HMA Insights | HMA Weekly Roundup | Vital Viewpoints Podcast

Filter by topic:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

526 Results found.

Outlook 2026: A Conversation on Medicare Draft Payment Rules

As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) advances through the 2027 Medicare payment rule cycle, stakeholders across Medicare Advantage (MA) and the provider community are assessing how proposed changes could affect payment, utilization, and longer-term revenue. To better understand what to watch as draft rules move toward finalization, Jen Colamonico, Vice President, Strategy and Communications at Health Management Associates (HMA), caught up with Rachel Stewart, Senior Consulting Actuary with Wakley, an HMA Company. Of particular interest was CMS’s decision to eliminate the Inpatient Only List (IPO) over a three- year period.

Q: As CMS begins releasing draft payment rules for 2027, what stands out most to you from a budgetary perspective?
Rachel: Timing and uncertainty really stand out. These policies don’t operate in isolation. Changes to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payment ultimately affect Medicare Advantage benchmarks, provider contracting, and long-term revenue expectations. Because bids, budgets, and contracts are set before rules are finalized, modeling different scenarios becomes essential.

Q: One issue that has garnered significant interest is CMS’s decision to phase out Medicare’s Inpatient Only (IPO) policy, which is a list of procedures and services that must be provided on an inpatient basis. In 2026, CMS eliminated nearly 300 services, mostly musculoskeletal services, from the IPO list. How are Medicare Advantage plans thinking about the Inpatient Only list specifically?

Rachel: Historically, many MA plans have followed the IPO policy even though they weren’t required to do so, largely because it simplified operations and aligned with Medicare fee-for-service payment systems. Plans do have flexibility in how they contract with providers, and we see a wide range of approaches in the market. Some contracts closely mirror FFS, while others incorporate more customized arrangements or risk sharing. Because of that, the direct impact of IPO changes will vary significantly across plans and provider relationships.

Q: Where do you see the biggest potential impact for Medicare Advantage?
Rachel: I think the bigger impact may be indirect rather than tied to individual contract changes. Medicare Advantage benchmarks are driven by underlying fee-for-service spending trends. If CMS anticipates lower overall inpatient spending as procedures move to outpatient or ambulatory surgical center settings, that expectation could show up in benchmark growth rates. Even relatively small changes in benchmark growth can affect plan revenue, rebates, and benefit flexibility.

Q: Are you already seeing signs of that in the data?
Rachel: We do see lower inpatient trends reflected in the 2027 and 2028 US per capita cost projections. It’s still unclear what’s driving those trends—whether its assumptions related to the IPO list removal or other factors. We’ve asked CMS for more clarity. From an actuarial standpoint, understanding what’s baked into those projections is critical, because so many MA financial decisions flow from them.

Q: How does this uncertainty affect provider planning, especially for hospitals?
Rachel: Providers are understandably concerned about potential revenue shifts if cases move out of the inpatient setting. But in Medicare Advantage, the picture is more nuanced than in fee-for-service. Many MA arrangements include risk sharing, medical loss ratio targets, and quality incentive payments. If overall costs decline, providers may share in savings through those mechanisms. So, while there may be pressure on inpatient revenue, it’s not necessarily a one directional loss.

Q: Does that mean the overall impact may be less dramatic than it appears?
Rachel: Potentially, yes—especially for organizations already participating in value-based arrangements. A reduction in unit costs doesn’t automatically mean a reduction in total provider revenue in MA. The redistribution of dollars through shared savings and quality bonuses can offset some of that pressure. That’s why understanding contract structure is just as important as understanding the policy itself.

Q: What about quality and patient safety as procedures move to lower cost settings?
Rachel: Quality is always central in Medicare Advantage, and plans are already managing a lot of complexity related to Star ratings and quality measurement. We haven’t yet seen specific quality safeguards tied to the IPO list changes, but I would expect more discussion in the forthcoming proposed rules. From the MA side, contracting remains a key lever. Plans still have flexibility to ensure procedures are performed in appropriate settings and to align incentives with quality outcomes.

Q: What steps do you recommend to stakeholders to prepare for the final rule and for 2027?
Rachel: Modeling helps organizations understand the range of possible outcomes rather than betting on a single assumption. We’re looking at different utilization scenarios, site of care shifts, and benchmark growth trajectories. For providers, modeling can inform contract negotiations and capital planning. For plans, it helps assess revenue risk and benefit design flexibility. It doesn’t eliminate uncertainty, but it helps organizations make informed decisions.

Q: If you could change one thing about how these policies are rolled out, what would it be?
Rachel: Transparency. The more clarity CMS can provide around cost projections and assumptions—especially those affecting benchmarks—the better positioned actuaries, plans, and providers will be to respond. So much of Medicare Advantage pricing relies on understanding how fee-for-service is expected to evolve. Greater transparency helps everyone plan more responsibly.

HMA’s Medicare Practice Group Can Help

As CMS moves closer to finalizing the 2027 payment rules, actuarial modeling will continue to be an important tool for translating policy direction into financial strategy. For MA plans and providers alike, early analysis and scenario planning can help mitigate risk and identify opportunity as Medicare’s payment landscape continues to evolve.

For additional insights, listen to Rachel Stewart and Zach Gaumer on HMA’s Vital Viewpoints podcast. Learn more about our Medicare services and solutions.

Early Signals from a Pivotal ACA Enrollment Year

Read Blog

On April 15, 2026, Wakely Consulting Group, an HMA company, published “Who Paid, and Who Stayed? Early 2026 Enrollment Trends in the Individual Market,” the first comprehensive nationwide look at 2026 enrollment trends in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) market. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released 2026 plan selection data, the Wakely report addresses who retained coverage and who did not, what we still don’t know, and what we should be watching for throughout the rest of the 2026 plan year.

This article highlights key findings in the report, related state-level data, impacts and takeaways, and actions states and other interest-holders should consider as they look to mitigate further coverage losses and address market stability in& plan year 2027 and beyond.

Key Findings from the ACA Marketplace Early Enrollment Trends Report

The Who Paid, and Who Stayed report is based on analysis of data from the Wakely National Risk Adjustment Reporting (WNRAR) project, which includes summary data from participating ACA-compliant individual market plans. WNRAR includes data from over 75 issuers representing nearly 80 percent of enrollment the individual market. Key national findings in the report include:

Only 86% of enrollees paid their January 2026 premium.
State variation is significant, ranging from as low as 63% paid in January to as high as 99%.
The overall average enrollment decrease is estimated to be between 17% and 26% lower than 2025, with morbidity projected to worsen by 2.9–6.5%.

The report highlights shifts in plan choice activity driven by affordability pressures, which resulted in considerable migration away from richer benefit plans to plans with lower premiums and higher out-of-pocket maximums. Examples include:

Silver plan enrollment fell approximately 17% from 2025.
Bronze enrollment increased by more than 10%.
More than 13% of 2025 Gold plan enrollees selected a lower priced, Bronze tier plan in 2026.

The report also demonstrated the importance and value of outreach, operational excellence, and state-level affordability mitigation strategies. Examples include:

Enrollment decreases are lower in states with state-based marketplaces (SBMs) and expected to stay lower than Healthcare.gov states, largely because of proactive outreach and marketing initiatives, lower net premium increases, and state affordability programs.
States with premium alignment and silver-loading as a policy lever for improving gold plan affordability are seeing results. Gold plan enrollment increased by 10 percentage points in states where gold plans cost less than silver plans, whereas gold enrollment did not materially change in states where silver plans cost less. For states, this provides a lever to assist consumers seeking to shift into plans with lower cost-sharing without increasing premiums.

State-Reported Early Enrollment Results

Many states warned of coverage losses as a result of changing federal policies and the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs). State-specific reporting for 2026 validates the findings in the Wakely report. The recently released state-level data from SBMs affirms that the drop-off in enrollment through cancellations and dis-enrollments is significant. It also illustrates that state efforts to mitigate and address affordability gaps have worked to some extent but have not been enough on their own to head off coverage losses in 2026. Examples are as follows:

In Georgia—the only SBM without Medicaid expansion—enrollment fell 27% from an estimated 1.3 million in April 2025 to approximately 950,000 in April 2026.
In New Jersey—a state with state-funded premium subsidies, a reinsurance program, and a mandate that residents have health insurance—enrollment has decreased by more than 11% since April 2025.
In California—another state with premium subsidies, facilitated enrollment, and an individual mandate—effectuated enrollment decreased by 7% from February 2025 to February 2026.
Overall, SBMs are reporting that coverage drops were 24% higher from January to March 2026 than during the same period in 2025 and that the rate of plan shifting from Silver to Bronze increased significantly, quadrupling in six states.

Downstream Impact on Healthcare Access and Uncompensated Care

While not yet apparent in the early enrollment data, the downstream impact of 1) coverage losses, 2) increased enrollment in plans with higher cost-sharing, and 3) a worsening risk pool on the health of consumers, as well as the healthcare system, will be significant. Consumers may decide to postpone or forgo necessary care, which could lead to avoidable and more costly healthcare conditions. Increases in the number of people who uninsured and underinsured will have a direct and negative economic impact on provider finances, which are already strained, and uncompensated care and demands on patient assistance programs will increase accordingly.

Looking Ahead

The individual market will continue to evolve and change in the coming years as a result of future regulatory and operational changes. A shortened Open Enrollment Period, increased Medicaid redetermination requirements, and new pre-enrollment verification requirements are notable initiatives that are expected to roll out in the coming years.

Healthcare organizations and government agencies should consider the effect of these changes, including further coverage losses and instability in the individual market driven by the administrative complexity of these changes.

In addition, there are potential federal changes such as expanded availability of catastrophic plans, the introduction of non-network plans, and additional eligibility changes, which could put further strain on ACA Marketplace operations and the individual market.

Getting ahead of these changes will be critical to mitigating coverage losses and ensuring the long-term stability and viability of the individual market. In a federal policy environment that has largely deferred acting on ACA affordability, we expect policymakers, issuers, and other interest-holders to increasingly look to governors and state legislatures for decisive action. State subsidy and reinsurance programs are established affordability mechanisms that can provide consumers with affordability relief quickly, assuming state funding is available.

