Insights

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

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

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

Filter by topic:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

Select Topics

323 Results found.

CBO’s New Baseline Signals Shifting Cost and Risk Dynamics in Medicaid and Medicare

Read Blog

On February 11, 2026, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released  report. The publication, which represents the first time CBO has released Medicare and Medicaid spending baseline projections since , reflects the impact of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA), recent changes to Medicare reimbursement for skin substitute products, and the latest Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage bids.

CBO’s baseline serves many functions, including serving as the official “scorekeeping” benchmark used for cost estimates of proposed legislation under consideration in Congress.

Changes to CBO’s Medicaid Baseline

CBO decreased its projections of 2026–2035  by approximately $514 million from its January 2025 baseline update. The main driver of that reduction is the impact of the Medicaid provisions in the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act, which CBO expects will reduce total Medicaid enrollment by 13.1 million people in 2035. The drop in Medicaid spending from the OBBBA-related enrollment reductions was partially offset by technical changes CBO made to the Medicaid baseline.

Medicaid costs per enrollee grew by 16 percent in 2025, which was more than CBO had anticipated. The agency attributes the cost per enrollee growth to a reported decrease in the average health status of Medicaid enrollees following the end of the COVID-era continuous eligibility policy.

CBO anticipates that payment rates for Medicaid managed care plans will begin to rise in 2026 because of this decrease in the average health status of enrollees, and the agency has updated the Medicaid baseline accordingly (see Figure 1).

Source: HMA analysis of CBO’s  and F reports.

Changes to CBO’s Medicare Baseline

Compared with its January 2025 baseline, CBO increased its projections of  by about $1 trillion (roughly $942 billion, by (HMA) calculations). The main driver of that increase came from CBO’s updates to its Medicare Part D spending projections, which were increased to reflect higher than expected 2026 bids from private insurance plans that administer the Part D benefit. According to their 2026 bids, Part D plans anticipate a 35 percent increase in their annual per enrollee costs in 2026—a trend that CBO was not expecting and . Part D spending per beneficiary in 2035 is now projected to exceed $4,000, up from less than $3,000 in the January 2025 baseline (See Figure 2).

The agency’s Medicare Part A fee-for-service (FFS) spending projection increase was the result of larger than expected increases in 2025 enrollment and per enrollee spending. Those trends were also seen in Medicare Part B FFS but were partially offset by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s (CMS) recent reimbursement changes to skin substitute products. Overall, CBO estimates that the skin substitute reform issued in CMS’s  and  final rules will save $245 billion over the 2026–2035 period, including the effects on the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (see Figure 3).

Finally, CBO reduced its spending projections for MA compared to the January 2025 baseline. This change was made to reflect lower-than-expected Medicare Advantage enrollment in 2025, although the spending implications of lower enrollment were partially offset by higher-than-expected bids in 2026 by providers of MA plans (see Figure 4).

Source: HMA analysis of CBO’s  and  reports.
Source: HMA analysis of CBO’s  and  reports.
Source: HMA analysis of CBO’s  and  reports

Contact an HMA Expert Today

Interested in understanding how CBO’s latest baseline update affects the federal budgetary implications of certain Medicare or Medicaid policy topics or proposals? Contact our experts, Mark Desmaris and Rachel Matthews, to learn more about HMA’s “CBO-style” federal budgetary scoring work, which relies on The Moran Company’s long-standing methodology. [1]

Beyond federal budget scoring, HMA is working with states, health plans, and providers to assess how changes in enrollee health status are affecting utilization, costs, and payment rates—and what those trends may mean for Medicaid and MA organizations and providers. Our teams support states in evaluating managed care rate setting and program design, help Medicaid and MA plans anticipate risk and bid implications, and assist providers in understanding how changes in patient acuity could affect care delivery, contracting, and financial performance.

[1]Specifically, we apply our understanding of CBO precedents to predict how CBO will likely evaluate the budgetary impact of the legislation in question. We use our best judgment to adopt the assumptions CBO would tend to use, with the understanding that any variance in the assumptions CBO ultimately adopts could cause our estimate to differ from theirs.

Case Study Report: Lessons Learned from HealthySteps Technical Assistance in California

Download

This report synthesizes insights from multiple efforts to support the financial sustainability of HealthySteps sites in California, including federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), community clinics (non-FQHCs), private practices, and other settings. Led by the HealthySteps National Office and (HMA), the technical assistance (TA) elevated challenges, strategies and best practices to achieve sustainability informed by learning collaboratives, individualized TA sessions, and financial modeling exercises. This report complements additional resources that the HS National Office and HMA developed which are available via the HealthySteps (HS) Sustainability website.

Congress Advances FY 2026 HHS Appropriations Bill with Health Extenders and PBM Reforms

Read Blog

On February 3, 2026, Congress finalized federal funding for fiscal year (FY) 2026, with the House passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), 2026, with a vote of 217-214, following Senate approval last week. The president signed the CAA () shortly thereafter. The law provides full-year appropriations for the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and several other departments. 

This year’s HHS funding bill is notable not only for what it includes, but also for what it omits. It restores or maintains funding for key public health and research agencies previously proposed for elimination in the president’s FY 2026 , extends several healthcare programs, and contains a significant package of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reforms. All of this activity comes as the Administration  new grant programs and policy efforts related to its signature priorities. 

In this article, we review the major funding and policies approved in the HHS spending bill. We also address key considerations for healthcare organizations as they anticipate downstream funding and policy developments and develop advocacy initiatives for federal FY 2027 bills. 

