment requirement established in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020, also known as the Medicaid public health emergency (PHE) unwinding. This support includes the clarification of permissible outreach activities by Medicaid MCOs that also offer a Marketplace plan, information sharing, and other assistance. Many states have incorporated the CMS guidanceiii into Medicaid MCO contracts. North Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia include additional contract terms supporting their Medicaid MCOs’ ability to co-market Medicaid and Marketplace plans, including when an individual is losing Medicaid eligibility.  

What to Watch For 

Coverage transition challenges throughout the Medicaid PHE unwinding have highlighted the real-life impact of coverage gaps and the importance of policies and practices that promote uninterrupted access to healthcare coverage. Historic Marketplace enrollment levels and recent CMS guidance clarifying the allowability of outreach to people who are losing Medicaid coverage about Marketplace plan available make the prospect of dual-market participation increasingly attractive for Medicaid MCOs. A greater focus on improving continuity of care and Marketplace plan choice may lead to more states encouraging or requiring Medicaid MCOs to participate in the Marketplace.  

Connect with Us  

The upcoming HMA event, Unlocking Solutions in Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplace, will offer more opportunities to engage with leaders from various sectors who are advancing innovations in Medicaid managed care and Marketplace programs and the points at which these programs intersect. State Medicaid and insurance commissioners, health plan executives, and community leaders, among others, will share insights into their market success and initiatives designed to address healthcare costs and insurance affordability.  

Experts from HMA and our family of companies have extensive experience in the policy, structure, and administration of healthcare markets and health plan contracting. For more information, contact our featured experts below.

Brief & Report

State Approaches to Managing the Medicaid Pharmacy Benefit

Download

Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid drug coverage to treat acute illnesses and manage chronic and disabling conditions. Though optional, all states provide pharmacy benefits under Medicaid but administer the benefit in different ways in accordance with federal guidelines. To better understand how states across the country administer the Medicaid pharmacy benefit, as well as states’ planned priorities and anticipated future challenges, HMA surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia in early 2024. A total of 46 states and the District of Columbia participated.

The report includes survey findings addressing a variety of topics including how states administer the pharmacy benefit and use of pharmacy benefit managers, state containment and utilization management strategies, payment and rebate approaches, value-based arrangements, planned policy changes, priorities and challenges in managing the pharmacy benefit in FY 2025 and beyond, and more. The HMA authors are Kathy Gifford, Aimee Lashbrook, and Constance Payne.

The report authors will also be discussing this paper and presenting their findings at a pre-conference workshop “Paying for Innovative Pharmaceuticals: State and Federal Trends Shaping Public Programs” at HMA’s Unlocking Solutions in Medicaid, Medicare, and Marketplace conference, October 7-9. Register today!

Webinar

Webinar Replay: Integrating Behavioral Health into Whole-Person Care

Watch Now

This webinar was held on August 21, 2024.

Whether you insource or outsource your behavioral health benefits, the integration of behavioral health and medical care continues to emerge as a critical strategy to improve health and reduce healthcare costs. This webinar is designed to help organizations begin to navigate this important shift in expectations and ultimately be a part of successful change in this area. By focusing on the value of a whole-person care approach to behavioral health, HMA experts described the different models for integrating behavioral health and provided a training framework to support the behavioral health aspects of whole-person care.

Learning Objectives:

  • Articulate the benefits of incorporating a strong Behavioral Health approach into Whole-Person Care Models
  • Learn the different models for integrating Behavioral Health care into Health Plan Functional Areas and Operations
  • Able to develop a training framework for all Health Plan staff to increase their competencies for addressing Behavioral Health conditions
Blog

The case for a state-based marketplace

Read Blog

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill made famous the phrase “all politics is local,” meaning electoral success is related directly to a politician’s understanding of and ability to address the local issues that matter most to constituents. The Commonwealth Fund applied this notion to health care in conclusions of a 2017 study of state year-over-year improvements in their rankings on the organization’s Scorecard on Local Health System Performance. This concluded that local knowledge of health care challenges and collaboration among local organizations to find solutions were major contributors to communities’ improvement on scorecard rankings.

