This website or its third-party tools use cookies to enhance your user experience, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you would like to opt out of any potential sale of your personal information, you may do so by using this link:
Opt-out Preferences
We use third-party cookies that help us analyze how you use this website, store your preferences, and provide the content and advertisements that are relevant to you. However, you can opt out of these cookies by checking "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" and clicking the "Save My Preferences" button. Once you opt out, you can opt in again at any time by unchecking "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" and clicking the "Save My Preferences" button.
Whether you’re navigating Medicare Advantage policy changes, seeking actuarial insights, analyzing risk-based payment structures, or working to improve integration for Dual Eligibles and align D-SNPs, our team is here to provide actionable insights and answers. We had HMA professionals from across the country share their perspectives and help navigate the complexities of Medicare during this town hall style webinar.
Health Management Associates (HMA) conducted a multi-state study to examine the policy decisions influencing the operation and expansion of Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). It explored different program structures, associated advantages and challenges, and strategies to enhance efficiency while meeting regulatory requirements.
This webinar will summarize our research on 10 active PACE states (CA, FL, IL, KY, LA, MA, NJ, NY, OH, and WA) that have either implemented or expanded their PACE programs between 2020 and 2024. Using state survey responses and credible third-party, publicly available data, we will showcase the outcomes of PACE program development through open and competitive RFP processes. We will also outline development timelines to demonstrate the effectiveness of each approach and highlight key insights gained during the discovery and research phase of the study.
Learning Objectives:
Comparing the Open versus Competitive RFP approach
Understanding state-level practices, challenges, and opportunities for improvement
Review state profiles highlighting: Program development outcomes; Building PACE program capacity; Program development timelines; Fostering PACE growth
Digital quality measures (dQM) are quickly emerging as a cornerstone of healthcare operations, propelled by federal efforts to enhance efficiency, interoperability, transparency, and real-time data sharing. New bipartisan proposals like the Healthcare Efficiency Through Flexibility Act (H.R. 483) highlight just how quickly the legislative landscape can change.
Healthcare organizations face mounting pressure to do more with less. As legislation continues to evolve at both federal and state levels, digital innovation remains a critical, key strategy for driving efficiency and reducing administrative burden.
National mandates, emerging legislative proposals, and regulations continue to set the “rules of the road” for healthcare, including digital quality transformation. New bills can significantly reshape reporting requirements, data standards, and reimbursement models, often on accelerated timelines. Organizations that proactively adapt to these shifting mandates will be better positioned to improve patient outcomes, streamline operations, and remain leaders in this evolving market.
Foundational Legislation
21st Century Cures Act (2016): Enacted by the U.S. Congress, this laid the groundwork for modernizing the healthcare data ecosystem using application programming interfaces (APIs). Healthcare related provisions focused on interoperability & usability of electronic health data by preventing information blocking (unreasonable interference with access/ exchange of electronic health information); required certified electronic health records (EHRs) to utilize Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)-based APIs to promote patient access to their health data.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Interoperability & Patient Access Final Rule(CMS-9115-F) (2020): Required CMS-regulated payers (Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Qualified Health Plan (QHP), and Federally-facilitated Exchanges (FFEs) beginning on or after January 1, 2022, to offer FHIR-based APIs for Patient Access and Provider Directories.
Mandated Payer to Payer Data Exchange for patients to take their data with them if they change payers.
Promoted data exchange by requiring hospital participation in sending patient event notifications through an ADT (Admissions, Discharge and Transfer) feed.
Publicly reporting providers who do not list their digital contact information in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES).
Further curtailed information blocking by publicly reporting eligible clinicians and hospitals who may be blocking information.
Subsequent federal communication in December 2021 formalized CMS’s decision not to enforce certain provisions of this rule to give payers additional time to comply.
Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability (HTI-1): Certification Program Updates, Algorithm Transparency, and Information Sharing-Final Rule (2024): This rule, which was issued by the Office of the National Coordinator (ASTP/ONC)[1] introduces significant changes to software supporting care. It implements the Cures Act’s EHR Reporting Program, requiring transparent reporting on certified health IT metrics. It also updated information blocking regulations to make data easier to share. In addition, it established a new standard data model for all “certified” Health IT products: the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) version 3, starting January 1, 2026. In addition, the voluntary certification program (which has been adopted by 96% of all EHRs) has updated its standards, criteria, and requirements, including standardized FHIR APIs, electronic case reporting using Health Level Seven International Clinical Document Architecture (HL7 CDA) and FHIR-based specifications, revised decision support intervention criteria, and new functionality for patient Electronic Health Information (EHI) restriction requests.