HHS Funding Levels and Direction 

The bill provides $116.8 billion for HHS, an increase of $210 million over FY 2025, and rejects large-scale structural reorganizations proposed in the president’s FY 2026 budget. This provision preserves funding for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 

Table 1. HHS Agency Funding Highlights, FY 2026 

Agency  FY 2026 Funding  (+/-) Compared with FY 2025 
Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) $3.7 billion +$58 million  
CDC $9.2 billion level funding 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), administrative expenses only  $3.7 billion level funding  
 HRSA $8.9 billion +$415 million  
National Institutes of Health (NIH) $48.7 billion  +$929 million  
SAMHSA $7.4 billion  +$65 million  

The bill also extends mandatory funding for community health centers, special diabetes programs, the National Health Service Corps, and Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education. 

PBM Reforms in the Package 

In one closely watched area of federal policymaking, the FY 2026 package includes a substantial set of PBM-related reforms that largely mirror the bipartisan package negotiated but not enacted in December 2024. These reforms have implications across Medicare Part D, commercial insurance, and employer-sponsored plans. 

The legislation contains the following PBM reforms: 

  • Prohibits PBMs from deriving remuneration linked to drug prices for Medicare-covered Part D drugs 
  • Restricts spread pricing in Medicaid, eliminating a major driver of PBM revenue 
  • Requires contractual transparency, mandating that PBMs clearly define pricing terms in agreements with Part D plan sponsors 
  • Adds new PBM reporting obligations, including drug price reporting and rebate disclosures 
  • Requires 100 percent passthrough of rebates in ERISA-regulated plans for new, renewed, or extended contracts beginning 30 months after enactment 
  • Expands audit rights for plan sponsors 
  • Codifies the “any willing pharmacy” requirement for Medicare plan sponsors 

These provisions position 2026 as a consequential year for PBM regulation, increasing transparency, strengthening plan leverage, and heightening HHS oversight. 

Healthcare Extenders and Program Reauthorizations 

The bill includes a broad set of Medicaid, Medicare, and public health program extenders, affecting providers, patients, states, and managed care plans. 

Medicaid 

  • Postpones reductions in the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) allotments until FY 2028 
  • Changes the DSH cap calculation to broaden which patient costs count toward Medicaid shortfall 
  • Requires states to develop and implement a process to allow certain out-of-state pediatric providers to deliver services without additional screening for three years 
  • Removes age limits on Medicaid’s Ticket to Work program, allowing adults older than age 65 to participate and requires state compliance by January 1, 2028 
  • Establishes new maternity care reporting requirements for rural hospitals, with dedicated federal funding for hospitals and states to comply with the reporting 

Medicare 

Congress extends several key programs and payment provisions, including: 

  • Telehealth flexibilities through December 31, 2027 
  • Incentive payments for participation in eligible alternative payment models through payment year 2028 (for performance year 2026) and applies an adjustment amount of 3.1 percent for 2028 
  • Acute Hospital Care at Home waivers through 2030 
  • Low-volume and Medicare-dependent hospital payment adjustments 
  • The 1.0 work geographic practice cost index floor used in the calculation of payments under the Medicare physician fee schedule through December 31, 2026 
  • Add-on payments for ambulance services 
  • Continuation of Part D coverage for certain antivirals and modifications to hospice payment caps 

Behavioral Health Policy 

The appropriations bill was finalized as the administration  new funding and policy initiatives to support behavioral health, crisis services, workforce expansion, and youth mental health—efforts mirrored in SAMHSA’s increased appropriations. 

SAMHSA’s $7.4 billion budget includes: 

  • $1.6 billion for State Opioid Response grants 
  • $1.01 billion for the Mental Health Block Grant 
  • $535 million for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline 

Considerations for Stakeholders 

Federal funding and policy developments affect state budget dynamics as many states are now releasing 2026–2027 budget proposals as well as the operational and growth plans of healthcare organizations and partners. 

A few key takeaways from the FY 2026 funding bill include: 

  • Federal appropriations signal congressional and administration priorities and have downstream impact on upcoming rounds of grant cycles, including SAMSHA and HRSA awards. 
  • The approved funding and certain policy extensions provide operational stability and reduce near-term fiscal pressure, such as the further delay of Medicaid DSH cuts. The extra time will allow healthcare entities to prepare for future reductions and plan for financial sustainability. 
  • Agency and program funding emphasize oversight, program integrity, and compliance. In addition, fraud and program integrity priorities are woven into certain new policies and program extensions, including PBM reforms, flexibility for pediatric care across state borders, and rural maternity cost reporting requirements, among others. 

Connect with Us 

If you would like deeper analysis or state and stakeholder-specific effects, HMA’s policy experts are available to assist. 

2026 Marketplace Open Enrollment: Where the Numbers Currently Stand

Read Blog

On January 28, 2026, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) posted a detailing 2026 Open Enrollment (OE) results. Although this report is neither a complete nor final picture of 2026 Marketplace enrollment activity, it is likely to be the last OE data CMS publishes for some time. A comparison of 2026 and 2025 Open Enrollment results can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of 2026 and 2025 Open Enrollment

20262025Net Change
Total22,973,21924,166,491(1,193,272)
New Consumers3,382,1893,938,907(556,718)
Returning Consumers19,591,03020,227,584(636,554)

A summary of our analysis on these 2026 OE results and how they compare with 2025 data can be found below. This analysis builds on the findings in Wakely’s from January 2026.