One state-level decision that can boost responsiveness to local needs is whether to establish a state-based marketplace (SBM) for health insurance. Health insurance marketplaces are required in every state under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under the ACA, states were given a choice about whether to establish an SBM and receive some federal funding to do so or rely on the federally facilitated marketplace (FFM) to serve their residents. Marketplaces are designed to do two basic things: (1) enroll individuals and families who do not have access to Medicaid, Medicare, or employer-sponsored health insurance coverage in private coverage and (2) connect eligible individuals with financial assistance (premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions) to reduce their cost of coverage. To date, 19 states have established SBMs and others continue to entertain the possibility of establishing one.

Why would states want to establish and operate a new agency of government to administer coverage for people who are receiving federal tax credits for their health insurance coverage? Surely this could create redundant and/or uncoordinated functions between states and the federal government and place an unwanted burden on capacity-strapped state governments. However, states that have established SBMs have not found this to be the case. Instead, in evaluating the FFM versus SBM decision, and in operating SBMs, states have found that SBMs offer distinct advantages over the FFM. These include:

  • Lower Costs: States have historically demonstrated that they can operate SBMs at a lower overall cost than they would pay in fees through the FFM which has led, in part, to the recent reductions to the Healthcare.gov user fee. States also directly benefit through their ability to retain marketplace revenue and spend it locally. Lastly, SBMs can claim federal financial participation for functions they perform supporting and facilitating Medicaid enrollment.
  • Better Service: States have an almost 60-year history of enrolling low-income individuals and families enroll in and stay enrolled in Medicaid. Many of these individuals cycle in and out of Medicaid eligibility due to changes in income. States can coordinate between SBMs and Medicaid to reduce gaps in coverage. They also can simplify eligibility and enrollment through SBMs that deliver a better customer experience through knowledge of their markets and residents and on the ground enrollment assistance and initiatives.
  • More Policy Influence: SBMs can be launchpads for access and affordability innovations not possible with the FFM. State innovations to date include public option plans, state-funded subsidies such as premium and cost-sharing wraparound support, basic health plans, undocumented immigrant coverage programs, and collaborative enrollment initiatives with Medicaid agencies, unemployment programs, and tax departments.

In addition to states, managed care organizations (MCOs), particularly local and regional MCOs, can also reap the benefits of an SBM:

  • Local Governance: With governance for an SBM taking place at the state level (versus the federal level), MCOs have the opportunity for more thorough engagement with state officials around operational and policy decisions and issues.
  • Aligned Market Expectations: MCOs participating in both the marketplace and Medicaid will benefit from a higher probability of aligned expectations and priorities across both markets with those expectations and priorities being uniformly set at the state level with an SBM.
  • Local Market Sensitivity: MCOs that operate and are rooted locally can count on market-specific dynamics being better reflected in decision-making with an SBM.

Establishing a SBM is not an easy or straightforward decision, but state policymakers and MCOs should consider the benefits that have accrued to other states and the role that SBMs can serve in addressing local health priorities.

If you have questions about how HMA can support your state or MCO related to SBMs, please contact our featured experts.

Blog

Ohio releases next generation MyCare Ohio program RFA

Read Blog

This week’s In Focus section delves into the Next Generation MyCare Ohio managed care program, spotlighting the request for applications (RFA) that the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) released on May 31, 2024. The MyCare Ohio Program, which serves people who are dually eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare, is undergoing a substantial transformation. Transitioning from the financial alignment initiative (FAI) demonstration model used in 29 counties, it is evolving into a statewide, fully integrated dual eligible special needs plan (FIDE-SNP) model. This shift is more than procedural; it signifies a pivotal moment of transition to new federal D-SNP requirements.  

Background 

The MyCare Ohio Program launched in May 2014 as a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) FAI demonstration. MyCare Ohio integrates Medicare and Medicaid benefits for dually eligible members enrolled in competitively selected MyCare Ohio managed care plans, providing one care coordinator and streamlined communication and services. It serves 150,000 individuals in 29 counties.  

CMS is sunsetting all FAI demonstration programs on December 31, 2025, prompting ODM to convert to the FIDE-SNP model.  