CMS Interoperability & Prior Authorization Final Rule (CMS-0057-F) (2024): Builds on previous CMS efforts and the 2020 CMS Interoperability & Patient Access Final Rule to improve access to and exchange of health records among patients, providers, and payers. It also focuses on simplifying and modernizing prior authorization processes while expanding data-sharing requirements to reduce administrative burdens. Impacted payers must begin implementing certain measures by January 1, 2026, while most API-related requirements are extended until January 1, 2027, based on stakeholder feedback provided to CMS.
Beyond federal legislation, other influential entities like CMS, National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), and ASTP/ONC, are adopting new frameworks that accelerate the shift to digital quality measurement.
Rapidly Evolving National Healthcare Frameworks & Healthcare Quality Landscape Changes
CMS National Quality Strategy/Meaningful Measures 2.0 and CMS Digital Quality Measurement Strategic Roadmap (Published in 2022)
These frameworks map out a future in which interoperability and digital measures play a pivotal role in improving care quality and outcomes.
NCQA’s Shift to Digital Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS)® Measures: NCQA has taken a significant step in its quality measurement strategy for health plans. Specifically, HEDIS measures are moving to fully digital by 2030, signaling an industry-wide move toward automated data capture and reporting (published in 2024). In addition, they have also launched their Digital Content Services (DCS) product which allows organizations to submit their quality measures digitally for the 2024 measure year.
Digital Quality Implementers Community: In 2024, a collaborative consensus-based effort was initiated to develop, advance, and standardize tools and platforms that make digital quality measurement possible using open standards instead of proprietary tools. This group is actively working to advance a quality enablement layer including tools, guidance, and standards changes. Leavitt Partners, an HMA company, facilitates this community.
Signals from the Trump Administration Related to Digital Quality
There is ongoing speculation about how the Trump Administration and Congress will approach digital healthcare transformation—particularly in areas like digital quality measurement. Yet multiple indicators suggest they will stay on this course, and perhaps even accelerate the adoption of digital quality measures.
One key signal is that Ryan Howells, a Principal with Leavitt Partners, an HMA Company, is reportedly one of two finalists under consideration for the position of Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy (ASTP). Known as a champion for digital healthcare data, Howells leads the CARIN Alliance, a national group focused on improving health data access. The ASTP/ONC has significant influence in shaping federal regulations for electronic health records and broader data, technology, and artificial intelligence strategies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Additionally, recent bipartisan legislation introduced in January 2025 further underscores a commitment to pursuing digital quality transformation as a linchpin for success in a “digital-first” environment, one that prioritizes efficiency and enhanced patient outcomes.
H.R. 483: Healthcare Efficiency Through Flexibility Act
Proposes delaying electronic clinical quality measures (eCQM) adoption until 2030, citing the need to reduce provider burden and pilot more advanced, interoperable reporting tools, including digital quality measurement.
Meanwhile, the national shift toward dQM continues to gain momentum. With eCQM mandates set to begin in reporting year 2025 for Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations (MSSP ACOs), many organizations view these requirements as redundant and burdensome, given the industry’s rapid move toward fully digital quality. Unlike eCQMs, dQMs leverage more robust structure and standardization, especially through FHIR-based APIs, to enable broader, more timely, and more efficient data capture. The result is a faster path toward high-impact quality measurement and improvement in our increasingly digital healthcare environment.
Major Implications for Healthcare Organizations
Compliance Deadlines: Evolving Administration rules can quickly shift timelines, significantly impacting prior authorizations, data exchange, and quality measurement.
Financial & Legal Risks: Non-compliance may lead to financial penalties, legal actions, or even program exclusion.
[1] ONC was renamed to the “Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator (ASTP/ONC) in 2024, but in the current administration, may be folded back into CMS.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is on the cusp of possessing the data needed to make long anticipated changes to the Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) ground ambulance payment system. It has been more than two decades since CMS revised these payment rates through a negotiated rulemaking process that was exclusive of actual cost data or inflationary considerations. Since then, the cost structure of ground ambulance entities has changed. CMS is now using the Ground Ambulance Data Collection System (GADCS) to gather ambulance cost data, as required by Congress, to offer an improved understanding of the costs of delivering ground ambulance services. Given the potential of GADCS data to improve the adequacy of Medicare FFS reimbursement rates, the American Ambulance Association developed a similar data collection device, referred to as Amber, to test these data with its membership of ground ambulance entities. Amber offers a glimpse into the current challenges of the ground ambulance industry.[i]
Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA) assessed the Amber dataset for response rates and data quality, along with responses containing calendar year 2022 financial data. Amber response rates were low, but sample volumes were on par with prior industry surveys conducted in the past by federal agencies. The Amber sample is representative of the industry’s wide variation in entity size and geographic service area. Amber data are reliable for calculating margins, but some aspects of these data also signal that ground ambulance entities, particularly smaller entities, may have had difficulty with variable definitions or the submission process. We observe that Amber would be improved by including information on uncompensated care and more details on medication supply costs.
