This week’s In Focus is the second in a two-part look at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) recently proposed changes to the Medicaid program. Last week we covered CMS’s proposed changes to the federal Medicaid managed care regulations (CMS-2439-P). This week we review the Medicaid Access to Care proposed rule (CMS-2442-P).

As we discussed last week, the managed care and access to care rules include significant changes to core structural and financing aspects of the Medicaid program. Though state agencies, providers, health plans, consumer groups, and other stakeholders will want to understand the distinct requirements and expectations in each rule that apply to them, the proposed changes cannot be viewed in isolation.

The Access to Care rule addresses a range of challenges that shape the experience of Medicaid enrollees, regardless of whether they are in managed care programs or traditional fee-for-service (FFS). The proposed policy changes also are designed to create an updated federal framework for Medicaid’s home and community-based services (HCBS) programs. These proposals come at a pivotal time, as states are facing workforce shortages, particularly among HCBS direct care workers (DCWs).

The remainder of this In Focus delves into notable components of the proposed changes and includes analysis of the implications of these policies for stakeholders. CMS will benefit from stakeholder input; the deadline for submitting comments is July 3, 2023.

Table 1. Access to Care Regulations: Overview of Proposed Changes

Key Themes and Considerations

Ensuring Payment Adequacy for Key HCBS Services Experiencing Workforce Shortages. One of the most notable proposed changes that would directly impact DCWs is a requirement that at least 80 percent of Medicaid payments be spent on compensation. The proposed rule would apply to homemaker, home health aide, and personal care services, as they represent a large portion of HCBS services that DCWs provide. The proposal is based on feedback from states that have implemented similar provisions, which have ranged from 75 to 90 percent compensation requirements.

CMS specifically seeks stakeholder feedback on the percentage that should be adopted. This policy provision also is important from an equity perspective, given that 90 percent of DCWs are women and 60 percent are members of racial or ethnic minority populations. However, increased or mandated DCW rates may make it difficult for HCBS providers to sustain their businesses as they manage the increased administrative pressures of electronic visit verification, the complexity of filing claims for managed long-term services and supports (MLTSS), and the additional work that HCBS quality measurement may create. Smaller HCBS providers, some of which may have deep cultural expertise, may struggle to sustain themselves and meet these requirements.

Table 2. Access to Care Regulations: Snapshot of Proposed Rate, Access, and Payment Changes

Payment Alignment. CMS is seeking to align access to care strategies and payment rate transparency more closely across the FFS and managed care delivery systems. The proposed rule includes several changes that CMS has developed achieve this goal. For example:

• CMS plans to require that states publish more detailed rate information in a consistent format. States, health plans, providers, and other interested stakeholders will want to consider the implications by delivery system. Additional transparency requirements could create a new opportunity to understand rates across payers and states and use this information in addressing access challenges for services.
• The proposed rule also would require extensive comparative analysis of Medicaid FFS rates and Medicare rates. CMS proposes to use Medicare non-facility payment rates as a benchmark to determine if states are meeting federal Medicaid access State analyses will be vital to CMS oversight as well as advocacy efforts within states to monitor and update FFS rates as needed.

Strengthening the Focus on Quality in State HCBS Programs. Over the last several decades, states and Medicaid stakeholders have made significant progress toward increasing participation in HCBS programs and community integration initiatives to counter Medicaid’s institutional bias. CMS is proposing more consistency in the expectations and reporting for HCBS quality measures to further the impact and create a consistent foundation for the recently mandated HCBS quality initiatives starting to take root.

In the short-term, the proposed changes will require states, and likely downstream providers and Medicaid agencies, to immediately change their quality reporting policies and systems. States and their stakeholders will want to map out processes for cyclical updates to HCBS quality measures, including cross-walking the future measures with existing ones, making systems changes, and updating dashboards. Targeted attention and focus will be needed to identify realistic HCBS performance targets that yield successful improvement strategies in the midst of a workforce crisis. Longer term, it will be necessary to map out when updates and reporting will be required to strengthen the rigor and accountability for state performance in the HCBS quality measure set, as well as reinforce the information available to make policy, clinical, and operational improvements to Medicaid programs.

