Insights

Filter by topic:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

1808 Results found.

Analysis of five key proposals in CMS’s FY2025 Medicare hospital IPPS rule

Our second In Focus section reviews the policy changes proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on April 10, 2024, for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Medicare Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and Long-Term Acute Care Hospital (LTCH) Proposed Rule (CMS-1808-P ). This year’s IPPS Proposed Rule includes several policy changes that will alter hospital margins and change administrative procedures, beginning as soon as October 1, 2024.

We highlight five proposed policies that are likely to have the greatest impact on Medicare beneficiaries, hospitals and health systems, payors, and manufacturers:

Annual inpatient market basket update
New technology add-on payments (NTAP) policy changes
Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM)
Hospital wage index and labor market adjustments
Revision to housing-related diagnosis coding

Stakeholders have until June 10, 2024, to submit comments to CMS on the contents of this regulation and request for information.

Market Basket Update

Proposed rule: Overall CMS’s Medicare 2025 Hospital Inpatient Proposed Rule will increase payments to acute care hospitals by an estimated $3.2 billion in 2024−2025; however, recent trends in economy-wide inflation may alter this estimate by the time the agency releases the final regulation in August 2024.

HMA/Moran analysis: CMS’s 2.6 percent increase is based largely on an estimate of the rate of increase in the cost of a standard basket of hospital goods—the hospital market basket. For beneficiaries, this payment rate increase will lead to a higher standard Medicare inpatient deductible and increase out-of-pocket costs. For hospitals and health systems, payors, and manufacturers the proposed payment increase (2.6%) falls below economywide inflation over the past year (3.5%) and below what Medicare Advantage plans will receive for 2025 (3.7%).1,2 Importantly, based on our expertise with the calculation of the hospital market basket, we anticipate the proposed 2.6 percent increase will increase slightly by the time rates are finalized later this year.

New Technology Add-on Payments (NTAPs)

Proposed Rule: CMS proposes three changes to the NTAP program and discusses NTAP applications for FY 2025:

CMS proposes to shift the date used to determine whether an otherwise qualifying product is within its newness period. As proposed, if the product’s three-year anniversary occurs after the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, the product will receive NTAP payments that year.
CMS proposes to allow products with a hold on their FDA marketing authorization application to be considered eligible for NTAP.
Beginning with applications approved in the current FY 2025 cycle, the NTAP add-on percentage for gene therapies treating sickle cell disease would increase to 75 percent.

HMA/Moran Analysis: The first two proposed changes are in response to concerns about more restrictive application requirements finalized last year. When CMS shifted the FDA approval deadline to May 1 last year, commenters noted that fewer products would be eligible to receive NTAPs in their third year of the newness period. Allowing all products with a third anniversary that falls within a fiscal year (rather than only those with expirations in the second half of the fiscal year) to receive NTAPs narrowly addresses this concern. More products will qualify for NTAPs during their third year of newness, but that does not necessarily mean that more products will receive three years of NTAPs.

The second proposal tweaks last year’s change requiring a “complete and active” FDA application at the time an NTAP application is submitted to ensure that NTAP applications were far enough along in the FDA review process that information about the product would be available to the public and for CMS staff review. CMS proposal acknowledges that the original bright line rule may have inappropriately excluded potential applicants.

Finally, CMS’s proposal to increase the NTAP percentage for gene therapies treating sickle cell disease aligns with the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model’s focus on sickle cell therapies. Of note, CMS seeks comment on whether the increased NTAP percentage should be applied only to applicants that have entered value-based purchasing agreements or are “otherwise engaging in behaviors that promote access to these therapies at lower cost.” CMS seems willing to increase NTAP payments in limited situations to boost selected policy goals, but the proposals in this regulation do not represent widespread NTAP payment increases.

Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM)

Proposed Rule: CMS proposes to establish a new mandatory episode-based CMS Innovation Center model, Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM). In the TEAM model, selected acute care hospitals would coordinate care for people with traditional Medicare who undergo one of the five specified surgical procedures:

Lower extremity joint replacement
Surgical hip femur fracture treatment
Spinal fusion
Coronary artery bypass graft
Major bowel procedure

Hospitals in the model will assume responsibility for the cost and quality of care from surgery through the first 30 days after the Medicare beneficiary leaves the hospital. Hospitals also must refer patients to primary care services to support optimal long-term health outcomes.

In a first of its kind program, CMS has created a voluntary decarbonization and resilience initiative through which participating hospitals can report metrics related to greenhouse gas emissions to CMS. CMS will provide individualized feedback reports and public recognition of participation and potential performance in the initiative.

