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

1266 Results found.

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.

CMS ACCESS Model: A New On-Ramp to Outcomes-Based, Tech-Enabled Care in Traditional Medicare

Read Blog

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center recently published applications for its new  (Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions), a 10-year voluntary initiative beginning July 2026. The model is designed to advance outcomes-based, technology-enabled care delivery in Original Medicare and aligns with the Innovation Center’s priorities of strengthening prevention, empowering beneficiaries, and promoting performance-based competition. ACCESS is particularly suited to organizations with mature clinical operations and data infrastructure, offering a new pathway for tech-supported services. 

This article summarizes the model’s design, highlights key considerations for prospective applicants, and addresses common questions our Medicare and technology experts fielded during a recent Health Management Associates (HMA)/Leavitt Partners webinar

What the ACCESS Model Is Testing 

ACCESS evaluates whether Outcome-Aligned Payments (OAPs)—recurring payments contingent on measurable clinical improvement—can reduce spending while maintaining or improving quality for beneficiaries with chronic conditions. The model tests whether incentivizing technology supported care can produce reliable clinical outcomes while complementing traditional care delivery. 

Who may participate? Organizations must be Medicare Part B–enrolled providers or suppliers (excluding DMEPOS [Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies] and labs). Participants may enroll beneficiaries directly, operate across multiple clinical tracks, and manage all qualifying conditions within each selected track. Beneficiary participation is voluntary, and individuals may switch ACCESS participants every 90 days. 

Clinical tracks. At launch, the four clinical tracks reflect high-prevalence chronic conditions with established care pathways and strong evidence for technology-supported interventions: 

  • Early Cardio-Kidney-Metabolic (eCKM)
  • Cardio-Kidney-Metabolic (CKM)
  • Musculoskeletal (MSK)
  • Behavioral Health (BH)

Payment. OAPs vary by track and performance period. CMS pays a portion prospectively each quarter and withholds 50 percent pending reconciliation based on: 

  • Clinical outcomes attainment: The percentage of aligned beneficiaries who complete the 12‑month performance period and achieve track‑specific clinical targets relative to their baseline.
  • Substitute‑spend test: Ensures beneficiaries do not receive duplicativefee-for-service (FFS)services for conditions managed under ACCESS.

Technology and data exchange. ACCESS takes a tech-forward approach. Key expectations include use of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) based Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for eligibility, consent, claims sharing, and care coordination—part of the broader federal push to modernize the health data ecosystem. CMS also plans to publish a public directory that lists participants, tracks, cost-sharing policies, and risk-adjusted outcomes to enable consumer and clinician choice. 

Regulatory coordination. To complement ACCESS and expand the pipeline of technology-supported interventions, the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA)  (Technology-Enabled Meaningful Patient Outcomes)  allows selected US-based digital health device manufacturers to participate while generating real-world evidence. Up to 40 device manufacturers may participate across clinical areas. 

This coordinated CMSFDA effort is intended to reduce barriers to innovation and accelerate access to safe, effective digital tools that can support chronic disease management. 

Key Considerations for Applicants 

Program integrity and fraud/abuse. CMS has emphasized program integrity across Medicare and Medicaid, and ACCESS reflects that emphasis. Applicants and their parent organizations should expect rigorous screening. Participants must also operationalize controls to pass the substitute spend test and maintain auditable evidence of outcomes and beneficiary consent. 

Overlap with Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and other models. Patients may participate in ACCESS and be aligned with an ACO simultaneously; however, “participant overlap” raises important operational and financial issues. ACCESS includes an FFS exclusion policy that prohibits participants or affiliated entities from billing Medicare FFS for any services delivered to the same beneficiaries for the duration of their ACCESS episode. As a result, traditional providers, ACO-aligned clinicians, and integrated delivery systems must assess whether they can segment patient populations or if partnering is more feasible. 

Eligibility and clinical scope. ACCESS is focused on relatively stable, chronically ill beneficiaries and excludes those with more acute/severe conditions. Participants must accept responsibility for all qualifying conditions a beneficiary has within a track. 

ܳٳdzڴǰԳ.TheACCESS Model places substantialemphasis on clinicalperformanceand care coordination. Participantsare paid in full only if enough patients hit outcomes targets.Early cohorts willlikely skewtoward organizations with mature clinical protocols, robust engagement models, and demonstrated outcomes.Applicants shouldbefinanciallypreparedtotolerate withholds, beneficiary switching, andfollow-onperiod payment reductions after year one.