  • Overall, topline plan selections are down from last year. Total enrollment decreased by 5%, with new enrollment down 14% and renewals down 3%.
  • State-based marketplace (SBM) enrollment declined modestly, but the data are as of January 10, and many SBMs are continuing to enroll people through the end of January.
    • New Mexico plan selections increased by 14% over last year, the largest increase of any state, driven by state-funded subsidies mirroring the expired enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs).
    • Georgia plan selections decreased by 14%, the largest SBM year-over-year decline.
  • The federally facilitated marketplace (FFM) experienced an overall decrease of 5%. FFM data are as of January 15 and therefore measures plan selections after the OE period has ended. Within the FFM, state-by-state results varied significantly.
    • Texas led all FFM states with a 5% increase, whereas Ohio and North Carolina experienced 20% and 22% decreases in enrollment, respectively.
    • Some of this variation is surprising and not readily explainable from the available data and will be a focus of future and Wakely analyses.
  • The data include neither effectuated enrollment nor paid enrollment—data which will be key to fully understanding 2026 enrollment trends and the impact of changing federal policies, including the ePTC expiration and changing eligibility standards introduced in 2026 as the result of P.L. 119-21 (OBBBA).
    • from SBMs suggest significantly higher rates of cancellations and disenrollments than in previous years.
    • SBMs are also sharing that they expect high rates of affordability-driven voluntary and non-payment terminations throughout the first half of 2026.
    • Monitoring paid enrollments, attrition, and grace period dynamics, including retro-terminations, will be key to understanding market dynamics and 2027 pricing.

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

Please contact Taylor Gehrke at [email protected], Michael Cohen at [email protected], or Zachary Sherman at [email protected] with questions, follow-up, or if you would like expert assistance exploring any of the issues discussed in this post.

Related Resources:

Medicaid Changes in the OBBBA and Implications for the Marketplace and Individual Market in 2027

Download

In recent years, the individual market has undergone significant disruption. The expiration of enhanced premium tax credits (ePTC) at the end of 2025 and sweeping eligibility changes under the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act (OBBBA) have reshaped—and will continue to reshape—the individual market.

The number of changes facing states and issuers in coming years are significant. As a result, it is unsurprising that discussion and analysis on the individual market impacts of the new Medicaid requirements is limited and expected to result in large numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries being disenrolled. Between community engagement requirements (i.e., work requirements), increases in eligibility checks, and loss of eligibility for certain immigrant population, the expectation is that millions of people will leave Medicaid in 2027.

This brief explores how these coming changes will reshape coverage pathways and costs, and examines implications for consumer affordability and churn, issuer pricing and risk pools, and state administrative burdens—alongside strategies for states, issuers, and policymakers to mitigate adverse effects.

Preparing for Change: A Look at Proposed State Fiscal 2027 Budgets

Read Blog

As of January 1, 2026, nine governors had released proposed budgets for state fiscal year (SFY) 2027. With the phase down of federal funding and substantial policy changes approved in the 2025 budget reconciliation act (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA), these proposals offer insights into how governors plan to manage mounting fiscal pressures, navigate new federal mandates, and position their programs for long-term sustainability. 

Today,  Information Services (HMAIS) published its first preliminary review of proposed SFY 2027 budget proposals. The initial installment includes budgets from Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming, with the latter two proposals covering the fiscal 2026–28 biennium. 

HMAIS will release periodic updates as additional governors publish their budget proposals—the same rolling approach we used in 2025 (here and here). Because 15 states enacted 2025–27 biennial budgets last year, HMAIS also might review substantial mid-biennium health-related adjustments or supplemental funding. 

The remainder of this article provides a snapshot of several notable themes and emerging trends detailed in the full report. 

Implementation of New Federal Requirements 

State leaders are preparing budgets for SFY 2027 at a time of heightened fiscal stress and structural uncertainty. Entering 2026, governors are facing reductions in federal funding, particularly in Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding. In addition, they are preparing for new federal requirements that will begin to take effect later this year, including narrower flexibilities for financing and Medicaid community engagement policies and more frequent eligibility redeterminations. 

Against this backdrop, governors are using FY 2027 budget proposals to comply with OBBBA’s mandates and to stabilize their safety net programs and realign state operations around stricter fiscal realities. 

Medicaid Work Requirements. Virginia’s proposed budget includes funding to implement federal Medicaid community engagement requirements, including a recommendation to add nine new authorized positions in SFY 2027 and 12 more in fiscal year 2028 to meet workload demands. In addition, South Dakota’s governor proposed amending the state’s 2026 budget to secure funding to implement these requirements. 

Eligibility and Redetermination. Several governors are proposing investments to support heightened eligibility checks across Medicaid, SNAP, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). For example, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’s budget proposes $19.1 million to improve the state’s eligibility system for programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF. Utah’s proposed budget includes a recommended allocation of nearly $16.5 million to the Department of Workforce Services for “H.R. 1 Medicaid Eligibility Administration,” and nearly $10 million for the “H.R. 1 SNAP Administrative Services.” 

SNAP ChangesStates are backfilling lost federal funding and investing in error reduction and system modernization. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s proposed budget, for example, includes $37 million to replace the decrease in federal funding for SNAP administration ($4 million of which will support 150 new full-time positions), as well as $8.9 million for systems improvements to reduce payment errors in SNAP. South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden’s proposed budget includes $5.5 million to offset a reduction in SNAP federal funding. 