The 2022 financial data from Amber suggest that Medicare FFS margins, at -6 percent, had declined since GAO’s 2010 assessment and that the share of costs associated with labor has increased. Amber data also suggest that the cost structure of smaller ground ambulance entities and rural and super-rural entities differs from that of larger and more urban entities. Margins for small and rural entities are lower.
Based on our assessment of the Amber dataset and its 2022 financial, we offer several recommendations to policymakers and stakeholders. These recommendations are intended to improve future cost collection efforts that may inform payment reforms to enhance the payment accuracy of the Medicare FFS payment system for ground ambulance services.
Provide additional educational support to respondents to improve consistency of data reporting
Streamline and modify data collection devices to adhere to industry trends and challenges
Develop a standardized method for assigning ground ambulance entities to geographic service area for research purposes
Collect data on ground ambulance uncompensated care and bad debt
Collect payer level data for cases involving treatment without transport
Collect targeted data on top 10 medications by cost to accurately reflect costs in payment rates
CMS should consider collecting ground ambulance cost data on a semi-regular basis
CMS should consider phasing in the use of GADCS data to ensure that the data reflect the diversity of ambulance entities and consistent reporting of key financial variables
Our second In Focus section reviews the most recent Medicaid enrollment trends in capitated risk-based managed care programs in 29 states.[1] Health Management Associates Information Services (HMAIS) collected and analyzed monthly Medicaid enrollment data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2024.
The data offer a timely overview of trends in Medicaid managed care enrollment and valuable insights into state-level and managed care organization (MCO)-specific enrollment patterns. This information allows state governments, their partners, and other organizations interested in Medicaid to track enrollment shifts. Understanding the underlying drivers of enrollment shifts is critical for shaping future Medicaid policies and adjusting program strategies amid a dynamic healthcare landscape.
Overview of the Data
The 29 states included in our review have released monthly Medicaid managed care enrollment data via a public website or in response to a public records request from Health Management Associates (HMA). This report reflects the most recent data posted or obtained. HMA has made the following observations related to the enrollment data (see Table 1):
As of December 2024, across the 29 states tracked in this report, Medicaid managed care enrollment was 61.7 million, down by 3.6 million (-5.5%) year-over-year.
Though most states experienced declines in enrollment, six states saw enrollment increases as of December 2024—double the number of states from the previous year.
Figure 1. Year-Over-Year Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Percent Change in Select States, 2020−24
Among the 22 expansion states included in this report, net Medicaid managed care enrollment has decreased by 2.1 million (-4%) to 49.5 million members at the end of Q4 2024, compared with the same period in 2023.[2]
Among the seven states included in this report that had not expanded Medicaid as of December 2024, net Medicaid managed care enrollment decreased by 1.5 million, or 1 percent, to 12.3 million members at the end of Q4 2024 compared with to the same period in 2023.
Table 1. Monthly MCO Enrollment by State—October through December 2024
Note: In Table 1 above, “+/- 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 reflect an end of the month snapshot. Second, in some cases the data are comprehensive in that they cover all state-sponsored health programs that offer managed care options; in other cases, the data reflect only a subset of the broader managed Medicaid population. This limitation complicates comparison of the data described above with figures reported by publicly traded Medicaid MCOs. Hence, the data in Table 1 should be viewed as a sampling of enrollment trends across these states rather than as a comprehensive comparison, which cannot be established based solely on publicly available monthly enrollment data.
HMAIS also compiles a more detailed quarterly Medicaid managed care enrollment report representing nearly 300 health plans in 41 states. The report provides by plan enrollment plus corporate ownership, program inclusion, and for-profit vs. not-for-profit status, with breakout tabs for publicly traded plans. Table 2 shows a sampling of plans and their national market share of Medicaid managed care beneficiaries based on a total of 66.3 million enrollees. These data too should be viewed as a broader representation of enrollment trends rather than as a comprehensive comparison.