These investments can pay off for consumers from an economic perspective as well. For every additional dollar spent on state subsidies or reinsurance to maintain or increase coverage, states can expect to see reductions in uncompensated care, less reliance on patient assistance programs, and decreases in the number of consumers who forgo or delay care. In addition, investments in enrollment operations and assistance, outreach, and education will be critical to ensuring consumers are aware of the changes ahead and the actions they need to take to access and stay covered.

Connect with Us

Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), and Wakely colleagues are closely tracking federal policy activity and state actions to address these challenges. Our experts support states, issuers, consumer groups, and other interest-holders to achieve success in the operation of and participation in the marketplaces. Our team has broad historical knowledge of the challenges and opportunities in this market and can support every step of the planning and execution processes to improve affordability and stability as it evolves in the coming months and years.

Contact our experts below with questions about the report and to discuss opportunities to address the trends and forthcoming changes in the market.

To read more about the changes ahead, see the following reports:

CMS Proposes Modest Hospital Payment Updates and Signals Expanded Use of Mandatory Value-Based Models

Read Blog

On April 10, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the proposed rule for the Fiscal Year 2027 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System (LTCH PPS). The proposal combines a modest net increase in hospital payments with policy signals around quality reporting and mandatory episode-based payment models—most notably a proposed nationwide expansion of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model.

These proposed updates underscore CMS’s continued emphasis on value-based purchasing, episode accountability, and alignment across quality programs. In addition, CMS resurfaces ongoing debates with hospital stakeholders about the adequacy of Medicare payment updates amid rising costs and coverage disruptions.

This article reviews several key provisions in the FY 2027 proposed rule.

Hospital Payment Updates: Headline Increase Masks Net Impact

Under the proposed rule, CMS would increase base IPPS and LTCH PPS payment rates by 2.4 percent in FY 2027. However, after accounting for proposed reductions to uncompensated care payments for disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) and changes in outlier payments for extraordinarily high-cost cases, CMS estimates the effective payment increase would be closer to 1.2 percent.

In aggregate, CMS projects the proposed update would translate to approximately $1.4 billion in additional payments to acute care hospitals next year. Hospital industry groups—including the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Federation of American Hospitals (FAH)—have pushed back, arguing that the proposed update does not sufficiently reflect medical inflation, workforce pressures, or anticipated growth in the uninsured population.

These concerns reflect a long-standing dynamic in annual hospital payment rules: CMS seeking to balance statutory updates and budget neutrality constraints against the hospital industry’s concern that Medicare payments are lagging behind underlying costs.

Quality Reporting and Program Alignment

The proposed rule would also make notable updates to the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program. CMS proposes adding three new quality measures to be phased in during 2029 and 2030, while modifying eight existing measures to include Medicare Advantage patients. CMS also proposes shortening the performance period for certain measures from three years to two—a change designed to accelerate feedback and better align measures across programs.

These changes continue CMS’s broader effort to harmonize quality measurement across Medicare payment and value-based programs, reduce reporting lag, and incorporate a more comprehensive view of patient populations.

Updates to Mandatory TEAM Model

CMS also proposes several updates to the Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM), the mandatory episode-based payment model finalized last year. Key proposals include:

Expanding the list of MS-DRGs included in the spinal fusion episode
Aligning TEAM quality measurement performance periods with the IQR Program
Making targeted technical refinements to payment methodology

In addition, CMS is seeking stakeholder feedback on whether ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) should participate in TEAM and whether participation should be voluntary for physician-owned hospitals, signaling potential future expansion or recalibration of the model.

Proposed Expansion of Joint Replacement Bundles

CMS proposes to expand the existing Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Expanded (CJR-X) Model nationwide beginning October 1, 2027. The agency also plans to make participation mandatory for most IPPS hospitals.

CMS tested the original CJR model in 34 metropolitan areas between 2016 and 2024, generating improved patient outcomes and net Medicare savings, according to agency evaluations. CJR-X would become the fifth Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation model to meet the statutory criteria for nationwide expansion.

Under CJR-X, hospitals performing lower extremity joint replacements would be accountable for the cost and quality of care for the initial procedure and most related spending during the subsequent 90 days. Although the overall structure mirrors the original CJR model, CMS proposes several important updates:

Expansion of episodes to include ankle replacements, in addition to hip and knee procedures
Adoption of a more robust risk adjustment methodology with significantly more variables, aligning closely with the TEAM model
Introduction of a 5 percent stop-loss policy for hospitals that serve higher proportions of dually eligible beneficiaries and certain smaller hospitals

Participation would be mandatory for most IPPS hospitals, with exceptions for hospitals already participating in TEAM, which includes a lower extremity joint replacement episode; Maryland hospitals operating under global budgets; and hospitals not paid under both IPPS and the Outpatient Prospective Payment System, such as Critical Access Hospitals.

Why It Matters

The 2027 IPPS and LTCH PPS proposed rule reinforces several clear policy signals:

Pressure on hospital margins is likely to persist, as payment updates continue to trail hospital-reported cost growth.
Mandatory episode-based models remain central to CMS’s value-based strategy, with CJR-X representing a significant escalation in scope and scale.
Program alignment and MA inclusion are accelerating, with implications for hospital data systems, care coordination strategies, and reporting infrastructure.

Hospitals and health systems will need to assess not only the near-term financial impact of the proposed payment updates, but also their readiness to accept expanded episode accountability and meet evolving quality measurement requirements.

Comments on the proposed rule will shape final decisions regarding payment levels, quality program changes, and the scope of mandatory participation in CJR-X. Stakeholders will be watching closely to see whether CMS moderates its approach to mandatory models or doubles down on episode-based accountability as a cornerstone of Medicare payment reform.

In parallel, CMS has released several other proposed payment rules this month, including those that would affect skilled nursing facilities, hospice providers, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and inpatient psychiatric facilities. For these entities, CMS generally proposes payment updates of approximately 2.4 percent and 2.3 percent for inpatient psychiatric facilities. As part of its broader program integrity focus, CMS also has proposed new transparency measures for hospice providers; this follows recent enforcement actions related to fraudulent enrollment.

Connect with Us

Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), monitors federal regulatory and legislative developments in the inpatient setting and assesses the impact on hospitals, life science companies, and other stakeholders. Our experts interpret and model hospital payment policies and assist clients in developing CMS comment letters and long-term strategic plans. Our team replicates CMS payment methodologies and model alternative policies using the most recent Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage (100%) claims data. We also support clients with DRG reassignment requests, New Technology Add-on Payment (NTAP) applications, and analyses of Innovation Center alternative payment models.

For more information about the proposed policies, contact one of our Medicare experts.

Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment: Q4 2025 Trends and Early Signals Ahead of New Eligibility Policies

Read Blog

This week Health Management Associates (HMA), draws on its database of monthly Medicaid managed care enrollment to present its latest quarterly analysis, offering a snapshot of enrollment trends across 37 states.

The analysis comes at a critical time. As states prepare for Medicaid eligibility policy changes that take effect in 2027—including more frequent eligibility determinations and expanded work and community engagement requirements—current enrollment trends provide an early signal of how policy decisions and administrative practices are already influencing coverage levels.

The HMA Information Services (HMAIS) analysis shows that Medicaid managed care accounted for 85.6 percent of total Medicaid enrollment in December 2025. This analysis, available to HMAIS subscribers, uses data from nearly 300 health plans in 41 states. The report provides by-plan enrollment plus corporate ownership, program inclusion, and for-profit versus not-for-profit status, with breakout tabs for publicly traded plans.

Key Insights from Q4 2025 Data

The 37 states included in this review have released monthly Medicaid managed care enrollment data through public websites or in response to a public records request from HMA. The report includes the most recent data obtained and illustrates the effect of state-level choices around eligibility and administration. Key findings include:

As of December 2025, Medicaid managed care enrollment across the 37 states declined by 2.2 million members year over year, falling to 62.5 million—a 3.4 percent decrease.
Of the 37 states, eight—Colorado, Delaware, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oregon—did not experience year-over-year managed care enrollment declines, and instead showed flat enrollment or modest gains. With the exception of Mississippi, these are all Medicaid expansion states.
Arizona and Indiana experienced double-digit percentage declines. Notably, Indiana began requiring enrollees to actively respond to renewal mailers, which aligns with enrollment declines that began in March 2025.
Among the expansion states in the analysis, enrollment declined by 1.7 million (-3.3%) to 50.8 million. The seven non-expansion states experienced a similar decline (-3.6%), bringing enrollment to 11.7 million enrollees.

Data Considerations. The data have some important limitations. States report enrollment figures at different points during the month, with some data reflecting beginning of the month totals and others capturing end of the month enrollment. In addition, some state datasets encompass all Medicaid programs offering managed care plans, whereas others reflect only a subset of the managed Medicaid population. As a result, the findings should be viewed as indicative of broader trends rather than a comprehensive state-by-state comparison. 

Market Share and Plan Dynamics

Using our data repository for 300 health plans across 41 states, HMAIS analyzes corporate ownership, program participation, and tax status among Medicaid managed care plans. As of December 2025, Centene maintained the largest share of the national Medicaid managed care market at 17.8 percent, followed by Elevance (10.4%), United (8.5%), and Molina (6.0%) (see Figure 1). These figures highlight continued concentration among large national plans, even as overall enrollment declines.

Figure 1. National Medicaid Managed Care Market Share by Number of Beneficiaries for a Sample of Publicly Traded Plans, December 2025 

What to Watch 

Enrollment trends observed in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2025 and continuing into 2026 indicate increasing state attention to eligibility policy and program integrity. State legislative activity, budget pressures, and federal regulatory developments are prompting many states to assess and strengthen certain aspects of their programs related to eligibility, particularly as they prepare to implement redetermination and work and community engagement requirements.