Strategic Cost Containment 

Considering OBBBA implementation and the effects that it will have on their budgets, our first review of governors’ budget proposals signals that states are taking an aggressive posture toward limiting expenditure growth in 2026 and 2027. Initial proposals include targeted reductions, tighter utilization management, and restrictions on benefits. 

Since the 2025 legislative session, Colorado has taken multiple steps to prepare for declining federal revenue. For example, Governor Polis’s proposed budget accounts for multiple actions approved through an amended executive order that would reduce spending to brace for OBBBA’s impacts. Examples include: 

  • Reducing provider rates to 85 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate 
  • Establishing limits on Community First Choice services 
  • Adjusting the home health nursing and therapy services payment methodology 
  • Introducing cost controls for Medicaid benefit categories that have shown disproportionate growth 
  • Implementing a $3,000 annual cap on adult Medicaid dental benefits and a $750 annual cap on dental benefits for individuals in the Cover All Coloradans program 
  • Changing the Cover All Coloradans behavioral health program from managed care to fee for service 
  • Reviewing provider fees in anticipation of possible State Directed Payment approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s budget—now inherited by Abilgail Spanberger following her inauguration January 17, 2026—includes multiple cost-containment proposals, such as: 

  • Anticipated adjustments to capitation rates after a review of Medicaid managed care organizations 
  • A $2,000 annual limit on adult dental services Medicaid coverage 
  • Elimination of both automatic rate increases for psychiatric residential treatment facilities and qualifying addiction and recovery treatment services providersԻautomatic biennial inflation increases for medical assistance providers 
  • Restrictions on emergency maternity services to Medicaid enrollees who are ineligible for Medicaid because of their citizenship status 
  • Standardized hourly limits across home and community-based services waivers 
  • Actions related to “ensuring appropriate utilization” of services, such as applied behavioral analysis and crisis services 

States are expected to include additional cost-containment tools throughout 2026 and beyond as OBBBA’s fiscal effects become clearer over the coming months and years. 

What to Watch 

The budget proposals indicate the resources that executive agencies need and preview governors’ policy agendas for the year ahead. Stakeholders should track program reductions and rate changes, eligibility system investments, and shifts in care models. 

In addition, some of the announced budget proposals consider federal awards to states under the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). For example, the Alaska Department of Health budget request addresses the state’s RHTP implementation plans, and Wyoming’s budget proposal outlines RHTP priorities. Many states are preparing RFP processes to operationalize their RHTP strategies and make progress on the goals of their initiatives. 

Connect with Us 

As federal funding uncertainties continue, states and other stakeholders will need to adapt their delivery systems, administrative structures, and financing models throughout OBBBA’s multiyear rollout. HMA offers expertise, analytics, and strategic advisory services needed to navigate this evolving landscape. For details contact Andrea Maresca and Kathleen Nolan

The full state of the states and governor budget report is available to HMAIS subscribers. In addition, HMAIS maintains a  that incorporates details of each initiative and the first year award.  

Analysis of the Costs and Medicaid Payment Adequacy for Ground Ambulance Services in New York State

Download

Survey data from fiscal year (FY) 2022 suggest that entities that provide ground ambulance services in the State of New York are experiencing reimbursement challenges. , Inc. (HMA), contracted with the United New York Ambulance Network (UNYAN) to conduct an independent study of the costs of delivering ground ambulance services in the state and the adequacy of payment for these critical services. The HMA-UNYAN survey data highlight the wide variation in costs within the ground ambulance industry in New York and the negative Medicaid margins the industry experiences. These data demonstrate that although ambulance entities of all sizes in New York have negative Medicaid margins, these margins worsen as entity size decreases and entities become more rural. Trends in negative margins appear to be linked to some degree to entities’ relative share of “responses without transport” or uncompensated transports. This white paper poses important considerations for policymakers.

Outlook 2026: Rural Health Transformation Program

Read Blog

As we kick off the new year,  (HMA) is launching a new series of brief, insightful interviews with our policy experts on issues that will define 2026—what’s changing, why it matters, and how federal, state, and industry decisions will shape what happens next. Building on our earlier analysis of the Rural Health Transformation Program ((RHTP), hereԻhere), this week, we start with a pointed look at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s (CMS) first year of RHTP awards. 

Rural Health, Ready or Not: CMS Wants Results in 2026

An interview with Kathleen Nolan, Senior Advisor, HMA, and , Principal, Leavitt Partners, an HMA Company. 

Q: What do the new Rural Health Transformation Program awards tell us about US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and CMS priorities heading into 2026? 

Kathleen Nolan: One of the clearest signals is that CMS expects visible progress in 2026. This is not a program that gives states months of planning runway. The application made it clear that CMS wants states to start doing the activities they proposed right away—not just planning or propping up existing systems. CMS wants to see meaningful movement on implementation in 2026, especially in the areas of workforce, infrastructure, technology modernization, and care delivery redesign. 

Sara Singleton: Exactly, and CMS is using this investment to reinforce some of the administration’s broader policy goals. Many state proposals leaned heavily into chronic disease prevention, chronic care management, and expanding supports that promote healthier lifestyles. That alignment isn’t accidental. The Administration is looking for real traction on these priorities, and RHTP gives states both the resources and the accountability framework to make progress. So, the message from CMS is clear: Move quickly, implement strategically, and show early gains in the areas that matter for long-term population health. 