HMA/Moran Analysis: The critical aspect of the TEAM model that stakeholders need to understand is that it will be mandatory. TEAM will begin in 2026 and continue for five years. The TEAM model builds on and combines previous models such as the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) model and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model. Hospitals will be required to report various quality measures, and payment will be based on spending targets and include retroactive reconciliation. TEAM also seeks to integrate specialty and primary care. The model complements existing accountable care organization (ACO) models such as ACO REACH or the Medicare Shared Savings Program as beneficiaries would be able to be assigned to both TEAM and ACO programs.

Hospital Wage Index Adjustments and Labor Market Changes:

Proposed Rule: CMS proposes two wage index policies for FY 2025. First, CMS proposes to extend the temporary policy finalized in the FY 2020 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule for three additional years to address wage index disparities affecting low-wage index hospitals, which includes many rural hospitals. Second, as required by law, CMS proposes to revise the labor market areas used for the wage index based on the most recent core-based statistical area delineations issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) based on 2020 Census data.

HMA/Moran analysis: The two wage index policies that CMS proposes for FY 2025 will have important positive and potentially negative consequences for hospital payment. The policy to extend the low-wage index policy for three additional years will allow many hospitals with low wage indexes to increase their wage index and their payment rates across all MS-DRGs. This policy will bring millions of additional dollars to rural hospitals in FY 2025.

The second policy is a statutorily required update to the labor markets used to establish CMS’s hospital wage indexes. CMS will redefine 53 counties from urban to rural and 54 counties from rural to urban, which will disrupt various hospital payment policies for hospitals in the affected counties. The overall impact of both proposed geographic policy changes for FY 2025 will be to increase inpatient payment rates for rural hospitals.

Revision to Housing-Related Diagnosis Coding

Proposed Rule: CMS proposes to change the severity designation of the seven ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes that describe inadequate housing and housing instability from non-complication or comorbidity (non-CC) to complication or comorbidity (CC).

HMA/Moran Analysis: In proposing this change, CMS is building on its previous policy of including diagnosis codes for describing when a beneficiary is homeless (e.g., unspecified, sheltered, unsheltered). Importantly, this new policy proposal will enable hospitals to be paid higher inpatient payment rates when patients with inadequate or unstable housing are served. Specifically, this proposal would result in cases involving patients to whom these codes apply to be coded in a higher-level MS-DRG within a given family of MS-DRG codes. If finalized, this change in coding policy will result in higher payment rates for hospital patients who are experiencing housing insecurity.

Connect with Us

HMA’s Medicare Practice Group, including consultants from The Moran Company, works to monitor legislative and regulatory developments in the inpatient hospital space and to assess the impact of inpatient payment, quality, and policy changes on the hospital sector. Our Medicare experts interpret and model inpatient policy proposals and use these analyses to assist clients in developing their strategic plans and commenting on proposed regulations. We replicate the methodologies CMS uses in setting hospital payments and model alternative payment policies using the most current Medicare (100%) claims data. We assist clients with modeling for DRG reassignment requests and to support NTAP applications. We also support clients in analyzing CMS Innovation Center alternative payment models.

For more information or questions about the policies described above, contact Zach Gaumer, Amy Bassano, Kevin Kirby or Clare Mamerow.

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 [email protected] to connect with our expert team members on this vital set of issues.

April 24, 2024

Read Roundup

Can data shape the future of Medicare’s value proposition?

Listen Now

Tim Murray is a principal and senior consulting actuary of Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA Company. With over two decades of experience as a health actuary, Tim illuminates the challenges and opportunities within Medicare, particularly focusing on value assessment and the pivotal role of data collection. Digging into the complexities of Medicare Advantage, he discusses predictive modeling, innovative supplemental benefits, and the need for structured data metrics to drive sustainable healthcare solutions.

New experts join HMA in first quarter of 2024

Read News

HMA is pleased to welcome new experts to our family of companies in the first quarter of 2024. These colleagues bring expertise in strategic planning, project management, healthcare leadership and operations, delivery systems, government programs, community services, managed care leadership, behavioral health, public health, and actuarial services.

Learn more about our new HMA colleagues

January

Associate Principal

Senior Consultant

Principal

Associate Principal

Senior Consultant

Principal

Principal

Principal

Associate Principal

Senior Consultant

Consulting Actuary II, Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA Company

Jessica Perillo

Senior Consultant

Scott Pingree

Managing Principal

Josh Rekula

Senior Consulting Actuary, Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA Company

Senior Consultant

Associate Principal

Senior Consultant

Associate Principal

February

Philip Burton

Vice President, Client Relations

Brandon Greife

Principal

KellyAnn Light-McGroary

Principal

Mark Marciante

Director, Leavitt Partners, an HMA Company

Senior Consultant

Senior Consultant

Principal

Associate Principal

Chief Information Officer

March

Senior Consultant

Senior Consultant

Associate Principal

Principal

Principal

Senior Consultant

Managing Director, Delivery Systems

Associate Principal

Associate Principal

Senior Consultant

Associate Principal

Policy and operational implications of the Change Healthcare cyberattack

Read Blog

This week, our second In Focus explores a new Issue Brief published by Leavitt Partners, a Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA) Company, which addresses the February 21, 2024, cyberattack on Change Healthcare. The cyberattack is one of the most significant on the healthcare industry and has had short-term effects on the entire healthcare sector, with potential for longer-term impacts across the industry.