HCBS Access Measurement. CMS is proposing new FFS HCBS payment and access transparency requirements to ensure compliance with Medicaid provider payment rules that require payments to be adequate to enlist at least the same number of providers that the overall geographic population can access. Because the targeted HCBS services do not have a comparable Medicare rate, CMS proposes implementation of a payment rate disclosure approach that would standardize data and monitoring across service delivery systems, with the goal of improving access. In addition to proposed payment transparency changes, CMS proposed new reporting on HCBS waiver waiting lists and timelines for the start of related services once authorized.

These new reporting requirements will provide stakeholders with more information to benchmark their state’s experience with other providers across the nation. This information could be influential to policymakers and legislators and help uncover some of the core contributors to our nation’s HCBS workforce shortage.

Improving Health Equity with Medicaid Beneficiary Input. CMS proposes overhauling the scope and membership of the state Medical Care Advisory Committee. The new Medicaid Advisory Committee (MAC) would continue to advise the state on health and medical matters and play an expanded advisory role on matters of policy development and effective administration of the program. CMS also plans to require that states establish a Beneficiary Advisory Group (BAG) composed of current or past Medicaid beneficiaries. A subset of BAG members would serve on the MAC to ensure their perspectives are integrated into the committee’s recommendations to states.

Under the new federal requirements, MAC representatives could have greater relative input and influence on policies and actions each state Medicaid agency advances. Medicaid stakeholders will want to ensure the MAC’s minimum federal requirements support effective structures and processes in states.

What’s Next

CMS plans to reframe Medicaid access as one of three parts of the continuum of care, along with enrollment and maintenance of coverage. The proposals in the Access to Care rule would have a meaningful impact on the volume and type of data available to evaluate the relationship between Medicaid payment rates and access across all delivery systems.

States, managed care organizations, providers, Medicaid enrollee advocacy organizations, and other interested stakeholders should analyze the proposals and consider submitting comments to CMS on the feasibility, potential impact, and, where applicable, alternatives to the proposed changes. They also can use this time to begin planning and determine which resources and tools they may need to prepare for implementation of changes across delivery systems in the Medicaid program.

HMA’s experts are taking a wholistic approach to reviewing the Access to Care and Managed Care proposed rules in tandem and identifying key points of intersection.

For more information on the access to care proposed rule, contact HMA’s team of experts, Susan McGeehan and Andrea Maresca.

This week, our In Focus section reviews CMS’s proposed changes to the federal Medicaid managed care access, finance, and quality regulation (CMS-2439-P). A future In Focus will take a closer look at the proposed changes to the federal Medicaid access to care regulation (CMS-2442-P), which also has significant implications for state Medicaid programs.

On April 28, 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unveiled two significant and related proposed rules addressing Medicaid managed care access, finance, and quality requirements. Together these proposed rules signal a new era of accountability and transparency in the Medicaid program. They also strengthen beneficiaries’ role in influencing the policies and administration of state Medicaid programs.

Table 1 identifies a few of the key themes and issues addressed in the Medicaid managed care proposed rule. The deadline for submitting comments to CMS is July 3, 2023.

Table 1. Medicaid Managed Care Proposed Rule: Snapshot of Proposed Changes

Key Themes and Considerations

Payment Ceilings May Accelerate Value-Based Payment Arrangements. Current federal regulations allow states to direct managed care organizations (MCOs) to pay providers according to specific rates or methods. States have used these directed payment arrangements to set minimum payment rates for certain types of providers or to require participation in value-based payment (VBP) initiatives.

In the proposed rule, CMS calls for establishing an upper limit for these payments. Specifically, the agency plans to limit the projected total payment rates to the average commercial rate (ACR) for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, nursing facility services, and qualified practitioner services at academic medical centers that states include in state-directed payment (SDP) arrangements. The ACR limit, in concert with the proposed SDP documentation and reporting, is among the most significant and complex proposed changes in the rule.