Several states are already moving toward implementation. Nebraska is scheduled to launch Medicaid work requirements on May 1, 2026, while Montana plans to begin implementation on July 1, 2026. With additional federal guidance still emerging, most other states are working toward compliance ahead of January 2027 deadlines. In expansion states, policymakers retain authority to tighten administrative processes, alter optional benefits, or adjust provider payment levels—actions that may materially affect enrollment.

These developments underscore why Medicaid managed care enrollment trends deserve close attention. Declines in enrollment are often an early indicator of broader system impacts, including rising uncompensated care for providers, shifts in payer mix, and increased financial pressure on safety‑net systems. For managed care organizations, even modest enrollment changes can mask more significant shifts in risk profiles, geographic concentration, or service needs.

Connect with Us 

HMA is home to experts who know the Medicaid managed care landscape and how it is evolving. HMAIS’s Medicaid enrollment data, financials, procurement tracking, and a robust library of public documents equips stakeholders with timely, actionable intelligence.

For more information about the HMAIS subscription, contact Andrea Maresca and Alona Nenko. 

HMA Resource Provides Key Insights about the Evolving Medicare-Medicaid Integration Landscape

Read Blog

People who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid remain a central focus for policymakers and healthcare organizations, given their complex care needs, disproportionate share of spending, and the long-standing challenge of coordinating coverage across two programs. One of the primary vehicles for advancing integration has been Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs), which continue to play an increasingly prominent role as federal and state policymakers encourage tighter Medicare-Medicaid alignment.

As states play a more active role in shaping enrollment rules, Medicaid contracting, and procurement strategies, the duals market is becoming more structured and more explicitly guided by state policy decisions. Health Management Associates (HMA’s) 2026 Duals Integration Environmental Inventory, examines how this shift shapes the integration landscape in 2026. This comprehensive inventory is based on a review of the 2026 market, insights from states, and other publicly available resources.

This article examines key trends from HMA’s 2026 inventory and addresses federal policy changes scheduled to take effect for 2027, which contribute to this dynamic environment.

What to Expect in 2026

As the landscape for duals integration evolves, the central question has shifted from whether D-SNPs operate in a state to the more consequential question of how states are using Medicaid policy levers (i.e., enrollment rules, procurement, contracting, and managed care structures) to drive tighter alignment between Medicare and Medicaid.

At the federal level, recent Medicare Advantage and Part D rulemaking is reinforcing that movement. The Contract Year 2025 Medicare Advantage and Part D Final Rule finalized the second phase-down of the D-SNP look-alike threshold to 60 percent for 2026 and established 2027 rules that limit enrollment in certain D-SNPs to members of an affiliated Medicaid managed care organization. The rule also limits the number of D-SNP benefit packages that can be offered alongside an affiliated Medicaid managed care organization. More recently, the Contract Year 2026 Medicare Advantage and Part D Final Rule requires certain D-SNPs to use integrated member ID cards and integrated health risk assessments beginning in 2027.

Together these rules signal a continued federal emphasis on linking D-SNP enrollment and operations more closely to Medicaid coverage and delivery systems, with states playing a greater role in determining how alignment is achieved.

What the 2026 Inventory Shows

HMA’s 2026 Duals Integration Environmental Inventory shows how these policy signals are translating into state action. More specifically:

Statewide exclusively aligned enrollment appears in 16 states in the 2026 inventory, up from nine in 2025.
Applicable Integrated Plans (AIPs) are present in 22 states, up from 14, and default enrollment is in place in 21 states, up from 16.
The inventory also captures 6,084,997 total D-SNP enrollees, including 1,975,250 in Highly Integrated SNPs (HIDE) and 743,683 in Fully Integrated SNPs (FIDE-SNPs).

Those changes are already visible in state markets:

Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Rhode Island entered 2026 with a greater FIDE-SNP presence tied to legacy Medicare-Medicaid Plan transitions.
Michigan launched MI Coordinated Health as a HIDE-SNP in selected regions in 2026, with statewide expansion planned for 2027.
Delaware also stands out: Although it already had AIPs in the 2025 inventory, it adds statewide exclusively aligned enrollment in 2026 and shows both HIDE-SNPs and coordination-only D-SNPs.

A Resource to Track State Market Direction

HMA’s 2026 Duals Integration Environmental Inventory, available to HMA Information Services (HMAIS) subscribers, includes a state-by-state view of the Medicaid policy, contracting, and program structures shaping duals integration and D-SNP markets. In addition to enrollment trends, the inventory documents the integration model each state is pursuing, whether long-term services and supports or behavioral health are included in managed care, and how procurement and contract decisions may inform future market activity.

HMA experts work with clients to apply this information and deepen their understanding of state integration approaches, inform assessments of their market readiness and alignment opportunities, and develop strategies that support more effective Medicare-Medicaid integration.

Looking Ahead

Notably, HMA’s inventory reflects a point in time understanding of where an individual state is today and what is known at this time about their next steps and plans. However, we expect changes in many states as they seek guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the D-SNP community to implement required changes and adopt new regulatory provisions that support state goals and priorities.

The 2026 inventory suggests that more states are using formal alignment tools, that more enrollment is concentrated in integrated products, and that more markets are being shaped by the interaction between Medicaid structure, procurement, and D-SNP strategy.

Connect with Us

For organizations seeking to understand where the market is headed, the Duals Integration Inventory offers a clear view of how state policy and market structure are evolving and where tighter Medicare-Medicaid alignment is taking hold.

Contact Holly Michaels Fisher and Julie Faulhaber to discuss your organization’s questions and needs regarding an integration strategy and market analysis. For information about the HMAIS subscription, access to the Duals Environmental Inventory contact Andrea Maresca and Gabby Palmieri.

CMS’s LEAD Model: A New Phase for Accountable Care and Application Considerations

Read Blog

The Long‑term Enhanced Accountable Care Organization (LEAD) Model represents the next major step in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) accountable care strategy and reinforces a federal commitment to value-based participation in Traditional Medicare. Announced as the successor to ACO REACH, LEAD is a voluntary, nationwide, 10‑year model that will operate from 2027 to 2036, making it the longest-running accountable care organization (ACO) model the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has tested.

Momentum around the LEAD ACO model has accelerated since CMS’s recent release of the Request for Applications (RFA), which formally moves LEAD from policy design to implementation. The RFA requires prospective participants to evaluate program design choices, financial implications, and operational readiness on a compressed timeline. Notably, CMS has indicated that additional opportunities to express interest will follow for organizations that are not prepared to apply for participation in the initial cohort.

This article explains key design elements of the LEAD model and identifies considerations for organizations assessing whether and when to pursue participation in LEAD.

Core Design Evolutions of the LEAD Model

While LEAD builds on many of the elements from ACO REACH, its design reflects how the Innovation Center intends to address challenges with previous ACO models, such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). At its core, LEAD seeks to establish a pathway to long‑term engagement in value-based care that creates an attractive option for all types of providers, including ACOs with a history of engaging in value-based care and providers that have yet to meaningfully participate.

LEAD introduces a set of targeted design changes intended to improve predictability, alignment accuracy, and long‑term participation in accountable care—most notably through revised benchmarking, updated beneficiary alignment, and expanded flexibility for engaging specialists and high‑needs populations.

1. Revising Benchmarking Policies to Support Predictability and Success

LEAD provides a major win for ACOs seeking long-term predictability by setting a long-term benchmark that will not rebase for the entirety of the 10-year model. In MSSP, many ACOs eventually face the “ratchet effect” in which benchmarks erode after rebasing to reflect the ACO’s more recent spending patterns. It can create a significant hurdle for ACOs that have already successfully reduced spending, as their own prior success lowers their benchmark. By not rebasing for the entirety of the model period, LEAD provides an attractive alternative to the MSSP, which rebases every five years.
LEAD will also support historically successful ACOs by transitioning to a fully regional rate book by the end of the model period. As a result, benchmarks will be set based on overall spending in the region where an ACO operates rather than an ACO’s historical spending. While ACO REACH also used a regional rate book to inform some ACO benchmarks, LEAD goes further by seeking to transition all ACOs to a benchmark based fully on a regional rate book while also adding protections for higher-spending ACOs by transitioning regions at different timelines to ensure that newer ACOs have the opportunity to implement the kinds of care delivery changes that lead to lower spending before they are subject to penalties.
Other notable changes to benchmarking include a variety of ACO-specific adjustments and the addition of an administrative component to benchmarking. ACOs will be eligible to receive a boost to their benchmarks with either a regional efficiency adjustment for ACOs with lower spending or a prior savings adjustment for ACOs with a demonstrated history of achieving savings. LEAD also introduces an administratively set component to benchmarking—the Accountable Care Prospective Trend—which already is used in the MSSP, though LEAD adds a new guardrail policy to promote predictability.

2. Improving Accuracy in Beneficiary Alignment

LEAD’s new “hybrid” alignment option increases accuracy and responsiveness. Monthly additions of voluntarily aligned beneficiaries and mid-year recognition of new participant taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) adopted after the start of the performance year (PY) allow alignment to better reflect real-time care relationships, averting lag and operational friction.

3. Adding Support for High-Needs Beneficiaries

LEAD expands support for beneficiaries with complex needs through a universal High Needs category and recalibrated risk adjustment. By moving away from ACO REACH’s population‑exclusive model, LEAD lowers barriers for organizations that serve a disproportionate share of high‑needs and dually eligible populations. In addition, CMS will test Medicare‑Medicaid alignment in two states, and help states develop arrangements supporting the provision of value-based care between ACOs and state Medicaid agencies or managed care organizations.

4. Promoting Deeper Engagement with Specialists

LEAD increases flexibility for engaging specialists in value‑based arrangements. New Non‑Primary Care Capitation options and episode-based risk arrangements (CMS‑Administered Risk Arrangements (CARAs)), allow ACOs to share risk with specialists without Total Care Capitation, reducing operational complexity while expanding accountability beyond primary care.