Digital infrastructure and interoperability. ACCESS presumes API-driven data exchange, including consent capture, eligibility checks, claims/clinical data integration, and bidirectional information sharing with the patient’s broader care team. Applicants should ensure they have a FHIR API server and meet the requirements described in the CMS .

Go-to-market and referral strategy. Beneficiary alignment is voluntary and will be facilitated by CMS’s planned public directory with risk-adjusted outcomes. Access participants will benefit from strong referral relationships—especially with ACOs and primary care providers—both to enroll eligible beneficiaries and to minimize substitute services. A field strategy grounded in evidence, patient engagement, and interoperability with local providers is critical to success. 

Connect with Us 

 for the first ACCESS Model performance period are due April 1, 2026, with model launch in July 2026; applications submitted later would start January 1, 2027. Because ACCESS is a rolling, decade-long model, some organizations may choose to stage entry. 

ACCESS is the most explicit Innovation Center opportunity to date on outcomes-based, tech-enabled chronic care in Traditional Medicare. It offers digital health and advanced care organizations a direct line to FFS beneficiaries with payment tied to results, not activities. Success will favor teams that combine clinical excellence, consumer-grade engagement, and API-level interoperability, as well as manage program integrity, ACO overlap, and beneficiary churn. 

For questions or support assessing readiness, developing an application, or operationalizing the model, contact Amy Bassano, , or Kate de Lisle

CMS Releases 2027 Advance Notice with Medicare Advantage and Part D Rates

Read Blog

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the  on January 26, 2026. The Advance Notice begins CMS’s annual rate-setting cycle and describes proposed updates to Medicare Advantage (MA) growth rates, benchmark rebasing, risk adjustment, Star Ratings, and Part D payment parameters. CMS previously released a  in November 2025 that included policy changes to the Star Ratings system and enrollment policies for MA and Part D starting in contract year 2027. (Read the  (HMA) summary here.) 

Comments onthe Advance Notice are due February 25, 2026, andCMS will publish the final CY 2027 rate announcement no later than April 6, 2026.

This article provides an early look at the proposed methodological updates and draft capitation rates. Wakely, an HMA Company, will publish a detailed analysis of the Advance Notice in early February. 

Payment Impact on Medicare Advantage Organizations 

CMS estimates a national per capita MA growth rate of 5.10 percent from 2026 to 2027, with fee-for-service (FFS) non-end-stage renal disease (non-ESRD) growth of 5.10 percent and FFS dialysis end-stage renal disease (ESRD) growth of 6.17 percent. 

The5.10percent growth rate reflects projected increases in percapitaFFSMedicare spending for beneficiaries who areaged/havedisabilitiesand serves as the primary driver of 2027 benchmark updates, interacting with rebasing and risk adjustment changes todeterminefinal capitation payments.The growth ratereflectsupdatestohow CMS pays for skin substitutesin the 2026 Medicare PhysicianFeeSchedule. These updates resulted in significantly lower projected costsand materially reducedthe growthrate.

These preliminary estimates inform the development of MA benchmarks and may change in the final rate announcement.

Table 1. Estimated Impact of Proposed Payment Changes on Medicare Advantage Plan Payments, CY 2027 

Year-to-Year Percentage Change
Impact  CY 2027 Advance Notice  
Effective Growth Rate4.97%
Rebasing/Re-pricingTBD
Change in Star Ratings-0.03%
MA Coding Pattern Adjustment0%
Risk Model Revision and Normalization-3.32%
Sources of Diagnoses-1.53%
Expected Average Change0.09%
SourceCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2027 Medicare Advantage and Part D Advance Notice. January 26, 2026. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2027-medicare-advantage-part-d-advance-notice. 

Medicare Advantage Benchmarks, Rebasing, and Risk Adjustment 

The Advance Notice describes CMS’s approach and changes that will affect payment to plans, including: 

  • Excluding from the risk adjustment process diagnoses submitted from chart reviews with unlinked claim records. In the Fact Sheet, CMS estimates this change will reduce Part C payments by 1.53 percent.
  • RebasingcountyFFSrates for 2027 using 2020–2024 claims data, continuingCMS’spractice of updating benchmarks annually to reflect the most current FFS experience. The Advance Notice also reiterates the statutory framework for calculating benchmarks, including applicable and specified amounts, benchmark caps, and quality bonus payments.
  • Updatingthe CMS Hierarchical Condition Category (CMS-HCC) and Prescription Drug Hierarchical Condition Category (RxHCC) risk adjustment models and associated normalization factors for CY 2027 andcontinuingto apply the statutory MA coding pattern difference adjustment to account for systematic differences in diagnosis coding between MA and FFS.