Next Generation RFA 

The MyCare Ohio Program will convert to the Next Generation MyCare Ohio Program in January 2026. ODM is modeling portions of the program after the state’s Next Generation Medicaid managed care program. The Next Generation MyCare Ohio Program initially will be implemented in the 29 currently participating counties and then expand statewide, covering a total of 250,000 eligible individuals. Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) that serve the program will need to become CMS-approved FIDE-SNPs. MCOs awarded a Next Generation MyCare Ohio contract will need to notify CMS of their intent to establish a statewide FIDE-SNP in Ohio by fall 2024 to begin operations in January 2026. 

ODM anticipates selecting up to four Next Generation MyCare Ohio MCOs to serve enrollees statewide, though a decision on the number of plans will be finalized as awards are made and based on what is most advantageous to the state.   

MCOs will need to develop a member-focused strategy with care coordination as a priority. MCOs will also increase focus on behavioral health coordination. According to ODM, goals for the Next Generation program include: 

  • Focusing on the individual 
  • Improving individual and population wellness and health outcomes 
  • Creating a personalized care experience 
  • Supporting providers in continuously improving care 
  • Improving care for people with complex needs to promote independence in the community 
  • Increasing program transparency and accountability 

Next Generation MyCare will advance these goals through a population health approach, designed to address inequities and disparities in care.  

The program will enroll dually eligible individuals ages 21 and older. This is a change from the current program, which enrolls dual eligibles who are 18 years old and older. The eligible age increase is being made to align with the Medicaid early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment (EPSDT) benefit.  

The new program also will continue to offer all the same services available through Ohio’s home care, PASSPORT (long-term services and supports), and assisted living waivers. 

Evaluation 

Applications initially will be reviewed to confirm the applicant meets the mandatory requirements. Applicants who meet the mandatory requirements will proceed to review and evaluation of responses to application questions that fall into seven topic areas, with a total of 1,000 available points (see Table 1).  Of note, if an applicant is not currently serving as either a Next Generation MCO or a MyCare Ohio MCO, the applicant will receive zero points for qualifications and experience. Organizations that have yet to participate in at least one of these programs should consider the effect on their total score.  

Table 1 

Current Market 

Five MCOs—CVS/Aetna, CareSource, Centene/Buckeye, Molina, and United—participate in the current MCOP, with two or three of them participating in each of the seven regions. 

Timeline 

MCOs should submit a notice of intent to apply by June 21. Proposals are due August 2, and awards will be issued October 8. Implementation is scheduled for January 1, 2026.  

Link to RFP 

Connect With Us  

Ohio is one of several states transitioning from a FAI demonstration at the end of December 2025. Additionally, the 2025 Medicare Advantage Final Rule includes new policies affecting D-SNPs that could reshape the integrated care plan landscape in many states.  

Health Management Associates (HMA) will host a webinar on June 20, 2024 titled “D-SNP growth and integration: key implications of the 2025 CMS final rule” to review the current landscape and federal changes that will affect D-SNPs in 2025 and beyond. The session will feature an analysis of the new regulations and a discussion of the critical strategic and product impacts on Medicare organizations that offer D-SNPs or are considering offering D-SNPs. Attendees also will have the opportunity to engage with the panelists during a Q&A session. Watch the replay now.

Contact our experts below for details about the nationwide D-SNP rules and landscape.  

Solutions

Summary of the CMS managed care final rule and its impact on states, managed care organizations and providers

Read More

On May 10, 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Managed Care Access, Finance, and Quality Final Rule (CMS-2439-F). 

CMS created a fact sheet which concisely reviews the final rule’s key provisions, as well as an applicability dates chart, which serves as a reference guide to the various applicability dates for different provisions in the final rule. The final rule creates new flexibilities and requirements aimed at enhancing accountability for improving access and quality in Medicaid and CHIP by principally addressing these topic areas:

