量子资源网

Insights

量子资源网 Insights: Your source for healthcare news, ideas and analysis.

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

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

Filter by topic:

Receive timely expert insights on topics you care about.

Select Topics

15 Results found.

Outlook 2026: A Conversation on Medicare Draft Payment Rules

Read Blog

As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)听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,听Jen Colamonico, Vice President, Strategy and Communications at 量子资源网 (量子资源网), caught up with Senior Consulting Actuary with Wakley, an 量子资源网 Company. Of particular interest was CMS鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 decision to phase out Medicare鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 still unclear what鈥檚 driving those trends鈥攚hether its assumptions related to the IPO list removal or other factors. We鈥檝e asked CMS for more clarity. From an actuarial standpoint, understanding what鈥檚 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鈥檚 not necessarily a one directional loss. 

Q: Does that mean the overall impact may be less dramatic than it appears?
Rachel: Potentially, yes鈥攅specially 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檙e 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鈥檛 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鈥攅specially those affecting benchmarks鈥攖he 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. 

量子资源网鈥檚 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鈥檚 payment landscape continues to evolve. 

For additional insights, listen to Rachel Stewart and Zach Gaumer on 量子资源网鈥檚 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 量子资源网 company, published 鈥,鈥 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 , the Wakely report addresses who retained coverage and who did not, what we still don鈥檛 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 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.听
  • State variation is significant, ranging from as low as鈥63%鈥痯aid鈥痠n January to as high as鈥99%.听
  • The overall听average听enrollment鈥痙ecrease鈥痠s鈥痚stimated听to be between听17% and听26%鈥痩ower than 2025,听with morbidity projected to worsen听by听2.9鈥6.5%.听

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

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听states with听state-based marketplaces听(SBMs)听and expected to stay lower than Healthcare.gov states, largely听because of听proactive outreach and marketing initiatives,听lower net premium increases,听and state听affordability听programs.听
  • 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听骋别辞谤驳颈补鈥攖he听only SBM without Medicaid expansion鈥攅nrollment听听27% from an estimated听1.3听million in听April听2025 to approximately听950,000听in听April 2026.听
  • 滨苍听狈别飞听闯别谤蝉别测鈥攁听state听with state-funded premium subsidies,听a reinsurance program, and a mandate听that听residents have health听insurance鈥攅nrollment has听听by more than 11%听since听April 2025.听
  • 滨苍听California鈥攁nother state with premium subsidies,听facilitated听enrollment,听and an individual mandate鈥攅ffectuated听enrollment听听by 7%听from February 2025 to February 2026.听
  • Overall, SBMs are听听that coverage drops听were听24% higher from January to March 2026 than听during听the same period in 2025 and that听the rate of plan shifting from Silver to Bronze听increased听significantly,听quadrupling听in six states.听

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 

量子资源网, Inc. (量子资源网), 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听our experts below with questions about the report and听to discuss opportunities to address the trends and forthcoming changes in the market.听

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

ACA Enrollment Declines: Implications and Options for State and Federal Policymakers

Register Now

Recent and future policy changes are reshaping the ACA market. A recent Wakely report finds that only 86% of ACA enrollees nationwide paid their first premium at the start of the year, raising important questions about affordability, access, and market stability. Additionally, the 2027 Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters (NBPP) is expected to be finalized this Spring which will have additional implications for consumers, issuers, and other stakeholders. As policymakers and state leaders consider how to respond to the shifting market composition and future policy changes, this discussion will focus on the policy implications of these shifts and the options to address affordability and coverage options to improve market stability.

Join 量子资源网鈥檚 ACA team for a policy-focused conversation on what these projected changes mean for marketplace dynamics, including impacts to risk pools, premiums, and issuer participation. The session will explore emerging federal and state policy responses and offer insight into how today鈥檚 decisions may shape 2027 rates, plan offerings, and long-term market sustainability.

Learning Objectives:

  • Analyze policy drivers: Examine how changes to federal subsidy policy are influencing ACA marketplace enrollment, affordability, and coverage continuity.
  • Evaluate policy tradeoffs: Assess how enrollment declines impact market stability, including risk pools, premiums, and issuer participation.
  • Inform policy strategy: Identify state and federal policy options to mitigate coverage losses and support a stable, competitive marketplace heading into 2027.

Updated Analysis Compares Consumer Out-of-Pocket Spending of ACA Marketplace Enrollees to other Major Payers Using Claims Data

Download

量子资源网 and Wakely, an 量子资源网 Company, have released an updated Issue Brief to the comprehensive profile of ACA Marketplace enrollees that was based on claims data from nearly 6 million of the 24 million Marketplace enrollees.

The issue brief discusses these key questions:

  1. Do Marketplace enrollees spend more or less out-of-pocket relative to Medicare, ESI and Medicaid enrollees?
  2. How may the potential expiration of eAPTCs impact out-of-pocket costs?
  3. What are some initial considerations regarding overall healthcare affordability?