Quality Bonus Payments, Star Ratings, and Part D Updates 

CMS states that contracts with 4 or more Stars receive a 5 percentage-point quality bonus, while new and low-enrollment contracts receive a 3.5percentage-point bonus. The Advance Notice also includes updates related to Part C and Part D Star Ratings measures and methodological refinements. 

For Part D, CMS outlines proposed updates to the defined standard benefit parameters for CY 2027, as well as changes to Part D risk adjustment, normalization, premium stabilization, reinsurance, and risk-sharing, with additional policy context provided in the Contract Year 2027 Medicare Advantage and Part D proposed rule. 

Connect with Us 

The CY 2027 Advance Notice provides early signals on benchmark growth, rebasing, and payment methodology changes that will shape MA and Part D paymentsin2027. Stakeholders should begin evaluating the potential implications for bid development, benefit design, and financial performance as CMS moves towardfinalizingrates in April.

HMA supports Medicare Advantage and Part D stakeholders with payment impact modeling, scenario analysis, and strategic advisory services related to benchmark rebasing, risk adjustment, Star Ratings, and Part D payment policy to help organizations prepare for the CY 2027 rate announcement. 

For details about the finalized payment and policy rules,contact our featured experts,  and.

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
  • Adjustingthehome health nursing and therapy services paymentmethodology
  • Introducing cost controls for Medicaid benefit categories that have shown disproportionate growth
  • Implementinga$3,000 annual cap on adult Medicaid dental benefitsand a$750 annual cap on dental benefits for individuals in the Cover All Coloradans program
  • ChangingtheCover All Coloradans behavioral health program from managed care to fee for service
  • Reviewing provider feesin anticipation ofpossible StateDirected 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 ofbothautomatic rate increases for psychiatric residential treatment facilities and qualifyingaddictionand recovery treatment services providersandautomatic biennial inflation increases formedicalassistanceproviders
  • Restrictions onemergencymaternity services to Medicaidenrolleeswhoare ineligiblefor Medicaidbecauseof their citizenship status
  • Standardizedhourly limits across home and community-basedserviceswaivers
  • Actionsrelated to“ensuring appropriate utilization” of services,such asappliedbehavioralanalysis 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.  

Outlook 2026: ACA Marketplace Trends–A Conversation with Michael Cohen and Zach Sherman

Read Blog

As the 2026 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace open enrollment period nears its close—and with enhanced subsidies expiring, rates shifting, and consumer behavior evolving—questions about enrollment stability, affordability, and operational readiness have rapidly moved to the forefront. Andrea Maresca, Senior Principal, at , caught up with Zach Sherman, Managing Director for Coverage Policy and Program Design at HMA, and , PhD, who leads much of the federal policy analysis advanced by Wakely, an HMA company, to unpack what they’re seeing so far.

Q: This year’s open enrollment period has been unusually complex. At the federal level, what stands out most so far? 

Michael: The headline is that new enrollment is down sharply, while returning consumers have held steadier than expected. That reflects the reality that the enhanced subsidies are gone, premiums have risen, and consumers are facing higher net costs across nearly every market. 

But nuance matters: The real question now is how many of these plan selections will effectuate—meaning consumers pay their first month premium, and how many will stay enrolled the entire year? Average effectuated enrollment throughout the year is what truly determines 2026 risk mix and market stability. 

Q: Enrollment appears to vary considerably from state to state. What are you hearing from state partners? 

Zach: It’s a tale of two markets. StateBased Exchanges (SBEs) are generally seeing less attrition and, in some cases, even modest increases in plan selections. The reason is simple: Many states are doing a lot of heavy lifting to offset the loss of federal support. 

For example, SBEs perform earlier and have more customized outreach. We’ve also seen some states step in and offer state-funded subsidies, which are cushioning the affordability loss in places like New Mexico, Maryland, and California. 