5. Advancing Technology Adoption and Innovation

LEAD introduces structured pathways to promote technology adoption. Planned Artificial Intelligence (AI)‑inferred risk adjustment will be phased in following successful testing and validation, while the Tech Enabler Initiative and Rapid Cycle Innovation Program seek to reduce administrative burden and accelerate evidence generation—particularly for smaller or resource‑constrained ACOs.

Next Steps

The Innovation Center is operating on an accelerated timeline for the initial LEAD cohort. Prospective ACOs have fewer than 50 days to digest a detailed Request for Applications and model potential performance. Applications are due May 17, 2026. ACOs that participated in ACO REACH in PY 2026 will be well-positioned, as many of the provisions in LEAD will be familiar, and the agency is permitting this group of ACOs to submit an abbreviated application for participation.

For organizations not ready to apply for the first cohort, CMS will release a standardized Letter of Interest form by April 17, 2026, to gauge interest in future application rounds. In this context, organizations considering LEAD participation should be assessing not only near‑term application readiness, but also longer‑term strategic alignment with the model’s 10‑year commitment, risk structure, and operational requirements. Key considerations include benchmarking predictability, readiness to manage regional benchmarks, capacity to engage specialists and high‑needs beneficiaries, technology capabilities, and alignment with broader value‑based care strategies across Medicare and Medicaid.

Connect with Us

Health Management Associates (HMA), supports organizations across the LEAD decision continuum, including those pursuing immediate application and those preparing for future cohorts. HMA can help organizations:

Interpret LEAD’s policy and financial design relative to existing ACO and MSSP participation
Model performance scenarios under alternative benchmark, alignment, and risk configurations
Assess operational readiness across care management, contracting, analytics, and compliance
Develop application strategies and supporting materials, including responses to the LEAD RFA
Choose to defer application on steps that preserve future optionality

As CMS advances LEAD under an ambitious timeline, early analysis and disciplined decision‑making will be critical for organizations seeking to align participation with their long‑term value‑based care strategies.

For questions contact Amy Bassano and Rebecca Nielsen.

Connecting the Dots: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements and State Readiness for 2027

Read Blog

Our March 19, 2026, Connecting the Dots analysis described the federal requirements and the operational questions states and partners will need to answer to effectively implement Medicaid work and community engagement requirements. Since then, federal officials have advanced their forthcoming regulation to the final stage of review and intend to meet the statutory requirement to release interim final guidance by June 2026. In addition, many states have taken early steps to communicate upcoming changes and begin planning for system, policy, and partner readiness.

While state sessions are clearly grabbing a lot of energy, timing of pulling together many of the moving parts is becoming a concern as states undergo one of the most fundamental operational challenges to the Medicaid program since its inception. This article synthesizes emerging approaches and identifies practical opportunities to refine strategies and strengthen readiness while minimizing burden for enrollees and state Medicaid agencies.

Early Actions in States Preparing to Implement Work and Community Engagement Requirements

1. States Are Launching Websites that Highlight Coming Changes

As of April 2026, more than half of US states that are subject to the Medicaid work and community engagement requirement had posted web page content describing forthcoming changes associated with the 2025 budget reconciliation act (P.L. 119-12, OBBBA). Some websites provide high-level descriptions of key provisions (e.g., qualifying beneficiary ages, qualifying activities, and exemptions), while others include more detailed information reflecting state-specific policy decisions, educational messages, and suggested steps that beneficiaries, providers, managed care plans (MCPs), and community-based stakeholders can take now (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. States with a Community Engagement Web Page

For example, Ohio’s website describes the requirements for, and provides examples of, acceptable documentation Medicaid members may use to demonstrate compliance or eligibility for an exemption. Ohio also offers a “Communications Partner Packet” that contains frequently asked questions (FAQs) and draft outreach materials to support stakeholder communications and increase awareness. The communications tools include a one-page flyer, a rack card, and potential social media posts to raise awareness of the changes, with some use of QR codes to enhance quick access to key websites like the beneficiary self-service portal.

2. States are Beginning to Make and Communicate Preliminary Policy Decisions

States must make a range of policy decisions, including the penalty start date, the number of required months of compliance for both the initial application and subsequent renewals, the potential adoption of short-term hardship exceptions, and how exceptions are defined and operationalized. While most states anticipate compliance beginning January 1, 2027, in alignment with OBBBA, Nebraska and Montana have announced plans to begin implementation in 2026, and their websites reflect additional policy details to support accelerated timelines.

A handful of states, including Arkansas and Ohio, also are communicating ahead of OBBBA’s timeline to promote awareness and engagement before the work and community engagement requirement becomes effective. Table 1 summarizes examples of the current state planning[1] around the number of required months of compliance for the initial application and renewals.

Table 1. Sample Number of Months in Compliance

States also are taking different approaches to exemptions and short-term exceptions. Although many exemptions and exceptions are defined in statute, the interpretation of “medically frail” remains an area in which states have significant flexibility, with implications for how many individuals are exempt. Many states have experiences with establishing definitions of medically frail. For example, states that offer an adult benefit package that differs from the state plan benefit package must allow medically frail adults to opt in to the state plan. At least 12 states already make medically frail determinations, and these existing policies and processes may inform approaches for work and community engagement requirements.

One of those states—Nevada—has posted a proposed definition of medically frail with a request for public comment, including a sample list of qualifying medical conditions. Although such lists can provide clarity, they also underscore the importance of a clear and straightforward exemption request process to support appropriate determinations, including for individuals with conditions that are omitted from a specified list.

3. States Are Securing Additional Support to Address Administrative Challenges

The new eligibility criteria, coupled with more frequent eligibility checks, are placing substantial new demands on Medicaid agencies, eligibility systems, and personnel. In response, states are considering or actively pursuing a range of approaches to strengthen administrative capacity. Examples include:

Hiring new state eligibility and enrollment workers: Indiana and Montana
Funding system enhancements and improvements: Alaska and New Jersey
Hiring outreach and engagement contractors: Arizona and Arkansas

States are also proposing to take a more coordinated, cross-agency approach that uses other state agencies and programs as data sources and referral pathways to help beneficiaries meet their work and community engagement requirements. A variety of states are looking to leverage data from their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program to facilitate compliance checks, and Kentucky has proposed receiving data from a variety of sources (e.g., Department of Revenue, Department of Corrections, Unemployment Insurance, Vital Statistics, and others) to more automatically identify eligibility and exemption changes.

States like Hawaii, Montana, and Nebraska have highlighted their labor departments to connect people to job and community service resources. Virginia’s work and community engagement website directs the public to a series of different programs based on whether they are interested in employment, volunteer, or education resources. Minnesota also has introduced legislation proposing collaboration between the commissioner and county agencies to link beneficiaries to other critical services like job training, childcare, and transportation.

Shrinking federal contributions and constraints on Medicaid revenue strategies—such as limits on provider taxes—are prompting states to rethink how Medicaid agencies operate within existing budgets. Limited federal funding to support administrative needs elevates the importance of efficiency, coordination, and automation.

What States Might Do to Chart a Better Path Forward

A robust pre-implementation plan is critical to successful work and community engagement implementation. A well-documented plan helps states fully document the variety of moving parts across policy, systems, and partners, clarify milestones and decision points, and define what readiness looks like in practice.

Key components of a pre-implementation plan may include:

Signing agreements and contracts to support infrastructure. Pre-implementation planning should ensure that appropriate support from third-party vendors and sister agencies is secured to optimize flexibilities and manage the requirements. Examples may include maintenance of effort (MOE) agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOU), contract updates, and requests for proposals (RFP) as appropriate. States may need to use expedited contracting vehicles when available and maximize existing vendor arrangements. Agreements should address data governance, privacy, and cost allocation issues to support smooth operational integration and reduce downstream friction.
Quantifying and automating exemptions. Systems and reporting should be updated to identify, notify, and manage cases for expansion adults who are likely exempt. Leveraging additional resources and data matching may help states identify common exempt populations, such as caretakers with dependents under age 14, disabled veterans, and pregnant women without requiring additional verification. Understanding the demographics of the remaining nonexempt population may also be useful in outreach, education, and links to supports.
Preparing for readiness review, including system readiness, coverage transition, and churn management. Pre-implementation plans should prioritize robust system testing, staff training, and timely updates to required documentation (e.g., state plan amendments, policy and member manuals, notices, and reviewing and approving MCP communications). Building in clear transition supports for individuals who may lose coverage or transition to other coverage options can improve continuity of coverage, reduce uninsurance and uncompensated care, and limit administrative burden following implementation.
MCP contracts. Most enrollees subject to work and community engagement requirements are enrolled in Medicaid MCPs. States will need to describe enhanced roles and responsibilities in both the MCP contracts as well as the rates. Clear contract expectations can support transparency and mutual accountability across partners.
Test communications with the target audiences to ensure understanding and appropriate action. Awareness of the new work and community engagement requirement was one of the biggest challenges Arkansas faced when it launched its program in 2018. Beneficiaries also struggled to understand whether the requirement applied to them and what they needed to do to comply. States must build communications plans and messaging to clearly address these issues to reduce the number of beneficiaries losing coverage simply because they did not understand the new requirements.

Connect with Us

Health Management Associates (HMA) Medicaid experts assist Medicaid and state policymakers with the following:

Strategic positioning
Policy-to-operations design
Cross-agency governance and partner alignment
Information systems impact assessment, change planning, testing strategies and readiness metrics
Scenario planning and beneficiary impact analysis
Communications and operational playbooks
Program integrity, reporting, and audit support

HMA Medicaid experts can also assist MCPs, providers, and community-based organizations with:

Risk assessments (e.g., enrollment, utilization, and spending impacts)
State-specific policy and operational insights and trends
Communications, outreach, and engagement strategies and content
Member retention strategies
Grassroots workforce development and community engagement strategies

For questions, contact HMA contributors to this article Lora Saunders, Matt Powers, Andrea Maresca, and Amber Swartzell.

[1] Some of these policies are in pending legislation and, therefore, are subject to change.