Because of the ransomware attack, more than 100 applications were taken offline, preventing medical professionals from conducting out many patient-facing activities, including filling prescriptions, managing care plans, and performing prior authorization checks. Six weeks after the crippling cyberattack on Change Healthcare, some systems are still only partially operational and many claims remain unpaid. This situation has disrupted patient access to care and placed significant financial strain on providers.

Change Healthcare is maintaining a daily status report on operations here: https://support.changehealthcare.com/customer-resources/payer-lists In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided the following resources for providers to work with payers directly: https://healthsectorcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/HHS-Letter-and-Appendix-to-HC-Providers-1.pdf

With billions of dollars in loans and advance payments already disbursed and ongoing investigations into Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations, the healthcare industry is bracing for long-term impact, while the Administration and Congress are just beginning to act. Leavitt Partners experts, an HMA Company, is monitoring and analyzing the impacts on payers and providers, as well as current and future policy implications.

For more information and to obtain in-depth issue briefs, including “Cyberattacks: Health Care Industry Impacts and the Federal Response,” contact Mark Marciante and Ryan Howells.

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 Andrea Maresca.

April 17, 2024

Read Roundup

Health Management Associates’ CEO Douglas Elwell retiring; COO Charles (Chuck) Milligan to lead firm

Read News

Today, Jay Rosen, founder, president, and chairman of Health Management Associates (HMA), announced Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Douglas L. Elwell is retiring. Chief Operating Officer (COO) Charles (Chuck) Milligan will succeed him as CEO effective May 17.

Elwell assumed the role of HMA’s CEO in November 2020. He had rejoined the firm as COO in February of that year after serving as the Illinois Medicaid director. During his first tenure with HMA, Elwell was a principal and managing principal in the Indianapolis office from July 2003 through October 2014. Much of his career, prior to joining HMA, was dedicated to leading hospital systems in roles as CEO, COO, and CFO. Elwell was deputy chief executive officer for finance and strategy for the Cook County Health and Hospitals System from November 2014 until early 2019.

“Doug has been an exceptional leader, expertly guiding the expansion of HMA’s breadth and depth of expertise so we continue to meet our clients’ needs and exceed their expectations well into the future,” Rosen said. “His passion for serving our clients, supporting our colleagues, and improving the lives of others has made an indelible impact on not only our company but communities across the country.

Elwell will continue to provide consulting services as Senior Advisor to the firm.

Milligan joined HMA as COO in November 2020. A seasoned healthcare leader and consulting executive who has worked with health plans, states, and policy organizations, his contributions span both the public and private sectors.

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) appointed Milligan a commissioner to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) in January 2015, and appointed him vice chairman in May 2019. He has served as the Medicaid director for two states, New Mexico and Maryland.

“Chuck has played an integral role in growing and shaping the multitude of ways we can serve clients by leveraging the varied expertise across all of the organizations within HMA,” Rosen said. “He is a trusted leader, who will spur innovation and propel our partnerships to develop solutions for the toughest healthcare and human services challenges.”

Prior to joining HMA, Milligan served as CEO for UnitedHealthcare’s Community Plan in New Mexico, with accountability for the Medicaid and DSNP lines of business in the state. He also served as interim CEO for UnitedHealthcare’s Community Plan in Maryland, and as national vice president for UnitedHealthcare’s Dual Special Needs Plans. Milligan’s career includes having been senior vice president of Enterprise Government Programs at Presbyterian Healthcare Services and executive director of The Hilltop Institute at University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He began his career as an attorney practicing healthcare law in California.

Meggan Christman Schilkie, currently senior vice president of HMA’s Practice Groups, will assume the role of COO at HMA. She joined HMA in 2014 and has held leadership roles in the firm’s Northeast Region and its New York office.

During her time at HMA, Schilkie has supported clients across the country including providers, associations, state and local governments, payers, large delivery systems and other stakeholders to expand the quality of and access to healthcare with a particular focus on developing new and innovative models of behavioral healthcare.

Prior to joining HMA, Schilkie served as chief program officer for Mental Health at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene where she oversaw a portfolio of behavioral health services. During her career she has been interim CEO for three health homes in New York serving individuals with serious behavioral health needs, chronic health conditions, intellectual and developmental disabilities and substance use disorders. Schilkie was the founding executive director of the Coalition of New York State Health Homes providing leadership for this statewide provider association.