While still early, the data suggest that states with heavy investment in awareness and enrollment assistance, operational support, and affordability are weathering the transition better because they have more tools to stabilize the consumer experience. 

Q: There’s been a lot of speculation about how consumers are responding to the end of enhanced subsidies. What are the early signs? 

Michael: Consumers appear to be buying leaner benefits or different metal tiers to manage premium increases. 

Another underrecognized but incredibly important dynamic is that autoreenrolled consumers may not effectuate coverage once they see the final outofpocket premium. That dynamic won’t be fully understood until March, April, and even May. 

Q: Idaho is a particularly interesting early case study. What are you learning from the first state to complete enrollment? 

Zach: Your Health Idaho’s open enrollment finished on December 15, and while they saw a slight increase in plan selections, state officials are not celebrating as they expect a large wave of cancellations—up to 20,000—due to the expiring subsidies. 

That’s the clearest early indication that affordability is the defining issue of 2026. States are preparing for higher-than-usual enrollment attrition in quarters one and two (Q1 and Q2), and they’re thinking hard about customer service capacity as consumers navigate changing net premiums, increased deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, and nonpayment grace periods. 

Q: Are there policy levers states can still pull to mitigate affordability challenges going forward? 

Zach: We’re seeing states explore options for mitigating affordability gaps and enrollment losses, including through state subsidy programs and increased investment in existing reinsurance programs. SBEs are also leaning on their core competencies—tailored and specific education campaigns and enrollment and plan comparison tools—to help their customers cut through the noise and navigate to the best option within their budget.  

These aren’t perfect or quick fixes and most states don’t have the resources necessary to backstop the expiring subsidies, but state leaders increasingly view doing something as necessary to stabilize their markets. 

Q: What should health plans, exchanges, and policymakers watch most closely over the next three months? 

Michael: Effectuation, effectuation, effectuation. The composition of the effectuated population will define 2026 risk. 

Zach: Agree. In addition, future regulatory action on affordability, eligibility and enrollment processes, and program integrity. The federal government is expected to issue its annual payment notice, the proposed 2027 Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters, in the near future. 

You can find more insights on the initial enrollment patterns to date in this -Wakely paper,  and register for the 2027 ACA Considerations: Proposed NBPP and Other Key Changes and Trends.  

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,insightfulinterviewswith our policy expertson issuesthat will define2026—what’s changing, why it matters, and how federal, state, and industry decisions will shape what happens next.Building onour earlier analysis ofthe Rural Health Transformation Program((RHTP),hereandhere), this week, westartwith apointedlook atthe Centers for Medicare & MedicaidServices’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 sharecombined)reached$550.5billioninFFY 2025,up from$517.5billioninFFY 2024.
  • Thisamountrepresentsa6.4percentyear-over-year increase fromFFY 2024toFFY 2025.
  • Managedcareaccounted for 56.7percentof total Medicaid spending inFFY 2025, down0.3percentage pointsfrom the previousyear.
  • The$33 billionincrease from FFY 2024 to FFY 2025 exceeds the$9.4 billionincrease 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, withnearly30percentof spending directedtowardpayments 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 portionof physician services delivered in hospitals and clinics) areessentially unbundledand considered professional fees.
  • Hospital spending(inpatient plus outpatient), SNFcosts, and professional feestogetheraccount for close to 75percent of spending inCY 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

Webinar Replay – 2027 ACA Considerations: Proposed NBPP and Other Key Changes and Trends

Watch Now

This webinar was held on February 4, 2026 at 12pm ET.

Upon the release of the CMS final 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters and the accompanying Letter to Issuers in January, health plans and state policymakers will face critical decisions that shape the next phase of the individual and small group markets.

Experts from HMA and Wakely discussed what the proposed rule means in practice and how stakeholders can begin preparing now. This webinar provided a clear overview of the final 2027 NBPP** and Letter to Issuers, highlighted the most significant policy changes and clarifications, and explored the operational and strategic implications for states. Speakers focused on how the final policies may influence market stability, affordability, program administration, and longer-term planning for 2027 and beyond.

** We expect that the NBPP will have been released before the webinar takes place, but if the NBPP is not yet released we will cover likely scenarios based on our best available information.

Learning Objectives:

•Understanding the proposed 2027 NBPP and Letter to Issuers

•Awareness of key implications for states and issuers

•Discussion of key planning considerations for 2027

Ready to talk?