  • ILOSs are defined as substitute services or settings for a service or setting covered under the state plan and can be leveraged by Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) to address unmet health-related social needs (HRSNs).
  • They must be offered to all members and must be voluntary as well as documented in MCO contracts.
  • ILOSs cannot exceed 5% of total capitation.
  • If ILOS costs exceed 1.5% of total capitation, states must provide additional documentation to CMS to demonstrate medical appropriateness and cost-effectiveness.
  • When an ILOS is terminated, states must develop a transition plan to arrange for state plan services and settings to be provided in a timely manner.
  • States must make available online a “one-stop-shop” where members can learn about and compare MCOs based on quality and other variables.
  • Mandatory quality measures are established.
  • The methodology for calculating the quality ratings displayed on each state’s MAC QRS is also established.
  • Although guidelines exist, states can submit their own version of a MAC QRS to CMS for approval.
  • Provider incentive payments must be tied to clearly defined, objectively measurable, and well-documented clinical or quality improvement standards to be classified as incurred claims (in alignment with private market MLR regulations).
  • Prohibits the inclusion of indirect administrative costs that are not directly related to improving quality as QIAs as incurred claims in the numerator (in alignment with private market MLR regulations).
  • Imposes additional expense allocation methodology requirements (in alignment with private market MLR regulations).
  • Requires SDPs to be included as both incurred claims (for payments made by MCOs to providers) and premium revenue (for payments made by states to MCOs).
  • Sets maximum appointment wait time standards of no more than 15 business days for routine primary care (adult and pediatric) and obstetric/gynecological services and 10 business days for mental health and substance use disorder services (adult and pediatric).
  • Enforces these standards using secret shopper surveys and requires states to contract for the secret shopper surveys.
  • Requires states to post the appointment wait time standards as well secret shopper survey results.
  • A remedy plan must be implemented for any MCO that fails to meet these required standards for access.
  • States must also conduct an annual enrollee experience survey for each MCO.
  • Codifies ACR payment ceiling, which applies to hospitals, practitioner services at academic medical, and nursing facility services.
  • Requires “hold harmless” attestation.
  • Allows for SDPs at 100% of Medicare without prior written approval.
  • Removes network provider requirement to receive payment.
  • Prohibits use of interim payments based on prior period data even if ultimately reconciled.
  • Prohibits use of separate payment term where SDPs are paid separate from capitation rates.
  • Explicitly states that SDPs must result in “stated goals and objectives.”
  • Requires states to submit detailed, provider level SDP data to the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System.

Implications for States

The final rule creates opportunities for states to leverage new flexibilities to further policy goals but also creates new administrative burdens. MCOs and providers will look to states to comprehensively understand final rule’s requirements and be prepared to manage the steps necessary to achieve compliance over a multiyear implementation process.

Implications for MCOs

As states move to comply with the final rule, MCOs will be immediately downstream from the steps taken by states to do so and MCOs need to prepare accordingly. Proactive actions by MCOs to not only engage with states early but also to prepare financially and operationally for the different provisions of the final rule over time will put them in the best position possible.

Implications for Providers

The most significant implications for providers in the final rule are related to SDPs, where a new level of accountability will be required. All topics covered by the final rule, however, have provider implications.

Looking ahead

The provisions of the final rule range in their effective dates from as early as the final rule’s effective date, July 9, 2024, to as late as the first rating period on or after four years after July 9, 2024.

Because of these variable effective dates, states, MCOs, and providers will need to comply with the final rule immediately in some cases, while having significant lead time to do so in other areas. Sub regulatory guidance is also forthcoming and must be monitored for and digested.

HMA stands ready to support states, MCOs, and providers in analyzing and responding to the strategic, financial, and operational impacts of the final rule’s provisions in specific markets and organizational contexts.

If you have questions or want to connect with our expert team members, e-mail cmsmanagedcarefinalrule@healthmanagement.com.

Blog

Texas releases STAR Kids RFP

Read Blog

This week’s second In Focus reviews the Texas STAR Kids request for proposals (RFP), which the Texas Health and Human Services Commission released on May 10, 2024. The STAR Kids Medicaid managed care program provides coverage to children and youth ages 20 and younger with disabilities. Nine plans currently participate in the program, with contracts worth approximately $4 billion annually.  