CMS Quality Conference 2026: CMS Signals a Faster Path from Policy to Practice in Quality

Read Blog

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) convened the CMS Quality Conference 2026 (QualCon) at a moment when healthcare quality policy is increasingly being shaped through formal rulemaking as well as informal policy signals and implementation vehicles. The discussions reflected CMS’s core priorities—wellness and prevention, digital infrastructure, patient safety, and program integrity—and reinforced a broader theme that CMS intends to continue to move faster to advance these priorities than traditional regulatory timelines allow.

Health Management Associates (HMA) experts attended QualCon and are working with healthcare organizations as they interpret these signals and prepare to implement the policy priorities highlighted during the conference. This article describes these cross-cutting issues and highlights strategies and actions healthcare entities can take now.

Moving Faster Requires Different Approaches to Policy and Implementation

CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz emphasized CMS’s increasing use of voluntary commitments, public-private collaboration, Requests for Information (RFIs), and other informal policy tools as alternatives or precursors to formal requirements, creating an imperative for early stakeholder engagement.

CMS leaders highlighted stakeholder convenings as a key vehicle to drive change outside of regulatory processes, including the pledge by health plans to streamline and improve prior authorization requirements. These commitments may signal future regulatory mandates and shifts in the marketplace.
The CMS Health Tech Ecosystem provides the foundation for quality initiatives. The CMS Administrator highlighted the 600-plus organizations that have committed to the goals of the CMS Health Tech Ecosystem, including companies that support conversational artificial intelligence (AI) assistants that would make ingestion and sharing of data with healthcare providers easier through the “Kill the Clipboard” efforts, and have pledged to support interoperability.
CMS is using listening sessions and RFIs to shape the direction and drive quality policy. The agency leaders invited new ideas and reinforced the value of feedback received through RFIs, citing examples such as the 2025 RFI on the Health Technology Ecosystem, Medicare Advantage improvements, and the RFI on Comprehensive Regulations to Uncover Suspicious Healthcare (CRUSH). CMS leaders also convened sessions pertaining to patient safety, dialysis care, and best practices for medication for treatment of opioid use disorder, signaling these are areas under consideration for policy development.

Health and Wellness Positioned as a Core Component of Quality Efforts

QualCon prominently featured CMS’s commitment to promoting health and wellness. Dr. Oz discussed underutilization of existing benefits, such as annual wellness visits, and CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the Center for Medicare, Chris Klomp, focused on community-based approaches to prevention. Mr. Klomp also spoke of ongoing interest in moving physician payment toward primary care and away from specialty procedures.

CMS officials highlighted new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) models, such as ACCESS (Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions) and Make America Healthy Again: Enhancing Lifestyle and Evaluating Value-based Approaches Through Evidence (MAHA ELEVATE), which are aligned with the Administrator’s policy priority of empowering patients. CMS officials also acknowledged challenges to behavioral change and the levers CMS is employing in new models, including technology and incentives for beneficiaries, partnerships, and community health workers.

Digital Infrastructure Framed as Necessary for Quality Reforms

QualCon also emphasized making quality measurement fully digital, specifically using FHIR® (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) specifications. Agency officials reported having FHIR specifications for 70+ measures and characterized FHIR as the standard for new measures. Use of FHIR aligns with broader interoperability rules, including one requiring state Medicaid programs and payers participating in public programs to use FHIR for electronic prior authorization by January 2027.

Quality measurement leaders spoke about the value of integrating quality data in real time and the move from “lagged scorecards” to “continuous intelligence.” Notably, attendees expressed enthusiasm about the potential for AI to support measurement and personalization of quality, measures addressing trajectories of care over time, and new approaches to risk adjustment.

Application of AI to Patient Safety Is on the Horizon

Patient safety discussions focused on the potential for AI‑enabled tools to identify risk earlier and prevent harm, particularly with regard to medication safety and error prevention. CMS speakers emphasized that realizing these gains depends on intentional governance, standardized workflows, and patient involvement in AI development and deployment. Rather than positioning AI as a substitute for clinical judgment, sessions framed it as an augmentation tool requiring clear safeguards and accountability.

Avoiding Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

CMS leaders noted the potential to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse through a cross-functional fraud detection center that can analyze claims in real time. CMS also discussed collaboration with states and private insurers and encouraged external input.

Medicaid Discussions

Medicaid received more limited attention at this conference. CMS Medicaid officials reiterated interest in having fewer quality measures and engaged in discussion with state leaders on how to focus quality efforts. They highlighted learnings about the Medicaid early, periodic, screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT) program and from CMS Innovation Center models centered on maternal health and substance use disorder care.

What We’re Watching Next

Following QualCon HMA experts are continuing to follow several federal quality-related initiatives that affect plans, health systems, states, and other healthcare delivery organizations include:

How CMS translates voluntary commitments and Health Tech Ecosystem initiatives into lasting policy expectations for transforming quality
The pace at which digital quality measurement shifts from pilot to standard practice
How AI governance frameworks evolve alongside additional real-world use cases in quality and safety

Connect with Us

HMA, including Leavitt Partners and Wakely, work with healthcare organizations to navigate the transition to digital quality measurement and act upon digital quality data to improve healthcare delivery.

Wakely uses analytics-driven operating design and return on investment (ROI) analysis, clinical data acquisition models and tools, and pilot-based validation of measure rates and processing performance to support scalable digital quality measurement (dQM) adoption, as outlined in the dQM Playbook.

Leavitt Partners is working with federal agencies on a number of activities related to the CMS Health Tech Ecosystem and interoperability, including the Kill the Clipboard initiative, which was informed by a seminal Leavitt Partners white paper. In addition, Leavitt Partners convenes the Digital Quality Implementers Community, which is working to solve both technical and policy issues in digital quality measurement.

For details, contact our experts below.

Outlook 2026: Regulatory Uncertainty, Evidence Evolution, and the Future of Healthcare Innovation

Read Blog

As healthcare innovation accelerates, regulatory and policy frameworks are evolving just as rapidly. Across drug development, medical devices, diagnostics, and emerging therapies, innovators are navigating a landscape shaped by shifting federal signals, changing evidentiary expectations, and growing pressure to align regulatory success with real‑world access and affordability.

This article draws on insights from experts at Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), and Leavitt Partners, an HMA company, who bring decades of experience working within the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and in collaboration with industry leaders to address complex regulatory, commercialization, and access challenges. Their perspectives reflect firsthand experience with translating policy intent into operational reality across the healthcare ecosystem.

These insights underscore a central theme in early 2026: Innovation is advancing faster than the policy frameworks designed to support it. For developers, investors, payers, and policymakers alike, the challenge is no longer whether innovation is possible, but whether regulatory and coverage pathways can evolve quickly and coherently enough to support it.

A More Fragmented Policy Signal Environment

Historically, federal health policy followed relatively formal and predictable channels—rulemaking, guidance documents, and established notice and comment processes. Today, innovators increasingly receive policy signals through nontraditional and informal mechanisms, including agency websites, journal articles, speeches, podcasts, and pilot initiatives.

This evolution in communication and how we ingest information has two implications.

First, it creates greater uncertainty for market planning, as policy direction often emerges incrementally or indirectly. In addition, the higher stakes are higher for understanding the federal regulatory environment. Organizations that closely track agency behavior, precedent, and internal norms are better positioned to distinguish meaningful change from repackaged status quo.

For innovators operating on 10‑to-15-year development timelines, even modest policy volatility can materially affect research and development (R&D) investment decisions, pipeline prioritization, and commercialization strategies.

Innovation Is Outpacing Traditional Evidence Models

Scientific progress, especially in rare disease therapies, advanced biologics, and precision medicine, can both strain and challenge traditional clinical trial paradigms. Small patient populations, heterogeneous disease pathways, and novel mechanisms of action are making large, randomized trials increasingly difficult or impractical.

In response, federal regulators are signaling a broader openness to:

Real‑world evidence (RWE)
Natural history studies
Registries and longitudinal data
Biomarkers and intermediate endpoints

These approaches are not new, but their expanding role reflects a recognition that traditional evidence hierarchies alone are no longer sufficient for evaluating next‑generation therapies. At the same time, regulators continue to emphasize that alternative evidence must meet rigorous scientific standards, particularly when used to support initial approval or expanded indications.

The implication for innovators is that evidence strategy can no longer be an afterthought. Developers must design programs that support regulatory approval and downstream coverage, pricing, and post‑market evaluation. It is possible for evidence frameworks to overlap, but they must remain distinct.

Regulatory Approval Is a Midpoint for the Innovator Product Journey

A recurring challenge across healthcare sectors is the disconnect between regulatory approval and payer coverage decisions. While regulators focus on safety and efficacy, payers assess value, durability of response, and budget impact because they often struggle to justify large upfront payments within their annual budgeting structure.

This misalignment is particularly acute for high-cost therapies with long-term benefits and products approved through accelerated or flexible pathways, where long-term value may misalign with short-term payer budgeting cycles.

As policymakers explore ways to modernize regulatory frameworks, questions remain about whether coverage and payment systems will adapt in parallel. Without greater alignment, innovators may continue to face scenarios where regulatory success does not translate into timely or consistent patient access.

Predictability and Durability Are Emerging Policy Priorities

Looking further ahead in 2026 and beyond, predictability and durability—not just flexibility—are emerging as core priorities for industry and policymakers alike. Flexibility is essential to support innovation, but durable policy frameworks, particularly those derived from statute, offer greater confidence in long‑term investments.

Several themes will likely shape the next phase for how federal health policy handles innovation:

Streamlining early clinical development, including first‑in‑human studies
Codifying successful regulatory pathways to ensure durability across presidential administrations
Clarifying expectations for post‑market evidence generation
Improving transparency and consistency in agency advice

These efforts reflect a broader recognition that innovation ecosystems depend not just on scientific breakthroughs, but also on stable rules of the road.

Why It Matters

For healthcare innovators, the policy environment in 2026 presents both opportunity and risk. They can leverage new evidence frameworks, engage earlier with regulators, and shape emerging policy conversations; however, they also face risks linked with unpredictability, misaligned incentives, and uncertainty around long‑term access and reimbursement.