Table 2. National Medicaid Managed Care Market Share by Number of Beneficiaries for Sample of Publicly Traded Plans, 2024
What to Watch
Enrollment in Medicaid MCOs has experienced significant fluctuations recently, influenced both by policy changes and economic factors. Since April 2023, Medicaid enrollment has been on a downward trajectory as states complete eligibility redeterminations after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency. This trend, coupled with financial and political challenges, necessitates strategic planning for stakeholders to navigate the evolving Medicaid landscape effectively.
Potential changes that may affect enrollment and require scenario and readiness planning include:
Federal requirement, or a new state option, to implement Medicaid work requirements for at least some categories of enrollees
Changes to the federal financial match policy, which may cause some states to make different decisions about their Affordable Care Act expansion program for adults
Modifications in requirements and expectations for more efficient eligibility processes to improve the accuracy of determinations and assignment to eligibility categories
Connect with Us
HMA is home to experts who know the Medicaid managed care landscape at the federal and state levels. The HMAIS subscription provides point-in-time and longitudinal Medicaid enrollment data, health plan financials, and additional actionable information about eligibility expansions, demonstration and waiver initiatives, as well as population- and service-specific information. HMAIS also includes a comprehensive public documents library containing Medicaid requests for proposals and responses, model contracts, scoring sheets, and protests.
For detail about the HMAIS enrollment report and subscription service, contact our experts below.
[1] Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
Notably, because of the timing of the draft notices and proposed rule, Trump Administration officials ultimately had more input into policies omitted from the rate notice and final policy rule than on policies that were finalized. For example, the final rule is exclusive of proposals to expand coverage for anti-obesity medications, guardrails for artificial intelligence (AI), and new requirements related to utilization management and prior authorization procedures.
In his confirmation hearing, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, MD, cited Medicare Advantage prior authorization practices and health risk assessments that lead to upcoding as areas that deserve further consideration and scrutiny, raising the potential for future regulatory shifts and even legislative reform. With the possibility of Medicare, including MA, facing cuts as part of broader budget negotiations in Congress, the rate notice and policy rule offer program stability counterbalancing the political and fiscal pressures that may emerge this year.
CMS has sought to stabilize MA and Part D programs into 2026, and stakeholders can benefit from understanding the impact in markets for 2026 and the signals of potential regulatory changes to come. For more in-depth analysis and insights on the rate notice, look for our policy and actuarial experts’ brief due out next week.
The remainder of this In Focus article reviews CMS’s decisions on major payment and policy proposals in the Rate Announcement and Final Rule and examines key considerations for healthcare stakeholders.
Payment Impact on Medicare Advantage Organizations
In the CY 2026 Rate Announcement, CMS projects that federal payments to MA plans will increase by 5.06 percent from 2025 to 2026, which represents a $25 billion increase in expected payments to MA plans next year. According to CMS, this represents an increase of 2.83 percentage points compared with the CY 2026 Advance Notice that is largely attributable to an increase in the effective growth rate. The increase in the effective growth rate—increasing to 9.04 percent in the Rate Announcement from 5.93 percent in the Advance Notice—is primarily the result of the inclusion of additional data on Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) expenditures, including payment data through the fourth quarter of 2024.
The Rate Announcement estimates represent the average increase in payments to MA plans and actual payments will vary from plan to plan. Below, Table 1 provides CMS estimates of the impact of finalized payment changes on net MA plan payments.
MA Risk Adjustment Changes
As expected, CMS finalized the last year of the three-year phase-in of the MA risk adjustment model, which requires calculating 100 percent of the risk scores using only the 2024 CMS-HCC (Hierarchical Condition Category) model in 2026. CMS also addressed stakeholder concerns with the planned transition toward a risk adjustment model based on MA encounter data, as previewed in the CMS CY 2026 Advance Notice. CMS pledged to engage stakeholders in this model development process while continuing to evaluate the feasibility, transparency, and timing of a future transition to an encounter-based risk adjustment model.
CMS also finalized the MA coding pattern adjustment factor of 5.9 percent for CY 2026, which is the statutory minimum adjustment factor to account for differences in coding patterns between MA plans and providers under Medicare FFS Parts A and B.
Part D Risk Adjustment
For CY 2026, CMS finalized the revised 2026 RxHCC model with adjustments for maximum fair price drugs. Importantly, CMS also finalized using separate FFS normalization factors for MA-Prescription Drug (MA-PD) plans and Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs), making 2026 the second year CMS will vary normalization for these two markets. The calculation of the factors for CY 2026 is different, however, and will have substantially greater impact than the method used previously. It also will reduce Part D risk scores significantly for MA-PD plans while increasing scores for PDPs.