STAR Kids Overview  

The STAR Kids program operates under the Texas Healthcare Transformation and Quality Improvement Program 1115 demonstration project. To be eligible, individuals must receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and SSI-related Medicaid, participate in the Medically Dependent Children Program (MDCP) Section 1915(c) waiver, live in a community-based intermediate care facility, or participate in an intellectual or developmental disability (I/DD) waiver program.  

Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) provide acute, behavioral, and long-term services and supports (LTSS) to children in the MDCP program and acute services only to children covered under the other home and community-based services/IDD waivers. 

RFP 

Texas plans to award contracts to at least two MCOs for each of the 13 service areas (SAs). Each MCO can be awarded up to six SAs.  

MCOs will need to describe reimbursement strategies that incentivize high-quality and cost-effective healthcare while controlling spending and reducing ineffective service utilization in their proposals.  

MCOs must demonstrate progress toward advancing alternative payment model (APM) initiatives within an APM performance framework. MCOs will need to provide a proposed APM and a means of tracking its effectiveness, including implementation of processes that support and incentivize providers to apply value-based care models and reward high performers. 

Evaluation 

Technical questions in the proposals are divided into five broad categories, representing a total of 1,800 points. Plans can score up to 2,000 points, including oral presentations (see table below).  

Timeline 

Proposals are due July 11, with awards expected to be made between December 2025 and February 2026. The contract start date is anticipated to begin between December 2026 and February 2027. Contracts will run for six years with three two-year renewal options. 

Current Market

Incumbents CVS/Aetna, Elevance/WellPoint, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Centene/Superior Health Plan, Community First Health Plan, Cook Children’s Health Plan, Driscoll Children’s Health Plan, Texas Children’s Health Plan, and UnitedHealthcare served 150,000 beneficiaries as of November 2023.

Connect With Us  

Texas has an active Medicaid procurement schedule, with key deadlines and additional developments expected in the coming months. HMA experts in Texas are monitoring these activities as the state works to reprocure all its Medicaid managed care contracts. These programs include the State of Texas Access Reform (STAR) and CHIP for traditional Medicaid members, STAR+PLUS for members who are aged and disabled, and STAR Kids for individuals younger than 20 years old with disabilities. 

Through HMA’s Information Services, subscribers gain access to detailed information about the Texas and other state RFP landscapes and procurement documents, as well as historical data about plan contracts, enrollment, and financials.  

For more information about HMA’s work in Texas and our HMAIS resources, contact our featured experts.

Blog

Five takeaways from the CMS Medicaid managed care final rule

Read Blog

This week, our In Focus section reviews significant Medicaid policy announcements from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). For example, both the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Managed Care Access, Finance, and Quality Final Rule (CMS-2439-F) (CMS fact sheet available here) and the separate Ensuring Access to Medicaid Services Final Rule (CMS-2442-F) (CMS fact sheet available here) were released April 22, 2024. 

Taken together, these two final rules create new flexibilities and requirements aimed at enhancing accountability for improving access and quality in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) across the fee-for-service and managed care delivery systems and provide targeted regulatory flexibility in support of this goal.  

HMA’s April 11, 2024, “What to Watch For” article outlined several proposed changes that CMS was poised to advance in the Medicaid managed care program. We focus today on the approved changes, including:  

  • In lieu of services and settings (ILOSs)  
  • The Medicaid and CHIP quality rating system (MAC QRS)  
  • Medical loss ratios (MLRs)  
  • Network adequacy 
  • State directed payments (SDPs) 

Following are HMA’s insights on the key takeaways in each of these major areas for states, managed care organizations (MCOs), providers, and other stakeholders. In addition, HMA experts will discuss the final rule during a LinkedIn Live on event at 2:00 pm (EDT) April 25, 2024. Go to the HMA LinkedIn feed to watch. 

In future weeks, HMA will review the Ensuring Access to Care final rule. 

ILOSs 

The final rule makes clear that CMS remains committed to the conviction that ILOSs can play an important role in supporting state and MCO efforts to address many of the unmet physical, behavioral, developmental, long-term care, and other enrollee needs. At the same time, CMS continues to put forward requirements in this area to ensure adequate assessment of these substitute services and settings in advance of approval, ongoing monitoring for sufficient beneficiary protections, and financial accountability for related expenditures. 