Q: Was anything in the awards themselves surprising? 

Singleton: There was a lot of speculation about how wide the spread in funding levels might be, particularly for states’ discretionary initiatives. But the distribution was relatively tight; 32 states fell in the “average” range of $190‒$230 million, with only four states above $230 million and 13 below $190 million. That suggests CMS isn’t signaling dramatic differences in expected performance or ambition. 

Nolan: It reinforces that CMS is looking for consistent, measurable progress from every state. States that struggle to implement their plans could see less funding in about years. 

Q: What should states keep top of mind heading into year one? 

Nolan: Accountability. CMS has made it clear they will adjust budgets in later years if states don’t meet expectations on reporting and evaluation. That also means states need to know where the dollars are going and what they are getting for the investment. Year one performance really matters. 

Singleton: And it’s not just CMS. Congress and the Office of Inspector General for HHS will also be watching how states use these funds. 

Q: What rural health policy developments are you watching in early 2026? 

Nolan: Decisions about the leadership for these initiatives and state legislatures. Federal investment can only go so far. States will need strong leaders and supportive policies to accelerate and sustain RHTP efforts in year one. What legislatures choose to prioritize will shape the impact of RHTP far beyond year one. 

Tracking Medicaid’s Growth: FFY 2025 Spending and T-MSIS Data Provide Insights on Managed Care Spending

Read Blog

This week, our In Focus section highlights findings from a  Information Services (HMAIS) analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) preliminary CMS-64 Medicaid expenditure report for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2025. The data show total medical services expenditures reached $971.4 billion across all states and territories, up 6.9 percent from FFY 2024. 

This CMS-64 spending detail provides important context as states prepare for their upcoming legislative sessions and begin implementing changes required under the 2025 budget reconciliation act (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA). Early fiscal and operational pressures will stem from changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and preparations for community engagement requirements for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion enrollees. In subsequent years, pressures will intensify because of major changes to provider tax financing and new federal limits on state directed payments in 2027 and early 2028. 

In this article, we provide a deeper review of Medicaid spending, including the federal-state financing split. As Medicaid agencies prepare for upcoming spring sessions and anticipate potential program changes under OBBBA, it is notable that  report an at least fifty percent likelihood of a Medicaid budget shortfall in FFY 2026. 

Growth and Drivers in Medicaid Managed Care Spending 

The HMAIS analysis looks at CMS-64 preliminary estimates of Medicaid spending by state for FFY 2025. CMS  state expenditures through the automated Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System/State Children’s Health Insurance Budget and Expenditure System (MBES/CBES). 

While enrollment decreased for most states following the COVID-19 public health emergency unwinding, states saw an uptick in expenditures due to increased state directed payments, greater utilization and sicker populations, higher drug costs, increased provider rates, and greater use of long-term services and supports and behavioral health. 

Key findings from HMAIS’ analysis (see Table 1), include: 

  • Total Medicaid managed care spending (federal and state share combined) reached $550.5 billion in FFY 2025, up from $517.5 billion in FFY 2024. 
  • This amount represents a 6.4 percent year-over-year increase from FFY 2024 to FFY 2025. 
  • Managed care accounted for 56.7 percent of total Medicaid spending in FFY 2025, down 0.3 percentage points from the previous year. 
  • The $33 billion increase from FFY 2024 to FFY 2025 exceeds the $9.4 billion increase seen the year prior, reflecting renewed growth following the unwinding transition period. 

These figures include spending on comprehensive risk-based managed care organizations (MCOs), prepaid inpatient health plans (PIHPs), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (PAHPs). PIHPs and PAHPs refer to prepaid health plans that provide a subset of services, such as dental or behavioral health care. This total is exclusive of fee-based programs such as primary care case management models. 

Table 1. Medicaid MCO Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Medicaid Expenditures, FFY 2020–2025 (in millions) 

Annual Medicaid managed care expenditures have grown consistently with total Medicaid expenditures. After slower growth in FFY 2024—which aligned with the post-COVID-19 policy unwinding period when many states completed eligibility redeterminations—FFY 2025 again experienced an uptick in managed care growth (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Total and MCO Medicaid Expenditures, FFY 2020–2025 ($M)

Federal versus State Share Spending 

The preliminary FFY 2025 expenditure data provides a baseline before OBBBA’s changes are scheduled for implementation and as states continue to face Medicaid funding challenges. In FFY 2025, federal funding accounted for 64.2 percent of FFY 2025 spending, and non-federal matching funds accounted for 35.8 percent (see Table 2). Particularly later in 2027, 2028, and subsequent years, Medicaid expansion states stand to see disproportionally larger increases in their share of spending. 

Table 2. Federal versus State Share of Medicaid Expenditures, FFY 2020–2025 (in millions)

T-MSIS Data Adds Detail to CMS-64 MCO Spending 

To complement CMS-64 macro-spending trends, HMA developed a methodology allowing us to use Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) data to approximate managed care spending by service category. Although T-MSIS enables more granular views (e.g., professional services, inpatient/outpatient hospital services, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), HCBS, clinics, pharmaceuticals), the most recent dataset typically lags one to two years behind CMS-64 totals. 

HMA’s analysis of the T-MSIS data shows that while managed care remains the dominant delivery system model for Medicaid, spending by provider types helps contextualize the CMS-64 report. Notably, the CMS-64 reports FFY25 data and our report below on T-MSIS disaggregation uses 2023 data. Although the T-MSIS and CMS-64 data are for different years, it still highlights the main components of the largest spending component of the CMS-64 with more recent data. 