HMA offers a new way to approach grant funding for behavioral health providers

Read Blog

Grants from both government and foundations can be an essential component of a community behavioral health provider’s growth strategy. Every year billions of dollars are distributed to support program growth, quality improvement, training, and other essential needs. Finding the right opportunities and applying for grants that are aligned with your organization’s strategic growth interests can be an essential catalyst for organizational development, service continuum growth, and quality improvements.

Behavioral health providers often struggle with identifying and applying for the right grant opportunities. It is time consuming and takes resources away from your mission to serve your communities. The deluge of notices of funding opportunities, requests for proposals, requests for applications, and requests for expressions of interest can overwhelm even the most sophisticated and well-resourced provider. Few organizations have the internal capacity to devote to wading through the hundreds of opportunities that are published each week.

That is why we created HMA Grant Prospector. HMA will do the work, so you don’t have to.

The HMA Grant Prospector is a tool that combines HMA’s deep subject matter expertise in community behavioral health care with understanding of the process of grant procurement. We have embedded this expertise in proprietary software that can sift through grant opportunities and pick out the gold nuggets from the mountain of information.

When your organization subscribes to Grant Prospector, we interview you to find out what services you have, the communities you serve, and what gaps in your care continuum you seek funding to fill. We collect information on grant opportunities as they are released, and the Grant Prospector matches your organization’s criteria with funding opportunities. We’ll send you only those opportunities for which your organization is eligible, that are aligned with your strategy and organizational objectives, and targeted to your population. You can rely on HMA to do the legwork so you can focus your efforts on improving lives in your community.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS SERVICE

“HMA has helped us quickly and easily identify the best opportunities for grants for Horizon Health Services. With their help, we have been able to find the right opportunities, apply with precision, and expand our service continuum.”

– Erin DiGirolamo, CEO and Brandy Vandermark-Murray, President, Horizon Health Services, Buffalo, NY

Announcing HMA’s new value-based payment (VBP) readiness assessment tool for behavioral health providers

Read Blog

Dollars and Sense: Is Your Organization Positioned to Thrive in the World of Value-Based Payments?

As the healthcare system in the U.S. moves away from the costly and inefficient framework of fee-for-service to patient-centered structures focused on value and quality, every Behavioral Health organization finds itself with challenges ahead. Whether your organization stands at the forefront, poised for a full dive into value-based payment implementation, or is tentatively exploring initial steps, understanding your organization’s readiness on the VBP spectrum is paramount to success. Health Management Associates (HMA) is helping provider organizations in every phase of readiness move forward. We understand the detailed steps to help you focus on value, change payment structures, adapt clinical and operation workflows, and prepare and train your workforce to improve quality. Our tool is not just a promise but a practical solution to assess your current organizational readiness, providing valuable insights to focus your attention toward the next level of value.

VBP Readiness Assessment Tool

HMA’s VBP Readiness Assessment is a free, online survey tool that can help you gauge your organization’s preparedness across six pivotal domains of core functions necessary for successful participation in payment reform models. Completing the survey will provide a snapshot about a single provider or an entire organization and determine where you stand on the value-based payment spectrum. The six domains encompass measuring outcomes, evaluating board and leadership readiness, assessing technological capabilities for capturing and sharing data, gauging partnerships, payer engagement strategies, and financial alignment.

Readiness Assessment Results

Example plot of a readiness assessment showing an organization’s scores on the VBP spectrum.
This organization has an overall Intermediate level of readiness with the highest levels demonstrated in
Board & Leadership Readiness and Partnership and lowest levels in Financial Readiness.

The journey toward successfully navigating the realm of value-based payments demands a strategic and informed approach. The crucial first step is a comprehensive assessment of organizational readiness, and the HMA VBP Readiness Assessment Tool stands as a valuable resource for this purpose. The ever-changing landscape of healthcare payments requires organizations to be adaptive and forward-thinking. With HMA’s team of experts offering guidance at every stage, providers, associations, health plans, and states can gain a profound understanding of the necessary organizational efforts required to engage in VBP successfully. The current landscape increasingly emphasizes value, therefore, the importance of transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based models cannot be overstated. As the demand for value continues to grow, organizations that proactively position themselves to meet these evolving expectations will not only thrive but contribute significantly to shaping the future of healthcare delivery. The HMA VBP Readiness Assessment Tool is not just a survey; it’s a compass guiding you through the dynamic terrain of value-based payments, serving as a way to identify meaningful progressive steps you can take to strengthen your organizational position within the VBP space.

Taking the survey and receiving one analyzed response is free, but you may find value in contracting with HMA for a more in-depth analysis of your organization. Click below for more details and to access the survey.

learn more about the Assessment Tool

For more information, please contact Rachel Bembas, PhD, Principal.

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 Michael Engelhard, Managing Director, Regional Managed Care Organizations, and Andrea Maresca, Managing Director, Information Services.

Featured Services:

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

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

1808 Results found.

Readiness Assessment Results