Considerations: The proposed changes represent a strong federal regulatory push to accelerate movement to VBP in Medicaid, which provides states with new levers to drive value in their Medicaid delivery systems. It also means that MCOs, providers, and other stakeholders will need to navigate and help inform the policies and contractual arrangements that will flow from the pending changes. For example, states may need to reflect on the following considerations:

• Whether the proposals will require them to reduce reimbursement
• Whether they will need to develop new value-based arrangements through SDPs and how these policies will be structured
• What outcomes they might need to prioritize
• How transparency in reporting provider-level payments could affect non-federal funding and SDP initiatives

Updated Approach to in Lieu of Services (ILOS) Facilitates Whole-Person Care. In January 2023, CMS issued a State Medicaid Director Letter (SMDL#23-001) advising states of the option to use the ILOS authority in Medicaid managed care programs to reduce healthcare inequities and address unmet health-related social needs (HRSNs), such as housing, food insecurity, and intimate partner violence. The proposed Medicaid managed care rule would expand upon and codify in regulation that guidance.

Considerations: Although the ILOS proposal adds reporting requirements and guardrails to address fiscal accountability, overall, the updated policy signals CMS’s willingness to support innovative state approaches to meet a continuum of beneficiary needs, including HRSNs that affect the social drivers of health. Notably, CMS advises that the substitution of an ILOS for a state plan service or setting should be cost-effective but does not need to be budget-neutral. States also can specify that an ILOS can be an immediate or longer-term substitute for a state plan service or setting.

States could pursue a variety of options under CMS’s revised ILOS framework. State Medicaid agencies and their partners can collaborate on ILOS strategies that will allow them to make further progress toward reducing healthcare inequities, as well as fulfill their quality strategy goals and objectives.

New Standards for Medical Loss Ratio Strengthen Link to Performance Improvement. Existing federal regulations require Medicaid managed care plans to report their medical loss ratio (MLR) to states annually, and, in turn, states must submit a summary of those reports to CMS. Many state MCO contracts require plans to comply with provider incentive and bonus policies; however, MCOs infrequently make incentive payments contingent on the provider meeting quantitative clinical or quality improvement standards.

Consistent with the healthcare sector’s transition toward value-based care, CMS proposes to strengthen the link between an MCOs incentive payment to a provider and the provider meeting defined quality improvement or performance metrics. Additionally, contractual language between MCOs and providers will need to more explicitly identify the dollar amounts tied to successful completion of these metrics. Only incentive payments based on quality improvement will be considered incurred claims when plans calculate their MLR; administrative costs cannot be included in quality improvement activity reporting.

Considerations. The proposed requirements are expected to add more transparency to negotiations between Medicaid MCOs and providers. MCOs will retain flexibility to determine the quality improvement or quantitative performance metrics, which carry more weight and accountability in CMS’s revised regulatory framework.

Network Adequacy Requirements Strengthen Link to Access and Rates. CMS also proposes policies that the agency believes will help strengthen Medicaid enrollees’ access to services. For example, the rule would require states to develop wait-time standards for adult and pediatric primary care and outpatient mental health, substance use disorder (SUD), and OB/GYN services, with CMS establishing federal minimum appointment wait times. States also will need to develop a quantitative network adequacy standard, beyond wait times, for certain providers.

Notably, CMS also plans to require states to submit an MCO-level analysis of MCO-to-provider payments. This analysis may provide more insights about the relationship between rates and access to certain types of providers and services. It may also improve alignment in access policies across delivery systems.

Considerations: States and MCOs should expect to need more sophisticated analysis of provider capacity at state and local market levels. This information will be critical in developing network adequacy standards and determining where additional provider support may be necessary. Expanded and new strategies may be needed to ensure compliance with the federal rules and resulting changes to state policies.

What’s Next

Many of CMS’s proposals track closely with many recent recommendations from federal commissions and oversight entities, including the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) and Government Accountability Office (GAO), which may indicate a greater likelihood that CMS will finalize those policies. If they are finalized largely as proposed, the rule will further the Biden Administration’s directional imprint on the Medicaid program.

Within the proposed rules described above, CMS identifies numerous areas where stakeholder input would be beneficial. States, MCOs, providers, and other interested stakeholders should analyze the proposals and consider submitting comments to CMS on the feasibility, potential impact, and, where applicable, alternatives to the proposed changes. Stakeholders also may use this time to begin planning for 2024 and determining what resources and tools they may need to prepare for implementation of the final regulations, as well as how their approach may vary based on state-specific factors.

For questions about the rule and how HMA’s team of experts can support your organization’s response, please contact Andrea Maresca, Joe Moser, and Patrick Tigue.