MA Star Ratings
CMS continues to solicit feedback from stakeholders on ways to simplify and refocus MA Star Ratings measures to focus more on clinical care, outcomes, and patient experience of care measures. Also included in the CY 2026 Rate Announcement are non-substantive measure specification updates and a list of measures included in the Part C and Part D improvement measures and categorical adjustment index for the 2026 Star Ratings.
Separately, in the policy and technical changes rule, CMS finalized new regulatory requirements designed to enhance MA beneficiary protections in an inpatient setting, provisions related to allowable special supplemental benefits for the chronically ill (SSBCI), and the care experience for dually eligible beneficiaries enrolled in MA special needs plans.
Enhancing MA Beneficiary Appeal Rights and Notification Requirements
CMS is finalizing provisions that limit the ability of MA plans to reopen and modify a previously approved inpatient hospital decision on the basis of information gathered after the approval. Under the final rule, MA plans will be able to reopen an approved hospital admission only due to error or fraud. In addition, CMS finalized several provisions to enhance beneficiary appeal rights and new reporting and notice requirements, including:
Ensuring that MA appeals rules apply to adverse plan decisions, regardless of whether the decision was made before, during, or after the receipt of such services
Codifying existing guidance that requires plans to give a provider notice of a coverage decision
Ensuring enrollees have a right to appeal MA plan coverage denials that affect their ongoing source of treatment
Non-Allowable Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill
The final rule establishes guardrails for SSBCI benefits by codifying a list of non-allowable examples (e.g., unhealthy food, alcohol, tobacco, life insurance). CMS did not finalize proposals that were designed to improve administration of supplemental benefits and enhance transparency of the availability of such benefits.
Improving Care Experience for Dual Eligibles
CMS finalized new requirements for dual eligible special needs plans (D-SNPS) that are applicable integrated plans (AIPs) as follows:
D-SNPs will be required to have integrated member ID cards for their Medicare and Medicaid plans
D-SNPs will be required to conduct an integrated health risk assessment for Medicare and Medicaid, rather than separate ones for each program.
These provisions affecting certain D-SNPS plans will be effective for the 2027 plan year.
Provisions Pertaining to the Medicare Part D Inflation Reduction Act
CMS is finalizing proposals to codify existing requirements related to key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, including no cost sharing for adult vaccines and capping monthly copayments for insulin at $35. In addition, CMS is codifying existing guidance related to the implementation of the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, which is also part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Key Proposals CMS Has Yet to Finalize
As noted earlier, CMS finalized a streamlined rule that excluded several regulatory changes identified in the November 2024 proposed rule. In addition to provisions related to coverage of anti-obesity medications, guardrails for AI, and mandatory analysis of the health equity impact of MA plans utilization management practices, the following proposals were not finalized. CMS notes that these proposals might be finalized in future rulemaking.
Expanding Medicare Part D Medication Therapy Management (MTM) eligibility criteria
Ensuring equitable access to behavioral health services by applying MA cost-sharing limits
Enhancing the Medicare Plan Finder to include information on plan provider directories
Promoting informed choice by enhancing CMS review of MA marketing and communication materials
Enhancing rules on MA plans’ use of internal coverage criteria
Key Considerations
The policies finalized in the CY 2026 Rate Announcement are projected to increase average Part C payments to MA plans by 5.06 percent in CY 2026—a significant uptick from the payment updates originally proposed in the CY 2026 Advance Notice. Nonetheless, the final rate increase will have varying effects across MA plans, with some experiencing larger or smaller impacts in CY 2026. MA plans should assess these outcomes as they prepare their bid submissions for 2026.
According to the CY 2026 Rate Announcement, CMS expects that the 5.06 percent increase will provide continued stability for the MA program and its beneficiaries while ensuring accurate and appropriate payments to Medicare Advantage organizations.
In the CY 2026 MA and Part D Final Rule, CMS adopted a significantly scaled-back final rule, which omitted some of the more far-reaching proposals for MA and Part D that were originally proposed in November 2024. CMS, however, could potentially revisit and finalize some of these proposals in future rulemaking. Moreover, new regulatory requirements that enhance enrollee protections in inpatient care settings and improving the care experience for dual eligibles signal CMS’s continued interest in improving program oversight and enhancing consumer protections for MA beneficiaries.
Connect With Us
MA stakeholders need to undertake scenario planning and be prepared to adapt to a rapidly evolving federal policy environment. From modeling and impact assessments of specific policy changes to strategy development and implementation, HMA is home to experts with diverse skill sets. Our team can help stakeholders assess and prepare for potential changes to prior authorization, looking holistically at their organization’s operations, patient care models, and reimbursement strategies. Our team also provides detailed modeling and assessments to ensure health plans are prepared for changes in risk adjustment and coding policies, supplemental benefits, and other key issues affecting capitation payment, bids, and care delivery models.