Successful innovation will increasingly depend on industry partners with integrated strategies that connect regulatory planning, evidence development, policy engagement, and market access from the earliest stages of innovation.

For policymakers, the challenge is to modernize regulatory and coverage frameworks in ways that support innovation without sacrificing rigor, affordability, or public trust.

Connect with Us

As healthcare continues to evolve, one thing is clear: Innovation policy is no longer a niche concern. Rather, it is central to the future of access, outcomes, and system sustainability.

For further exploration of these issues, listen to HMA’s recent podcast on how evolving regulatory frameworks are shaping innovation, commercialization, and access across healthcare. The discussion features insights from Ben Shand of HMA and Julie Tierney of Leavitt Partners, whose combined experience spans senior roles within FDA and extensive collaboration with industry on complex regulatory and policy challenges. The conversation expands on the themes highlighted here, including regulatory predictability, evidence evolution, and strategies for navigating uncertainty across the product life cycle.

The takeaway is clear: Waiting until late in development to collaborate with regulators and policymakers is no longer a viable strategy. Organizations that engage earlier and more actively are better positioned to anticipate shifts, shape the conversation, and avoid costly misalignment between approval and coverage.

HMA can help you identify where the policy landscape is creating new opportunities and where risks may emerge. We work with organizations to develop proactive engagement strategies that align with today’s changing environment, especially when traditional approaches are no longer delivering results.

HIMSS26: Building the Foundation for Interoperable, AI-Ready Healthcare

Read Blog

Key Insights from the 2026 HIMSS Global Health Conference and What They Mean for Your Organization

American healthcare is confronting two urgent realities. First, the administrative burden on clinicians and patients remains very high. Prior authorization delays, manual intake forms, fragmented records, and identity challenges continue to drive cost and erode the trust that is the foundation of the provider-patient relationship. At the same time, artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities are advancing rapidly, outpacing governance frameworks, regulatory structures, and data infrastructure. Together, these dynamics are the defining operational challenge of 2026.

Federal policy is responding less through sweeping new regulation than through coordinated execution levers. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiatives, including the Health Technology Ecosystem, information blocking enforcement, Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability (HTI-5) Proposed Rule , and the prior authorization (PA) final rule, reflect a shift toward making interoperability operational in production environments. What distinguishes this moment from prior efforts is the explicit linkage between interoperability and AI. Federal leaders are saying openly that reliable, trustworthy, and deflationary AI depends on disciplined data exchange, identify, and governance.

The 2026 HIMSS Global Health Conference & Exhibition (HIMSS26), March 9–12, in Las Vegas, NV, marked a marked a turning point in which the industry began translating that message into tangible organizational decisions. Two Health Management Associates (HMA), companies actively engaged in the program: the Leavitt Partners digital health team moderated sessions in the preconference forums and Interop Experience Pavilion, and Wakely Consulting Group, lent their expertise in Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid managed care, risk adjustment, and quality measurement—the areas in which FHIR-based infrastructure will directly reshape performance and risk management.

This article reflects what these teams learned and what it means for the industry.

What We Learned at HIMSS

Several themes surfaced throughout the conference, not as isolated ideas but as shared assumptions of the field shaping near-term strategy:

Successful AI deployments rely on interoperability and quality data. Across sessions and conversations, speakers emphasized that success will require not just access, but data that are standardized, governed, and semantically consistent. The promise of AI is advancing quickly, but many organizations are still working to build the data foundation needed to support it.

CMS-aligned networks are paving the way for federal transformation. Concrete pledge deadlines, and a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator willing to say publicly that healthcare is the only sector where technology has failed to be deflationary, sent a signal that the industry took seriously. Voluntary frameworks are being seen as previews of future requirements.

Information blocking enforcement is no longer theoretical. Officials from ASTP/ONC confirmed that notices of potential nonconformity have already gone out to health IT firms under the certification program, and more are on the way. With Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General penalties of up to $1 million per active violation and more than 1,500 complaints filed since the federal portal launched, the compliance calculus has shifted. Dr. Thomas Keane, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, was direct: Developers that block information risk losing their certification, and their clients risk losing access to CMS payment incentives. The long implementation runway is over, enforcement is now active, and the consequences are real.

The federal vision for AI is patient-first. CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said to slow the inflationary effects of the growth in healthcare technology, he wants to put agentic AI tools in the hands of every Medicare beneficiary before the end of this administration—an ambitious goal. He cautioned, however, that none of it works without building the necessary data infrastructure now. AI is the destination; interoperability is the road.

CMS is ready to pivot to digital quality measures and put investment behind it. CMS and ASTP/ONC leadership announced that all quality measures will now be modeled on HL7 FHIR. MultiCare Connected Care showed it working in production. Early adopters will shape the pathway and gain strategic advantage as the transition accelerates. Successful transformation will require simplified workflows, established lines of accountability, and a product-oriented mindset geared toward data and interoperability.

Identity is a known gap, but the solution is taking shape. Patient matching, provider directories, and consumer-facing credentialing came up in nearly every policy and technical session. The $6 billion CMS cited for annual provider directory validation waste alone captured attendees’ attention. But HIMSS26 brought concrete, live progress on the credential side and a Leavitt Partners-moderated preconference session focused on moving the industry from alignment in principle to alignment in production.

Governance is now an operational discipline. Health system chief information officers and chief medical information officers described governance structures already in place and under active revision. The shift from “we need governance” to “our governance needs to evolve” was palpable.

Consumer technology has entered the clinical conversation. Emory Hillandale Hospital’s announcement of the first all-Apple facility signaled that the boundary between consumer devices and clinical infrastructure is evolving.

Autonomous AI systems were everywhere. Vendors demonstrated how AI agents are handling administrative workflows, such call centers, revenue cycle, scheduling, and PA. Health system leaders acknowledged real deployments alongside real uncertainty about governance, security, and identity management for non-human actors in clinical environments. The technology is moving faster than the frameworks designed to oversee it.

What It Means: Five Insights

The CMS Health Technology Ecosystem is redefining what “interoperable” means for federal programs; TEFCA will scale what it proves

For years, interoperability has been a certification checkbox rather than a functional description. The CMS ecosystem is changing that by tying the definition to observable behaviors: HL7 FHIRAPIs that respond, encounter notifications that fire, identity verification that works at the front door. More than 700 organizations have pledged; CMS has set hard deadlines (March 31 for initial results, July 4 for advanced capabilities), and the agency is tracking outcomes, not just attestations.

In the fireside chat moderated by Leavitt Partners Principal Ryan Howells, Dr. Thomas Keane was direct: The regulatory cycle is slow, and what the ecosystem can produce in nine months is what the regulations will eventually codify. Organizations that shape this work now will have less catching up to do when it becomes mandatory.

The Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA), which now exchanges 600 million health records across 75,000+ organizations (up from 10 million in January 2025), is the rising tide that scales what the speedboat networks prove. And state-level health information exchanges (HIEs) remain strategically important given their governance structures, trust relationships, and operational capabilities.

Provider directory is the sleeper issue

Patient matching and digital identity got considerable attention, but a provider directory may be the highest-yield near-term opportunity. CMS estimates $6 billion is wasted annually simply validating where providers practice, what licenses they hold, and what insurance they accept—a problem that compounds every time a payer, health system, or patient tries to connect with the right clinician through the right channel.

A real-time, standardized provider directory is foundational to PA, network adequacy, and care navigation. It is also one of the three heavy lifts that the CMS Health Technology Ecosystem is actively working to address. Organizations that invest now in clean, FHIR-based provider data will be ahead of an upcoming requirement.

Semantic Consistency Determines AI Outcomes

The distinction between syntactic interoperability (data move between systems) and semantic interoperability (data means the same thing in every system) was a running thread through the Interoperability and HIE Forum. Dan Liljenquist, chief strategy officer at Intermountain Healthcare, put the operational reality plainly during his keynote address: Intermountain is building a unified semantic data layer in the cloud—ingesting EHR data daily, normalizing it against common models, making it computable across 34 hospitals—because without that layer, AI produces unreliable outputs at scale.

Graphite Foundry, the mechanism Graphite Health is developing as a nonprofit collaborative, represents a model where health systems build shared semantic infrastructure rather than solving the same problem independently behind proprietary walls. The broader implication: AI strategy and data infrastructure strategy are the same, and organizations that treat them separately will find that their AI investments underperform.

Digital Identity and Privacy Architecture are Converging

Policy and industry discussions reflected growing alignment around higher‑assurance digital identity, privacy‑preserving design, and consistent credentialing. Progress in this area reduces friction for patient‑directed access while supporting trust and security across ecosystems.

Mr. Howells moderated the preconference session, Bridging Digital Worlds: Identity Federation Strategies Across B2B and B2C Ecosystems, which brought together CMS Chief Health Technology Officer Alberto Colon Viera, David Bardan (CLEAR), Wes Turbeville (ID.me), and Renee Edwards, Applied AI at UnitedHealth Group. The session produced three concrete outcomes:

CMS confirmed Medicare.gov is now live with CLEAR, ID.me, and Login.gov, meaning consumers can choose which credential they use and relying parties can leverage that same credential to authenticate consumers into their own systems.

Participants agreed on a common IAL2 token payload.

UnitedHealth Group announced United Health Group’s pursuit of Kantara certification and unification of all their portals to a single identity based on IAL2.

Identity has long been a blocker to scalable patient access. Aligning on a common IAL2 model removes another friction point and moves the industry closer to a future in which patients can securely access their medical records through the apps they choose.

Interoperability is Expanding Beyond Traditional Boundaries

For years, FHIR-based infrastructure has been built primarily around clinical and claims data. But two sessions in signaled meaningful progress on two long-neglected fronts: pharmacy and oral health. Pharmacy data — critical to medication management, managed care, and complete longitudinal records—are increasingly being drawn into the standards-based exchange ecosystem, including the recognition of pharmacists as clinicians whose data and clinical contributions belong in the longitudinal record.