The final rule presents an opportunity to leverage ILOSs to improve population health, reduce health inequities, and lower total healthcare costs in Medicaid and CHIP, including by addressing unmet health-related social needs as well as through other avenues. To take full advantage of this opportunity, states and MCOs must ensure that that they are prepared to meet the accountability measures outlined in the final rule and partner with existing providers and community-based organizations that already provide such services and settings. 

Medicaid and CHIP Quality Rating System  

CMS finalized most proposed provisions related to mandatory quality measures, the process used to update these measures, the ability of states to include additional measures, and the ability of states to apply an alternative QRS if desired. On this last point, CMS is making several modifications to its MAC QRS proposal to clarify the scope of and to reduce the implementation resources needed for an alternative MAC QRS if a state elects to implement one. 

States will be required to collect from MCOs the data necessary to calculate ratings for each measure and ensure that all data collected are validated. This will require MCOs to assess their capability to produce the mandated data upon request by states and, to the extent possible, to assess baseline performance on measures and proactively operationalize strategies to improve performance where necessary. 

Medical Loss Ratios 

The final rule aligns Medicaid and CHIP MLR QIA reporting requirements with the private market to ensure that only those expenses that are directly related to healthcare QIAs are included in the MLR numerator. CMS notes that this provision will allow for better MLR data comparisons between the private market and Medicaid and CHIP markets as well as reduce administrative burden for MCOs participating across these markets.  

MCOs will need to model the impact of QIA expenditures that are no longer available for inclusion in the MLR numerator to ensure that a resulting failure to meet any minimum MLR requirements can be avoided, and, if it is projected to occur, a strategy can be developed and executed to avert the problem. CMS made this requirement effective as of the effective date of the final rule with no delay because it believes it is critical to the fiscal integrity of Medicaid and CHIP, adding urgency to MCO compliance action here. 

Network Adequacy 

The final rule makes clear that CMS has been persuaded that it needs to increase oversight of network adequacy and overall access to care through a new quantitative network adequacy standard. To measure network adequacy, the agency intends to implement wait time standards, complemented by secret shopper surveys to support enforcement. 

Wait time standards and secret shopper surveys present opportunities for states, MCOs, and providers to collaborate to enhance access where needed and ensure compliance with the final rule. Undertaking secret shopper surveys ahead of implementation of the wait time standards (effective the first rating period beginning on or after three years after the effective date of the final rule) to determine the current performance relative to maximum wait times is a proactive step that is worth consideration by states and MCOs and can also be employed to foster dialogue with providers to address any areas of concern identified. 

State Directed Payments 

CMS is adopting its proposal in the final rule to use the average commercial rate as a limit for SDPs for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, nursing facility services, and professional services at academic medical centers. CMS believes that this approach represents a reasonable limit that is supportive of appropriate fiscal guardrails, while still affording states the flexibility to achieve SDP policy goals. States and providers will need to account for this requirement, along with others, as SDPs are developed going forward.  

Connect with Us 

HMA is ready to support your efforts to understand and take action to account for the managed care final rule’s effects on your state or organization’s strategy and operations. Please reach out to cmsmanagedcarefinalrule@healthmanagement.com to connect with our expert team members on this vital set of issues. 

Blog

Medicaid managed care enrollment update—Q4 2023

Read Blog

This week, our In Focus section reviews recent Medicaid enrollment trends in capitated, risk-based managed care in 30 states.1 Many state Medicaid agencies post monthly enrollment figures by health plan for their Medicaid managed care population on their websites. These data allow for timely analysis of enrollment trends across states and managed care organizations. All 30 states highlighted in this review have released monthly Medicaid managed care enrollment data into quarter four (Q4) of 2023. The analysis that follows reflects the most recent data posted. HMA continues tracking enrollment as states work towards concluding their Public Health Emergency (PHE) unwinding-related redeterminations and resuming normal eligibility operations. 