For details about the finalized payment and policy rules contact our featured experts below.
With ongoing debates about Medicaid funding, healthcare costs, and the need for mental health integration, state policymakers are looking to shape the health policy landscape that will impact millions of residents. The recent legislative session brought these issues to the forefront, with lawmakers discussing the future of Medicaid expansion, the affordability of prescription drugs, and how to address the state’s provider shortages.
For healthcare providers, patients, and industry stakeholders, these discussions are more than just policy debates—they shape access to care, financial stability, and long-term health outcomes. If Utah wants to maintain its reputation for high-quality, low-cost healthcare, it must navigate these challenges strategically.
Legislative Leaders Take the Stage
At the annual Utah State of Reform Health Policy Conference held in late March, a panel of Utah’s top healthcare policymakers—moderated by Francis Gibson, president of the Utah Hospital Association—came together for a dynamic discussion on these pressing issues.
Panelists:
Sen. J. Stuart Adams: President, Health & Human Services Committee, Utah State Senate
Rep. Steve Eliason: Member, Health & Human Services Committee, Utah State House of Representatives
Sen. Luz Escamilla: Minority Leader, Health & Human Services Committee, Utah State Senate
Sen. Jen Plumb: Minority Assistant Whip, Health & Human Services Committee, Utah State Senate
Major Healthcare Issues Addressed
Medicaid & State Budget Considerations
With federal Medicaid funding facing potential impact, Utah lawmakers discussed strategies to prepare for possible financial shortfalls. While Utah has a year to plan for any changes made to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) that would trigger updates to Utah’s Medicaid program (particularly for the expansion population), the impact could be significant, particularly for vulnerable populations. President Adams emphasized that the goal would be to maintain coverage as much as possible, and the state would have time to look at adjustments and consider using state reserves in the short term to mitigate disruptions.
Drug Pricing & the 340B Program
Lawmakers discussed the passage of Senate Bill 69, which set some parameters for how pharmaceutical manufacturers provide discounts to covered entities through the 340B program. Pharmaceutical manufacturers argue that the 340B program has expanded beyond its original intent, claiming that it allows hospitals and healthcare entities to profit from drug discounts without necessarily passing savings on to patients. They contend that increased transparency and tighter regulations are needed to prevent unintended financial benefits for large health systems while ensuring that the program continues to serve its intended purpose of aiding vulnerable populations.
Lawmakers emphasized that ensuring the savings from 340B pricing actually reach the intended patients and healthcare facilities is crucial. The state must now focus on assessing the impact of the bill, monitoring how savings are allocated, and ensuring that these resources directly benefit underserved communities. The program’s long-term success will depend on transparent oversight and continued evaluation to confirm that cost reductions lead to improved patient care and access to essential medications.
Protecting Healthcare Providers from Malpractice Burdens
Sen. Adams then talked about House Bill 503, which aimed to attract more healthcare providers to Utah by mitigating excessive malpractice insurance costs. Sen. Plumb—herself a practicing physician—posited that mounting malpractice costs discourage independent physicians, which is especially a problem in rural areas. Many small clinics and independent providers struggle to keep up with the rising costs of malpractice insurance, leading to increased financial strain and, in some cases, forcing them out of practice. This, in turn, limits healthcare access, especially in underserved areas where provider shortages are already a pressing issue.
The legislation aimed to ensure that malpractice claims do not impose an undue burden on healthcare providers while still maintaining patient protections. By stabilizing liability costs and creating a more predictable legal environment, these Utah legislators hope to retain and attract medical professionals, ultimately strengthening its healthcare workforce and ensuring broader access to care across the state.
Mental Health & Early Intervention
The legislative panelists were united regarding the urgency of improving mental healthcare, particularly for children. Expanding early intervention programs, integrating mental health screenings in schools, and increasing access to care were all identified as priorities. Utah has seen a growing demand for mental health services, with rising rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide among both youth and adults. However, access to timely and effective treatment remains a challenge, with long wait times and a shortage of mental health professionals exacerbating the crisis.
The discussion underscored that addressing mental health proactively could reduce long-term healthcare costs and improve overall public health outcomes. Legislators highlighted the importance of integrating mental health with primary care, increasing funding for community-based mental health initiatives, and enhancing telehealth services to bridge gaps in access. Additionally, ensuring insurance coverage for mental health services on par with physical health care was recognized as a necessary step to improve treatment equity and effectiveness.