Patients are also gaining real-time visibility into their own pharmacy benefits: the Consumer Real-Time Pharmacy Benefit Check, an open FHIR-based standard, puts cost and coverage information directly in patients’ hands at the point of prescribing — a meaningful step toward the same patient empowerment that the “kill the clipboard” and digital identity work is driving elsewhere in the ecosystem.

Oral health data, long absent from the medical record despite its correlation with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and maternal health, is now the subject of active federal interoperability investment across CMS, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Indian Health Service. Leavitt Partners’ alliances in both domains—the Oral Health Interoperability Alliance and the Pharmacy Interoperability and Clinical Services Alliance (PICSA)—are helping shape the technical and policy frameworks that will bring these data streams into the broader ecosystem. Whole-person care requires whole-person data, and the field is finally building the infrastructure to support it.

What Remains Unresolved

Despite momentum, several issues remain unresolved:

The Role of Payers in TEFCA and National Exchange is Still Evolving

There is growing interest in extending TEFCA beyond provider-to-provider exchange to support payer use cases such as quality measurement, care management, and prior authorization. However, questions remain around participation models, data rights, governance, and value alignment. Until these are resolved, payer engagement will likely remain uneven, limiting the full potential of nationwide exchange.

The Business Case for Interoperability is Not Yet Consistently Realized

While the policy direction is clear, the economic incentives are still misaligned. Providers often bear the operational burden of data exchange, while financial benefits may accrue elsewhere. Similarly, investments in interoperability infrastructure do not always translate into immediate or measurable returns. Advancing adoption will require clearer ROI pathways, shared incentives, and models that distribute value more equitably across stakeholders.

Governance and Operating Models are Still Catching Up to the Technology.

There is increasing recognition that interoperability at scale is not just a technical challenge — it is a governance challenge. Questions around enforcement, delegation of authority, participant accountability, and operational oversight remain active areas of development. As exchange expands, these governance structures will need to mature rapidly to sustain trust and ensure consistent implementation.

Near-term signals, such as CMS responses to pledged-network deadlines, finalization of HTI5 and related rules, continued prior authorization modernization, and digital quality measure implementation, will shape the next phase of execution.

What We’re Watching

Extending Open Standards to Rural and Underserved Providers

The Rural Health Transformation Program offers a unique opportunity to expand the open standards ecosystem being built. Leavitt Partners and Wakely are engaged in both the policy conversations and implementations that will determine how to ensure this opportunity can transform healthcare.

March 31 and July 4 deadlines

CMS set these dates publicly and specifically. How the agency responds to organizations that miss them will signal how serious the voluntary framework really is and how quickly it becomes a program condition.

HTI-5 Finalization and HTI-6 Proposed Rule

ONC’s proposed rule to focus certification on HL7 FHIR APIs, algorithm transparency, and interoperability is still in proposed form. Finalization, as proposed, would transform the vendor landscape and remove the safe harbor that legacy proprietary interfaces have relied on.

Prior Authorization is Moving

The federal regulations and last summer’s voluntary commitment by more than 60 health insurers covering 257 million Americans across commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid markets has created a moment of regulatory and industry alignment. Payers committed to reducing the volume of services requiring PA, standardizing electronic PA using HL7® FHIR® APIs, and answering at least 80 percent of electronic requests in real time by 2027. The direction is clear, the commitments are specific, and the infrastructure to support them — HL7® FHIR® APIs being built for patient access and the ecosystem is the same infrastructure PA modernization requires. Leavitt Partners and Wakely are watching closely as implementation moves from pledge to production.

The Digital Quality Measure (dQM) Enters the Implantation Phase

CMS has made clear where the market is headed: digital quality measurement built on HL7 FHIR. The challenge now is execution. FHIR infrastructure developed for prior authorization or patient access can be leveraged for quality reporting as well, creating the potential for reusable investment across use cases. But the transition to dQM is not simply a technology upgrade; it is a broader business transformation that will require changes in workflows, governance, and organizational readiness.

Digital Identity Momentum

The IAL2 token payload agreement, Medicare rollout of digital identity, and United Health Group’s Kantara pursuit signal that the industry is aligning on a shared credential infrastructure. Leavitt Partners will continue to support the development and adoption of the open identity standards that make patient-directed access real across payers, providers, and health technology platforms.

The infrastructure for an interoperable, AI-ready healthcare system is being built under real policy pressure in real-world environments. HMA companies bring health IT policy and open standards expertise to help organizations shape and navigate that landscape as well as actuarial and implementation depth to translate it into financial and operational decisions. Organizations that invest in the foundation—data, identity, standards, governance—will be positioned to move faster and more responsibly as AI capabilities continue to advance.

We Can Help

HMA companies are uniquely positioned to help organizations move from interoperability strategy to real-world execution. We provide end-to-end support across digital quality measurement transformation, policy-to-operations execution, pharmacy interoperability, oral health interoperability, digital insurance cards, and the actuarial and financial modeling needed to assess performance impact, revenue implications, and reporting risk. Leavitt Partners and Wakely professionals were active participants in HIMSS26 conversations and bring the policy, operational, measurement, and financial expertise needed to help clients prepare for what comes next.

This blog reflects policy signals and public session content from the 2026 HIMSS Global Health Conference. It represents the perspective of Leavitt Partners and Wakely Consulting Group, both HMA Companies, and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice

Fiscal 2027 State Budget Proposals: Provider Taxes, Medicaid Financing, and OBBBA Effects

Read Blog

As of March 15, 2026, most governors had released proposed budgets for state fiscal year (FY) 2027. In addition, several governors in states that enacted biennial budgets in 2025 have released supplemental proposals. These FY 2027 state budget proposals signal how governors are responding to Medicaid financing changes, provider tax phase downs, and new implementation costs created in the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 119-21, OBBBA).

Given the requirement enacted in OBBBA, this year’s state budgets are more than spending plans. They are critical policy tools governors will use to navigate changes in federal funding, new program requirements, and increasing pressures across Medicaid and broader healthcare markets.

The FY 2027 budgets indicate how governors are attempting to balance competing imperatives: maintaining healthcare coverage and access, stabilizing provider networks, financing Medicaid obligations, and aligning state healthcare and health-related programs with new federal rules. Healthcare provider taxes, revised funding priorities, and targeted funding proposals are key levers in the process of balancing budgets.

Health Management Associates Information Services (HMAIS) has published its final iteration of the FY 2027 Proposed State Budget Overview Report (subscriber access required), which examines proposed FY 2027 state budgets (January 22, 2026, A Look at Proposed State Fiscal Budgets). Our March 2026 issuance covers all proposed FY 2027 budgets for non-biennial budget states and some supplemental budget proposals for states that enacted biennial budgets in 2026. Following is a look at key trends in Medicaid proposals and some of the substantial budget proposals that are discussed within the report.

Provider Taxes and Medicaid Financing Under OBBBA

One notable fiscal federal policy change under OBBBA is the phase down of the Medicaid provider tax programs, a financing mechanism many states rely on to draw down federal matching funds and support provider payments. The federal law freezes existing provider tax programs, prohibits new ones, and requires Medicaid expansion states to phase down the minimum allowable tax rate from 6 to 3.5 percent by 2032.

In addition, OBBBA places new limits on state-directed payments, capping them at 100 percent of Medicare rates for expansion states and 110 percent for non-expansion states. Grandfathered payment arrangements will be phased down by 10 percent annually beginning in 2028.

FY 2027 state budget proposals highlight how these changes will have substantial and long-term fiscal impacts, even if some effects are delayed. Examples include:

Arizona estimates it will receive $5.3 billion less in federal support between FY 2029 and 2033 as a result of policy changes.
California projects that state expenditures for Medi-Cal will grow $2.4 billion in FY 2027, largely because the Medical Provider Interim Payment expires in FY 2026 and a decrease in managed care organization (MCO) tax revenue available to support the Medi-Cal program. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed FY 2027 budget assumes a transition period for the decreased MCO tax through December 31, 2026.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s proposed supplemental budget for the 2025–27 fiscal biennium calls for reducing hospital provider taxes by $275 million. Connecticut increased supplemental payments and provider taxes during the 2025 legislative session, but the governor’s proposal would reduce the inpatient hospital provider tax rate from 6 percent to 4.1 percent.
Illinois projects that most of the budgetary impacts will begin in FY 2028, with federal Medicaid support reduced by approximately $2.8 billion annually by FY 2031.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s budget proposal updates the managed care tax spending plan and estimates the state will collect $1.5 billion fewer receipts than anticipated in fiscal 2027.

Implementation Costs: Staffing, Systems, and Administrative Burden

Along with the decreased federal funding, implementing OBBBA carries significant administrative and operational costs, compounding pressure on state budgets.

According to an Associated Press analysis of 25 state budget protections, states will need to spend up to $1 billion in federal and state funds on technology upgrades and additional staff to fully implement the Medicaid work and community engagement requirements. Many FY 2027 budgets reflect this reality, with new investments focused on expanding staffing capacity and modernizing eligibility and data systems. For example:

Michigan’s proposed budget, for example, includes $186.6 million from the state general fund to fully implement OBBBA, including $80.3 million in all funds to hire additional full-time employees who can meet the increased workload.
Missouri proposes $294.6 million and dedicated staff members to comply with OBBBA.
Arizona proposes a $14.4 million one-time investment and dedicated OBBBA implementation staff.

Several governors also propose investments to help beneficiaries remain enrolled amid more frequent eligibility checks and new requirements. For example:

Kentucky proposes $35.6 million in FY 2027 and $11 million in FY 2028 to modify the Medicaid information technology systems and other administrative systems to cover increased costs for the more frequent six-month eligibility redeterminations and to implement the new community engagement and work requirements.
Rhode Island proposes $32.7 million for technology modifications to the RIBridges software to maintain compliance for various health and human services programs to align with OBBBA.