The 2023 T-MSIS analysis shows the following: 

  • Professional fees are the lead spending category, with nearly 30 percent of spending directed toward payments to physicians and other practitioners (e.g., physician assistants, nurse practitioners). Given that T-MSIS data are built around billing codes, services that traditionally may be considered part of a bundled rate (i.e., a large portion of physician services delivered in hospitals and clinics) are essentially unbundled and considered professional fees. 
  • Hospital spending (inpatient plus outpatient), SNF costs, and professional fees together account for close to 75 percent of spending in CY 2023. 

Figure 2. T-MSIS Medicaid Spending by Service Category 2023 (MCO disaggregated plus FFS)

What to Watch 

Because Medicaid is such a big part of state government spending, outlays for Medicaid will always be a focus and challenge for states. Upcoming state legislative sessions and OBBBA driven changes will begin in 2026 with SNAP pressures and major operational preparations for community engagement requirements for expansion states. Preparations for new limits on provider taxes and state directed payments will likely begin immediately, but the true impacts will occur in 2027 and early 2028. States will need to tailor their programs under funding constraints. 

Connect with Us 

HMAIS, a subscription-based tool that offers, provides state-by-state analysis of the CMS-64 data, Medicaid managed care enrollment trends, and state budget reporting. For more information about an HMAIS subscription, contact Andrea Maresca and Alona Nenko. For details on T-MSIS data, contact Matt Powers and Shreyas Ramani

Executive Branch Actions Target Drug Affordability in New Pricing Models

Read Blog

The federal drug pricing landscape continues to undergo significant transformation as executive branch agencies advance an ambitious suite of regulatory and model testing initiatives intended to lower the costs associated with the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In response to ongoing concerns about rising out-of-pocket costs, increasing pressure to align US prices with those paid internationally, and the continued implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), federal agencies are reshaping how prescription drugs are priced, reimbursed, and negotiated in federally financed programs. 

The current policy environment reflects a growing emphasis on benchmarking drug prices to those in peer nations, referred to as “most favored nation” (MFN) benchmarks, and accelerating actions that require or encourage manufacturers to offer lower net prices.  (HMA), is tracking these developments in the public payer space, replicating Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) payment methodologies, and modeling alternative policies to assist life science companies, payers, and other stakeholders. 

In this article, we review the administration’s recent efforts to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending on drugs and biologics, including confidential manufacturer negotiations and three new models that together could reshape pricing dynamics across federal programs. 

Executive Branch Negotiations Seek to Drive Access to MFN Discounts 

In 2025, the administration issued an  directing federal agencies to pursue strategies to establish MFN pricing, linking US prices for certain drugs to the lowest (or second lowest) adjusted net prices among a targeted set of peer countries. Following the order, federal officials sent  to 17 major pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturers, urging them to negotiate agreements that would voluntarily align prices with MFN-based benchmarks. 

To date, 14 manufacturers have signed , though full details remain confidential. These agreements are understood to accomplish the following: 

  • Provide state Medicaid programs with access to MFNbased discounts 
  • Require that new drugs be launched in the United States at MFNaligned prices 
  • Offer certain drugs at discounted directtoconsumer prices through a forthcoming “TrumpRx” program, expected to launch later this year 

Reports suggest that manufacturers entering these MFN-related arrangements may receive exemptions from several federal actions, including the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) demonstration models described below and certain tariff-related policies. 

MFNLinked Models Designed to Lower Drug Costs Across Medicare and Medicaid 

Along with the negotiation efforts, the CMS Innovation Center has proposed three models that would test MFNbased pricing through structured rebate mechanisms. Each model targets different segments of the market while testing how international benchmarks could be integrated into federal drug payment policy. 

New Models Test Alternatives to Inflation Rebates 

Announced in December 2025, the  and the  are designed to test alternative approaches to the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA)  policies. CMS plans to test the models’ potential for market driven price reductions if manufacturers choose to lower list prices instead of paying MFN-based rebates. 

Key features of the GLOBE Model are as follows: 

  • Applies to 25 percent of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries using certain Part B drugs 
  • Beginning in October 2026, becomes mandatory for select drugs and targets highspending, physicianadministered Part B categories, excluding products already subject to IRA negotiations, generics, biosimilars, and certain lowspend products 
  • No changes to physician and hospital reimbursement, although beneficiaries expected to see reduced cost sharing 

The GUARD Model will similarly test whether applying MFN-based rebates to Medicare Part D drugs will lower Medicare costs. Key aspects of this model include: 

  • Fiveyear model that would start January 1, 2027 
  • Target therapeutic categories with more than $69 million in annual Part D spending 
  • No impact on plan bids and beneficiary cost sharing 

These models rely on pricing data from 19 countries. Manufacturers that voluntarily submit net price information would trigger quarterly benchmark updates; otherwise, CMS will use a fixed list price based benchmark for the entire pilot period. 

CMS is seeking  on whether additional categories, for example cell and gene therapies, should be excluded from GLOBE. GUARD is also open for  through February 23, 2026. 

GENErating cost Reductions fOr US Medicaid (GENEROUS) Model 

The , expected to begin in 2026, creates a voluntary pathway for state Medicaid programs and manufacturers to enter supplemental rebate agreements tied to MFNaligned prices. MFN pricing under this model is based on the second lowest net price in G7 countries plus Denmark and Switzerland. GENEROUS is also expected to align with pricing commitments negotiated through the administration’s manufacturer agreements. 