What Wasn’t Said
One bill that sparked intense debate but was not discussed by the panel was Utah’s recent ban on fluoridation in public water systems. The legislation, which earned a visit to Utah from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has drawn national attention. Supporters of the ban argue that fluoridation poses potential health risks, while major medical organizations maintain that it is a safe and effective way to prevent cavities. Critics of the bill worry that removing fluoride could lead to worse dental health outcomes, particularly for children in low-income communities.
This decision comes at a time when an estimated 120,000 adult Utahns enrolled in Medicaid will now have access to expanded dental services. These services may include check-ups, X-rays, cleanings, fillings, root canals, extractions, dentures, emergency exams for severe pain, and crowns, according to state health officials. With broader dental coverage now available for low-income residents, the fluoride ban raises questions about how the state plans to balance preventive care with access to treatment. Similar legislation is emerging in other states, signaling a potential nationwide shift in water fluoridation policies.
What This Means for Utah’s Healthcare Future
These legislative discussions make it clear that healthcare in Utah is at a pivotal moment. Healthcare stakeholders must stay engaged, advocating for policies that support sustainable, high-quality care. Utah has long been a leader in healthcare innovation—now is the time to reinforce that leadership by making smart, forward-thinking policy decisions.
Now more than ever, healthcare providers, policymakers, and industry leaders must collaborate to ensure a stable and effective healthcare system in Utah. For organizations looking to navigate these evolving policies, engage with legislators, or explore strategic solutions, the Utah HMA office—including consultants from the local Leavitt Partners team—is here to help. Let’s work together to create a healthcare system that serves all Utahns—both now and in the future.
Lack of transportation is a common barrier to accessing healthcare, leading to poorer health outcomes and health inequities. Non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) is a critical Medicaid benefit that helps beneficiaries access the health care they need. However, the NEMT industry has faced numerous challenges. States, NEMT brokers and providers, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders have struggled with low member satisfaction, transportation network adequacy, and workforce shortages (especially in rural areas), difficulties attaining sufficient Medicaid reimbursement, ride timeliness (e.g. pickup, drop-off, post-discharge), ensuring passenger safety, digitization of records, sufficient funding, and program integrity.
The NEMT industry is also experiencing significant changes and opportunities related to innovation and new technologies, expansion in modes of NEMT transportation (such as rideshare), standardization of tools and metrics, and the introduction of new NEMT models.
HMA has a long history of working with the full range of stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in, or affected by, NEMT, including:
State and county Medicaid agencies
Managed care organizations
NEMT brokers
NEMT transportation provider organizations and vendors
Transportation network companies (TNCs/rideshare)
NEMT associations or commissions
Health systems
Emergency medical services (EMS)
Transportation insurance providers
NEMT software companies
Medicaid beneficiary and disability advocacy organizations
HMA can help organizations with:
Conducting contract reviews, policy scans, actuarial analyses, and evaluations to identify and address critical challenges as well as best practices in NEMT
Supporting procurement and readiness review activities as well as vendor management and oversight
Performing market analysis and strategic implementation planning for NEMT and other health information technology solutions
Developing and evaluating value-based incentive models for NEMT services
Our team includes:
Former health plan executives, state Medicaid and public health officials, and NEMT provider leads with federal and state NEMT policy and operational expertise
Researchers and evaluators with extensive experience examining the implementation and impact of NEMT policy and operational changes
Actuarial analysts with deep experience in quantitative assessments and analyses of the NEMT benefit
HHS is moving rapidly to implement its plans. On April 1, 2025, HHS initiated actions to reduce the federal workforce across the agencies and remake the department. In addition, the Senate is expected to vote on a budget resolution this week, which could have significant impacts on federal healthcare spending, including for the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
In the coming weeks and months, HHS intends to make additional announcements about how the department will be restructured. It will be critical that healthcare organizations and stakeholders track these developments closely. Organizations seeking to participate in the development of new federal policies and initiatives must know which offices within HHS will maintain authority over key policy areas. Further, to adapt to changes in funding and policies, it is vital that healthcare leaders remain informed.
Because many changes have already begun, the remainder of this article explains what is known to date about the HHS restructuring and other developments and actions relevant to providers, life sciences firms, insurers, safety net clinics, state and local agencies, and other interested stakeholders. This information can help stakeholders consider how best to proceed.
The Reorganization Plan
EO 14210 required agencies to develop reorganization plans and submit them to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget within 30 days and to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force.” The broader HHS reorganization plan seeks to implement a new departmental focus on “ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.”