Health Management Associates, Inc., (HMA) has reviewed the Q4 enrollment data (see Table 1) and offers the following observations:  

  • Across the 30 states tracked in this report, Medicaid managed care enrollment declined by 7.3 percent year-over-year as of December 2023. 
  • Of the 30 states, 26 experienced decreased enrollment in December 2023, compared with the previous year, as the result of Medicaid redeterminations. 
  • A total of 23 of the states—Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia—saw net Medicaid managed care enrollment decrease by 469,000 (0.9%) to 51.5 million members at the end of Q4 2023. (Note: North Carolina expanded Medicaid in December 2023 and was added to the expansion group, in part inflating the change). 
  • The seven states that had yet to expand Medicaid as of December 2022—Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin—have seen Medicaid managed care enrollment decrease 25.2 percent to 13.9 million members at the end of Q4 2023.  

Table 1. Monthly MCO Enrollment by State, October 2023−December 2023 

Note: In Table 1, “+/- m/m” refers to the enrollment change from the previous month. “% y/y” refers to the percentage change in enrollment from the same month in the previous year.

It is important to note the limitations of the data presented. First, not all states report the data at the same time during the month. Some of these figures reflect beginning of the month totals, whereas others provide an end of the month snapshot. Second, in some cases the data are comprehensive in that they cover all state-sponsored health programs offering managed care; in other cases, the data reflect only a subset of the broader managed Medicaid population, making it the key limitation to comparing the data described below and figures that publicly traded Medicaid MCOs report. Consequently, the data in Table 1 should be viewed as a sampling of enrollment trends across these states rather than a comprehensive comparison, which cannot be developed based on publicly available monthly enrollment information. 

Expand Your Awareness about Medicaid and Medicare Advantage via HMAIS 

If you are interested in gaining access to detailed information on the Medicaid managed care landscape, an HMAIS subscription is the key to unlock important data. The HMA Information Services (HMAIS) collects Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plan (SNP) enrollment data, health plan financials, as well as developments on expansions, waivers, and demonstrations. Your HMAIS login also provides access to a library of public documents all in one place, including Medicaid RFPs, responses, model contracts, scoring sheets and other procurement related materials. HMAIS combines this publicly available information along with HMA expert insights on the structure of Medicaid in each state, as well as a proprietary HMA Medicaid Managed Care Opportunity Assessment. 

For information on how to subscribe to HMA Information Services, contact our featured experts.

Blog

Medicaid managed care final rule: what to watch for

Read Blog

Our second In Focus section provides a refresher on the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program managed care access, finance, and quality proposed rule that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published in May 2023. As Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), has noted, the final rule is expected to be published later this month. If finalized as proposed, several provisions in the rule will signal the start of a new era of accountability and transparency for the Medicaid program. 

The policy changes are expected to fall into the following major categories: in lieu of services (ILOS), the Medicaid and CHIP Quality Rating System (MAC QRS), medical loss ratios (MLRs), network adequacy, and state directed payments (SDPs). These revised policies will affect Medicaid coverage and reimbursement for years to come. Following is a summary of the proposed policy changes to watch for in the final rule.  

ILOS 

CMS has proposed to expand upon and codify the sub-regulatory guidance around ILOS outlined in State Medicaid Director Letter #23-001. The letter advised state that they have the option to use the ILOS authority in Medicaid managed care programs to reduce health disparities and address unmet health-related social needs, such as housing instability and nutrition insecurity. The final rule would expand upon and codify that guidance. 

For example, although the ILOS proposal adds reporting requirements and guardrails to address fiscal accountability, the proposed rule also noted that the substitution of an ILOS for a state plan service or setting should be cost-effective but does not need to meet budget neutrality requirements. States are also permitted to specify that an ILOS can be an immediate or longer-term substitute for a state plan service or setting. 

MAC QRS 

CMS has proposed a MAC QRS framework that includes: (1) mandatory quality measures, (2) a quality rating methodology, and (3) a mandatory website display format. State Medicaid agencies and managed care organizations (MCOs) will be required to adopt and implement the MAC QRS framework that CMS develops or adopt and implement an alternative but equivalent managed care quality rating system. CMS will update the mandatory measure set at least every two years. Any planned modifications to measures will be announced publicly through a call letter or similar guidance, with measures based on: (1) value in choosing an MCO; (2) alignment with other CMS programs; (3) the relationship to enrollee experience, access, health outcomes, quality of care, MCO administration, or health equity; (4) MCO performance; (5) data availability; and (6) scientific acceptability. 