What to Watch: FY 2027 Budget Decisions and Medicaid Financing Risks

Upcoming provider tax phase downs and caps on state-directed payments constrain core funding tools just as implementation costs for staffing and systems are rising, forcing difficult decisions about coverage, provider support, and administrative capacity. Providers face growing uncertainty as tax supported supplemental payments are reduced or restructured, with potential implications for cash flow, service availability, and network participation.

Managed care plans, meanwhile, must navigate shifting rate development assumptions, changes in provider payment arrangements, and increased enrollment churn tied to eligibility and redetermination changes.

While the timing and magnitude of effects vary, these proposals underscore that provider tax and supplemental payment changes are more than abstract future concerns. They already are shaping FY 2027 budget decisions and long-term Medicaid financing strategies.

Most state legislatures are still debating their spending plans, making it critical to track which proposals are included in FY 2027 budgets, which are scaled back, and which are eliminated. These budget decisions will play a central role in determining market stability, access to care, and program sustainability in the years ahead.

HMAIS will publish additional reports in the coming months summarizing each state’s enacted budget. The first iteration is expected in May 2026.

Connect with Us

As the policy and funding landscapes continue to evolve, states and other stakeholders need to remain flexible. HMA brings the expertise, tools, and insights needed for stakeholders to stay on top of the rapidly changing environment. For questions or to connect with an HMA expert, contact Andrea Maresca and Kathleen Nolan.

The full report is available to HMAIS subscribers. Questions can be directed to Maddie McCarthy.

Connecting the Dots: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements and State Readiness for 2027

Read Blog

New federal Medicaid community engagement requirements, along with more frequent redetermination and a reduced retroactive eligibility timeframe, take effect January 1, 2027. These changes are reshaping state Medicaid policy agendas, budget decisions, and eligibility system design as states prepare to implement federally mandated work and community engagement requirements for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion population. This blog addresses the forthcoming policy changes, key issues related to eligibility and information systems, and timely actions for state partners preparing to meet the new requirements.

Community engagement requirements often are discussed in broad terms: whether they encourage self-sufficiency or create barriers. For state Medicaid agencies, managed care plans (MCPs), and providers, however, the more immediate and consequential question is operational: Is the Medicaid program—across eligibility systems, data flows, partner roles, and communications—ready to administer these requirements without losing eligible people?

Based on our work with states, Medicaid programs, and community partners, the answer is dependent on the approach to execution. Specifically, it hinges on how states prepare their systems and partners for compliance with community engagement requirements without placing undue burden or expectations on beneficiaries, government agencies, MCPs, and community partners.

Federal Context: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements Beginning in 2027

Under federal law, states that extended Medicaid to able‑bodied adults in the ACA Medicaid expansion population (up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level) must:

Apply community engagement requirements to expansion adults, unless they qualify for an exemption
Conduct eligibility redeterminations at least every six months for these enrollees
Reduce retroactive coverage eligibility from 90 to 30 days
Verify community engagement or exemptions using available data sources
Enforce consequences for noncompliance beginning in 2027

Forthcoming federal guidance and regulations will clarify key implementation details. In the interim, states are using the statutory framework to design the necessary policy changes. For example, many states will move beyond a simple “requirement” model toward support-oriented programs that make compliance achievable for enrollees, minimizes administrative churn, and leverages available data and information systems functionality to reduce compliance burden. In so doing, states need to use existing federal guidance to answer the following questions:

Who is in scope and who is exempt and how are exemptions verified without creating new burdens on enrollees and the people and systems that support them?
What counts as a “qualifying activity” for compliance with the community engagement requirement (e.g., education/training and caregiving)?
Which data sources can be deemed as “authoritative” for verifying compliance?
How and when will beneficiaries be notified, supported, and given opportunities to supply missing information?
How do they track compliance with the community engagement requirement and address its intended and unintended impacts?
How do the verify eligibility for new applicants and what process do they use to monitor ongoing compliance for existing enrollees?

Analyis and planning for community engagement is underway now, state by state, and will determine whether the mandates will increase employment, education, and volunteerism and yield the expected health and economic benefits or drive avoidable coverage loss.

From Policy Requirement to Workable Medicaid Community Engagement Implementation

The community engagement, redetermination, and reduced retroactive coverage requirements touch multiple components of a Medicaid enterprise, including:

Eligibility and enrollment systems and renewal workflows
Data sources (wage databases, SNAP/TANF interfaces, workforce systems, education/training records)
Managed care member services and, potentially, capitated payments
All engagement with contact centers (e.g., phone, chat, text messaging, email, beneficiary portal, etc.)
Document processing
Notices, appeals, fair hearing processes, and case management
Reporting, audit trails, and quality assurance

In other words, the backend systems that support compliance with the community engagement requirement must be designed and built for real-world administration and meet oversight requirements. Backend system readiness is among the most important operational issues for expansion states, as it will dictate the overall timeline and success in meeting Medicaid leaders’ goals.

How Medicaid MCPs and Providers Will Support Enrollees

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) collaborated with Medicaid technology companies to meet the compressed community engagement implementation timeline, the scale of system changes required across eligibility and verification workflows, and long-standing cost and capacity constraints. States are being asked to implement these complex new expectation largely within existing eligibility platforms, which were designed for purposes other than continuous activity tracking or cross-agency data exchange.

Although these arrangements may improve affordability and speed, states must still assess whether vendor-offered solutions align with their specific policy choices, data sources, partner roles, and operational risk tolerance.

Medicaid MCPs and provider groups, including hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), will be on the front lines of enrollee retention. These organizations should engage with states now to ensure systems and information flows support their work. MCPs should focus on access to:

Timely actionable information regarding which members are subject to the requirement
Visibility into exemption status and pending verification
Clear rules and data feeds that support proactive outreach
Alignment on plan member communications

Primary care providers, hospitals, FQHCs, and behavioral health providers play a critical role in identifying and supporting exemptions. If the exemption processes are slow, unclear, or burdensome, patients with legitimate medical or functional limitations may lose coverage and providers may incur increased uncompensated care costs. Providers should be engaging states to solidify:

Streamlined, clinically grounded exemption processes
Clear guidance on documentation standards
Fast, predictable exemption determinations
Feedback loops when exemption requests are denied or incomplete

Community engagement requirements will require coordination with nontraditional partners, such as:

Departments of Labor/Workforce Development
Community colleges, adult education, and training programs
SNAP/TANF agencies (and their employment and training programs)
Community-based and faith-based organizations, organizations that offer volunteer and community service opportunities, and local workforce boards
Employers, chambers, and sector-based workforce intermediaries

These partners can become essential to making the policy workable for enrollees, but they often have timelines, data standards, funding streams, and performance incentives that differ from Medicaid’s. Partners should be in conversation with states now about investments in a cross-agency and cross-sector governance structure that answers practical questions about the definitions, systems and workflows, and beneficiary experience.

States Should Act Now

A real and preventable risk is embedded in the 2027 timeline: coverage loss among healthy, working adults who remain eligible but cannot navigate new processes. States must look across every part of their Medicaid system, decide what they need each partner to do, and ensure those partners have the information, tools, and authority to act. Plans and providers must be clear and advocate for what they need to prevent eligible individuals from losing coverage.

Handled well, this is an opportunity to modernize systems, strengthen cross-sector coordination, and may demonstrate whether community engagement can yield a net benefit to members—not just add steps to maintaining coverage.

Connect with Us

HMA Medicaid experts assist Medicaid and state policymakers with the following:

Policy-to-operations design
Cross-agency governance and partner alignment
Information systems impact assessment, change planning, testing strategies and readiness metrics
Scenario planning and beneficiary impact analysis
Communications and operational playbooks
Program integrity, reporting, and audit support

HMA contributors to this article include Erin Dorrien, Kaitlyn Feiock, Andrea Maresca, and Juan Montanez.

HMA Blog Series

The Health Management Associates (HMA) Connecting the Dots blog series brings our experts together to examine the major policy, program, and market forces shaping healthcare coverage, delivery systems, and financing in 2026. The posts look beyond individual changes to connect emerging developments across programs and markets to help leaders understand what’s changing, why it matters, and how their decisions shape the path ahead. This month our experts weigh in on preparations for Medicaid Work and Community Engagement Requirements.

Featured Solutions:

Featured HMA insights:

More insights from our companies:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

526 Results found.

Outlook 2026: A Conversation on Medicare Draft Payment Rules

Early Signals from a Pivotal ACA Enrollment Year

CMS Proposes Modest Hospital Payment Updates and Signals Expanded Use of Mandatory Value-Based Models

Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment: Q4 2025 Trends and Early Signals Ahead of New Eligibility Policies

HMA Resource Provides Key Insights about the Evolving Medicare-Medicaid Integration Landscape

CMS’s LEAD Model: A New Phase for Accountable Care and Application Considerations

Core Design Evolutions of the LEAD Model

Next Steps

Connect with Us

Connecting the Dots: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements and State Readiness for 2027

Early Actions in States Preparing to Implement Work and Community Engagement Requirements

What States Might Do to Chart a Better Path Forward

Connect with Us

CMS Quality Conference 2026: CMS Signals a Faster Path from Policy to Practice in Quality

Outlook 2026: Regulatory Uncertainty, Evidence Evolution, and the Future of Healthcare Innovation

HIMSS26: Building the Foundation for Interoperable, AI-Ready Healthcare

What We Learned at HIMSS

What It Means: Five Insights

What Remains Unresolved

What We’re Watching

We Can Help

Fiscal 2027 State Budget Proposals: Provider Taxes, Medicaid Financing, and OBBBA Effects

Connecting the Dots: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements and State Readiness for 2027

Featured Solutions:

Featured HMA insights:

More insights from our companies:

Insights

HMA Insights - Blog

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

526 Results found.

Core Design Evolutions of the LEAD Model

Next Steps

Connect with Us

Early Actions in States Preparing to Implement Work and Community Engagement Requirements

What States Might Do to Chart a Better Path Forward

Connect with Us

What We Learned at HIMSS

What It Means: Five Insights

What Remains Unresolved

What We’re Watching

We Can Help