The reorganization calls for the following:
Consolidating the 28 HHS divisions into 15
Reducing the HHS regional offices from 10 to five
Centralizing the human resources, information technology, procurement, external affairs, and policy functions of the department
Reducing the full-time staff at HHS by 10,000
When combined with other efforts, including early retirement and pre-reduction in force (RIF), HHS’s staffing levels of 82,000 full-time will be reduced to 62,000. The announcement listed specific workforce reduction plans for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Following the March 27 announcement, additional details regarding the restructuring have continued to emerge, including:
The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) reportedly will be combined with Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) under a new Office of Healthy Futures.
The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) will be reorganized as a part of CDC.
Programs currently under the Administration for Community Living (ACL) are slated to be reassigned to other agencies; for example, programs that support older adults and people with disabilities will move to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), and CMS.
HHS Plans for New Agencies that Mirror Policy Priorities
The reorganization includes the establishment of a new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which will combine the following offices and agencies:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, which includes the Office of the Surgeon General, the Office of Women’s Health, and several programs focused on health promotion, chronic disease prevention, and vaccines
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
According to HHS, the changes are intended to “improve coordination of health resources for low-income Americans and will focus on areas including, Primary Care, Maternal and Child Health, Mental Health, Environmental Health, HIV/AIDS, and Workforce development.” The department also noted that transfer of SAMHSA to the new AHA will “break down artificial divisions between similar programs” and improve operational efficiency.
HHS also intends to establish a new Assistant Secretary for Enforcement position, which will be responsible for leading efforts to address waste, fraud, and abuse at the Departmental Appeals Board, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeal, and the Office for Civil Rights.
HHS will merge the ASPE and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to establish a new Office of Strategy. The new office will support research “that informs the Secretary’s policies and evaluates the effectiveness of federal health programs.” This office will also include some of the “critical programs that support older adults and people with disabilities” that are currently within the Administration for Community Living.
Developments on Workforce Reduction Plans
On April 1, 2025, HHS began issuing formal termination notices to a significant number of federal employees across several agencies, including the FDA, SAMHSA, and CDC. The workforce actions reportedly include a full dissolution of some offices, for example, SAMHSA’s Office of the Director for Centers for Mental Health Services, Office of Behavioral Health Equity, The Policy Lab, among others, and CMS’s Medicare Medicaid Coordination Office.
What’s Next
In the coming weeks HHS will put in place a structure for the new AHA and other planned new entities. Many questions remain about the impact on specific agencies and authorities as well as reassignment of responsibilities for programs and functions that were carried about by affected federal employees and offices.
Congressional committees are seeking additional information about the HHS restructuring. The US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) requested that Secretary Kennedy testify at a hearing on April 10, 2025, to discuss the proposed reorganization plan. Providers, health centers, life sciences firms, insurers, health systems, state and local agencies and other healthcare stakeholders and partners should take steps to work through challenges and avail themselves of opportunities to strengthen healthcare systems and improve health. Examples include:
Identify the HHS agencies and offices that are now responsible for policies and procedures that impact your business.
Establish a plan for tracking developments—including litigation—and processes to brief key organizational leaders and act on information, when needed. Healthcare providers, insurers, community groups, and state and local governments will benefit from information as it becomes available regarding changes to agencies and their portfolios and decision makers for policies governing Medicare, Medicaid, child-specific programs, aging and disability programs, mental health and substance use programs, among many others.
Immediately assess current federal discretionary funding and reimbursement policies that may be at risk for your organization, your key partners, and collaborators. Consider potential impact of the policy changes that Congress is separately negotiating, which would significantly affect Medicare and Medicaid. Identify changes that may minimize risk for your organization and position it to engage in new initiatives.
Familiarize your organization with federal oversight and enforcement priorities and incorporate flexibility into compliance plans. Identify opportunities to mitigate vulnerabilities going forward.
Engage now—with your community, your peers, and other experts—to identify opportunities for improvement and plan to build out the strategy, infrastructure and funding to support this work. Think creatively, act decisively.
Connect with Us
Health Management Associates, Inc., experts know the federal landscape and have an intimate knowledge of the dynamics in states and communities. Our policy team is working with clients to help them understand what is happening within HHS and Congress that is ushering in significant policy and funding changes. Our teams are advising stakeholders on the implications for Medicare, Medicaid, and other public programs; strategies to advance their objectives in this new environment; and working with healthcare organizations and state and local government to understand immediate impacts on local financing.
For details about these federal level developments contact one of our featured federal policy experts listed below.