State Medicaid agencies will be required to collect from MCOs the data necessary to calculate ratings for each measure and ensure that all data collected are validated. In addition, state Medicaid agencies will be expected to calculate and issue ratings to each MCO for each measure. 

Lastly, state websites will be required to contain the following elements: (1) clear information that is understandable and usable for navigating the website itself; (2) interactive features that allow users to tailor specific information, such as formulary, provider directory, and ratings based on their entered data; (3) standardized information so that users can compare MCOs; (4) information that promotes beneficiary understanding of and trust in the displayed ratings, such as data collection timeframes and validation confirmation; and (5) access to Medicaid and CHIP enrollment and eligibility information, either directly on the website or through external resources. 

MLRs 

CMS has proposed three areas for revision to its existing MLR standards, which require MCOs to submit annual MLR reports to states, which, in turn, must provide CMS with an annual summary of those reports. Areas for revision include: (1) requirements for clinical or quality improvement standards for provider incentive arrangements, (2) prohibited administrative costs in quality improvement activity (QIA) reporting, and (3) additional requirements for expense allocation methodology reporting. 

With regard to provider incentive arrangements, CMS proposes to require that contracts between MCOs and providers: (1) have a defined performance period that can be tied to the applicable MLR reporting period(s), (2) include well-defined quality improvement or performance metrics that the provider must meet to receive the incentive payment, and (3) specify a dollar amount that can be clearly linked to successful completion of these metrics as well as a date of payment. MCOs would be required to maintain documentation that supports these arrangements beyond attestations. 

In terms of QIA reporting, CMS proposes to explicitly prohibit MCOs from including indirect or overhead expenses when reporting QIA costs in the MLR. CMS also intends to add requirements regarding how MCOs can allocate expenses for the purpose of calculating the MLR by requiring MCOs to offer a detailed description of their methodology. 

Network Adequacy 

CMS has proposed a range of new network adequacy requirements intended to improve timely access to care for managed care enrollees. Those related to appointment wait time standards and secret shopper surveys are among the most prominent. 

For appointment wait time standards, CMS proposes that state Medicaid agencies develop and enforce wait times associated with routine appointments for four types of services: (1) outpatient mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) for adults and children, (2) primary care for adults and children, (3) obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), and (4) an additional service type determined by each state Medicaid agency using an evidence-based approach. The maximum wait times must be no longer than 10 business days for routine outpatient mental health and SUD appointments and no more than 15 business days for routine primary care and OB/GYN appointments. State Medicaid agencies could impose stricter wait time standards but not more lax ones. The wait time standard for the fourth service type will be determined at the state level. 

State Medicaid agencies also will be required to engage an independent entity to conduct annual secret shopper surveys to validate MCO compliance with appointment wait time standards and the accuracy of provider directories to identify errors, as well as providers that do not offer appointments. For an MCO to be compliant with the wait time standards, as assessed through the secret shopper surveys, it would need to demonstrate a rate of appointment availability that meets the wait time standards at least 90 percent of the time.  

SDPs 

CMS has proposed several important changes to the requirements governing the use of SDPs, strengthening both the accountability required of and flexibility afforded to states. For example, CMS proposes to require that provider payment levels for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, nursing facility services, and the professional services at an academic medical center not exceed the average commercial rate. Furthermore, states would be required to condition SDPs upon the delivery of services within a contract rating period and prohibited from using post-payment reconciliation processes. 

With regard to flexibility, CMS proposes to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to support the use of SDPs by states to implement value-based payment arrangements and include non-network providers in SDPs. The proposal also permits states to implement, without prior approval, minimum fee schedules in Medicaid consistent with Medicare provider rates. 

What’s Next  

CMS is expected to publish the final rule in April. In addition, CMS plans to publish a separate final rule addressing new regulations pertaining to access to care, which will have equally significant impacts on states, MCOs, and providers. If you have questions about how HMA can support your efforts related to the managed care final rule’s implications and the context of other federal regulations for states, MCOs, or providers, contact our featured experts.

Ready to talk?