Key Considerations and Potential Impacts 

The combined effect of federal negotiations and Innovation Center models could be substantial, though outcomes will depend on manufacturer participation, benchmark stability, and operational feasibility. Key considerations include: 

  • State Medicaid savings, especially the extent to which MFN‑linked rebates exceed existing supplemental rebates 
  • Reduced Medicare beneficiary cost sharing for Part B included in GLOBE 
  • Shifts in manufacturer pricing strategies, including potential changes to US launch prices 
  • Interactions with the IRA, particularly Part D redesign and Part B inflation penalties 

Connect with Us 

HMA experts continue to track the federal drug pricing landscape closely as comments, operational details, and implementation timelines evolve across these initiatives. Our team replicates CMS payment methodologies and models alternative policies using the most current Medicare FFS and Medicare Advantage (100%) claims data. 

For more informationԻquestions about the policies described in this article, please contact our experts below.

Preparing for Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements—Key Steps and Opportunities for States and Plans

Read Blog

On December 8, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued anticipated  on Medicaid community engagement requirements, as established in the 2025 budget reconciliation legislation (P.L. 119-21, referred to as OBBBA). This guidance arrives at a pivotal moment, as states begin budget planning and legislative sessions. 

(HMA) reviewed the guidance in the context of other policy and financing shifts that are affecting the Medicaid program. This article highlights key takeaways, addresses considerations for implementation, and issues for policymakers and healthcare organizations to track. 

Brief Background 

Generally speaking, Section 71119 of OBBBA requires states to implement community engagement requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility for individuals in the expansion population ages 19−64 who are neither pregnant nor enrolled in Medicare or any other mandatory Medicaid group. The guidance explains the statutory requirements related to how states verify community engagement, notify applicants and beneficiaries, ensure compliance with federal standards as the January 2027 deadline approaches, and other core components of the policy. 

Starting January 1, 2027, states must require certain Medicaid expansion applicants to demonstrate community engagement for at least one month and may require up to three consecutive months immediately prior to the month of application. If compliance or exemption status is unverifiable at the time of application, states must provide notice and an opportunity to respond. These enrollees will maintain coverage during the response period. States are also expected to establish clear documentation standards and proactive communication processes for applicants and enrollees. 

Three Key Takeaways from the Initial Guidance 

1. Organizations must understand the key dates leading up to January 1, 2027

Limited new funding and tight timelines make January 1, 2027, a critical deadline for implementation. Medicaid organizations need to consider, however, the full sequence of events leading up to that date, including providing required advance notification to individuals about the changes and their eligibility status. Documentation and progress tracking are essential, both for compliance and to demonstrate that CMS deadlines are being met. 

Although the guidance outlines notice and response requirements, it leaves open critical questions about how states will prevent procedural disenrollments, manage increased appeals volume, and mitigate due process legal risk if eligibility and verification systems fail at scale. 

2. Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) have a limited role in decision-making but are key to engagement

Medicaid managed care organizations are prohibited from making the determination that an individual has met the community engagement requirement; however, they have an opportunity to support individuals in a range of ways. Recent changes under OBBBA give plans clearer authority to conduct proactive outreach on eligibility and renewal requirements, which strengthens their ability to help members navigate deadlines, reporting expectations, and documentation needs. This capacity will be important because a lack of predictability in enrollment and churn can meaningfully affect the risk profile of plans and, as a result, increase volatility in provider negotiations. 

Plans, providers, community organizations, and state and local agencies can collaborate to develop effective engagement strategies, aligned messaging, and ongoing touch points. Helping members understand what is required—and when—and connecting them with resources to take action will be essential for successful implementation. 

3. States and partner organizations need a global view of IT changes and functionality

CMS emphasizes that the eligibility determinations for the community engagement requirements should function seamlessly with new and existing system functionality. Meeting this expectation requires states to have a deep understanding of whether and how policies can be operationalized in their systems without adding administrative burden for individuals and others that engage with the systems. 

Meeting federal expectations may be particularly challenging for states with county-based Medicaid systems, as implementing these requirements across multiple jurisdictions may necessitate a longer transition period. The OBBBA includes $200 million in total grant funding for implementation activities in 2026, and states can apply for enhanced federal IT funding at the 90/10 or 75/25 rates for certain costs and activities. Federal resources are otherwise limited, so it is critical that states and partner organizations establish a well-defined strategy to maximize available funding to support the system changes required to implement OBBBA eligibility requirements. 

What to Watch 

The guidance arrives as many governors begin releasing their budget proposals and planning for upcoming legislative sessions. Although the guidance provides clear information on the overarching parameters and a preliminary road map, certain critical details are forthcoming. State budgets should reflect the requirements and anticipate the need for rapid system and process development. 

CMS will issue an interim final rule by June 1, 2026, and states must implement the community engagement requirement no later than January 1, 2027. States must comply with these requirements and act quickly to develop, pay for, and implement new systems, policies, and processes—ideally before the latter half of 2026. 

CMS is developing additional guidance in several areas, including: 

  • Use of reliable data sourcesԻhow to satisfy the definition of engagement 
  • Implementation of the requirement to conduct renewals every six months for certain individuals 
  • Specific documentation requirements for community engagement 
  • Potential role that managed care plans can play unrelated to determining beneficiary compliance 

States and Medicaid organizations should closely monitor these developments and be prepared to adjust their strategies as new information becomes available. 

Connect with Us 

HMA’s experts are trusted problem solvers, partnering with states to navigate the complexities of community engagement planning, even as requirements and details continue to evolve. Drawing on deep state and federal experience, as well as lessons learned from previous large-scale eligibility reforms, our team helps Medicaid-focused organizations quickly design and implement practical, context-specific strategies that align with OBBBA requirements. Whether it’s strategy development, system design, or crafting effective messages, HMA brings a flexible, solutions-oriented approach to maximize continuity of coverage and meet each client’s unique needs. 

Contact our featured experts below to discuss how we can support your team in navigating these changes and building effective engagement strategies. 

Five Key Takeaways from the 2025 National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) Conference

Read Blog

At the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) 2025 Fall Conference, planned federal health policy changes dominated conversations among attendees, including state Medicaid directors, health plans, and providers. With major changes on the horizon for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace programs, stakeholders are preparing for transition and transformation in 2026. 

A team from  (HMA) attended the conference and returned with valuable insights on the emerging opportunities, state-specific priorities for 2026 and beyond, and early strategies to address and mitigate the challenges ahead. Among the topics discussed were the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP), Medicaid eligibility and community engagement policy changes, drug costs and financing, upstream drivers of health, and data infrastructure. 

Five major takeaways about the work state Medicaid agencies, health plans, providers, and industry partners will focus on in the year ahead were as follows. 

1. Medicaid leaders are preparing for new eligibility and community engagement policies under tight timelines. 

The 2025 budget reconciliation act (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA) requires certain adults ages 19–64 enrolled in Medicaid to complete at least 80 hours per month of community engagement (CE) to maintain coverage. Exemptions to the CE requirement apply to people with disabilities, pregnant individuals, and caregivers. States must now develop processes and information systems that track and verify compliance with CE requirements, manage exemptions, and support members through this policy change. 

Medicaid CE and other new eligibility requirements, including more frequent eligibility checks, were a frequent topic of discussion throughout the event. Implementation of these requirements is a major operational lift with significant program integrity implications. State leaders discussed the tight timelines, resource constraints, and the need to coordinate across agencies, health plans, and providers. They are already planning to mitigate the risk of coverage losses for at-risk populations and to minimize administrative burden for all stakeholders. The urgency and complexity of these changes underscore the need for strategic planning and cross-sector collaboration. 

2. Coordinated communication and stakeholder engagement remain critical. 

States are increasingly relying on multiple forms of communication and feedback channels to engage stakeholders, including Medicaid members. Clear, timely communication is essential to ensure people understand their options and know what they need to do and when to do it. Medicaid leaders described the value of embedding vital eligibility information into workflows at all levels and applying lessons from the COVID-19 public health emergency unwind to new outreach and education initiatives. 

Several states emphasized the effectiveness of convening all stakeholders to ensure unified messaging. Other common themes included the importance of plain-language materials, hands-on support through case managers and navigators, and engaging providers to integrate new eligibility and work-related requirements into their workflows, as policies evolve. 

3. States are eager to begin implementing initiatives in their rural health transformation plans. 

Medicaid leaders are actively discussing their RHTP applications with CMS, preparing to move quickly once awards are announced. Many states are focused on enhancing existing efforts, while others are preparing to invest in systems, technology, and organizations that will better integrate rural providers into the broader healthcare system, including Medicaid. 

Federal and state leaders and their partners discussed the opportunity for RHTP funding to strengthen rural health infrastructure, workforce development, education, and outreach—especially in underserved areas. States are positioning themselves to leverage these funds to address persistent disparities and improve access to care for rural populations. 

4. States are seeking to balance cost and access to GLP-1s and other prescription drugs. 

Federal and state leaders extolled the benefits of new and innovative prescription drug products and therapies, including GLP-1s. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz highlighted the administration’s announcements about drug pricing, including the new GENEROUS (GENErating cost Reductions fOr US Medicaid) model, which is focused on drug costs in the Medicaid program. These discussions reinforced CMS’s focus on new drug pricing models and the importance of involving Medicaid experts in these nuanced development and implementation conversations. 

Attendees gained a deeper appreciation for the administration’s intent to have GLP-1s and other therapies play a significant role in addressing chronic disease, including obesity. State Medicaid agencies—and their Medicaid managed care plans and partners—should plan to inform discussions about coverage and financing of these novel products as well as for cell and gene therapies. The intersection of innovation, affordability, and access will remain a central challenge. 

5. Medicaid agencies are working on multiple technology interoperability and quality initiatives.  

Although Medicaid eligibility policy changes and CE requirements drew significant attention, many discussions also focused on other upcoming deadlines, including: 

  • New federal interoperability and prior authorization rules that go into effect in 2027 
  • State implementation of Medicaid and CHIP Quality Rating System requirements before the end of 2028 
  • The transition to digital quality measurement (dQM) by 2030 

Medicaid agencies are collaborating with managed care and provider organizations to understand the operational, clinical, and technical dimensions of these initiatives. 

Connect with Us 

HMA’s expert consultants provide advanced policy, technical, and operational support, and can help your organization navigate and succeed in the evolving regulatory landscape. Our team brings deep experience and practical solutions to help clients anticipate challenges, leverage opportunities, and achieve their program goals. For more information or technical assistance on these and other emerging Medicaid priorities, contact the HMA’s featured experts below.

Ready to talk?