Please fill out this form to receive a copy of the update and issue brief.

Contact any of the report authors with further questions, or to discuss potential applications of this work for your organization.

Wakely鈥檚 New Star Ratings Analysis: What鈥檚 Changing and What鈥檚 Holding Steady

Read Blog

As Medicare Advantage and Part D plans prepare for the 2026 contract year, Wakely, an 量子资源网 Company, has published two white papers that offer critical insights into the latest developments in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services鈥 (CMS) Star Ratings program. These analyses follow CMS鈥檚 release of the final 2026 Star Ratings, which play a pivotal role in plan performance, member retention, and bonus payments.

Why It Matters

Star Ratings reflect plan quality, member experience, and regulatory compliance. With CMS continuing to refine its methodology and cut points, understanding the nuances of these changes is essential for plans looking to maintain or improve their ratings. Wakely鈥檚 white papers provide a clear, data-driven lens into what鈥檚 new, what鈥檚 stable, and what it means for the industry.

No Major Shifts in 2026 Ratings

In the paper, , Wakely experts report that the 2026 Star Ratings show no major systemic shifts in overall scores. Wakely鈥檚 analysis finds that:

  • Most plans maintained their previous ratings, with only modest movement across the board.
  • CMS鈥檚 methodology updates had minimal impact on overall scores, suggesting a period of relative stability.
  • The distribution of scores across contracts remains consistent with prior years, offering plans a chance to focus on incremental improvements rather than major overhauls.

A companion white paper, , explains the cut point adjustments that define how performance translates into Star Ratings. The analysis finds that several measures saw tightening of cut points, especially in areas like medication adherence and member experience. In addition, the paper indicates that early signals of quality improvement are emerging in certain domains, suggesting that plans are responding to CMS鈥檚 evolving expectations.

The paper offers guidance on how plans can strategically target measures most likely to influence future ratings.

Read the .

Big changes ahead for ACA marketplace plan enrollment and premiums

Read Blog

With changes to ACA subsidies included in H.R. 1, the healthcare industry could face the biggest change since the passage of the ACA.

Health insurance coverage is likely to be disrupted by changes in ACA marketplace financing, particularly due to the projected reductions in ACA subsidies, as well as the impacts of eligibility and enrollment changes in Medicaid. At a recent 量子资源网 webinar, our ACA marketplace experts detailed a number of challenges that health plans participating in the ACA will face in the coming months and years due to these new policies, and some of the thinking behind ways that plans can take action now while Congress debates whether to extend any of the subsidies. 

The webinar touched on areas including:

  • How the recent policy and funding changes will affect strategic planning, longer term goals, and 2027 plan year rate setting;
  • Actuarial analysis/rate setting/risk adjustment insights from 量子资源网鈥檚 actuaries;
  • Changes likely to occur in plan and marketplace operations in both state exchanges and on the healthcare.gov federal platform;
  • The importance of effective communications to avoid creating consumer confusion, and ideas on stakeholder engagement strategies;
  • And, how all of this will impact workforce/access to care, and the likelihood of changes to in-network care

The ACA marketplace is bracing for impacts for the 2026 plan year, depending upon potential Congressional actions in the remaining months of 2025.  In May 2025, CMS put out a rate filing bulletin for plan year 2026 that gave technical directions for submissions and urging states and issuers to be prepared to react to Congressional action. This was a signal that the administration anticipated potential policy changes between May when they put this out and the rate filing window in the fall.

This is reminiscent of the ACA changes that happened in 2017, when there was litigation around cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies that needed to be appropriated. (This was during the 鈥渞epeal and replace鈥 debate in Congress, in that same July-August timeframe.) When repeal efforts failed in Congress, the Administration decided not to pay CSRs, necessitating a bipartisan agreement to address this new financing issue.  Changes to CSRs were dropped from this year鈥檚 law but could be addressed before the end of the year in upcoming appropriations bills in Congress.

鈥淎CA plan strategies need to change to ensure that they are considering different outcomes in the market composition and competitor changes to pricing strategies. Expect more policy changes and potential for market churn, making pricing difficult in 2027 given the limited information on what happens in 2026.鈥Michelle Anderson

A recent Wakely report analyzing the early draft of HR 1 before passage () details estimated reductions in the individual market enrollment with potential reduction anywhere from 47 to 57% or 11.2 to 13.6 million enrollment enrollees by 2028. The attrition estimates include the loss of both federally subsidized individuals, as well as the unsubsidized due to premium increases. This paper was quoted in a recent NY Times piece,

鈥淐hanges are coming for Healthcare.gov and state marketplace consumers in 2026. The (likely) expiring enhanced premium tax credits, as well as provisions within HR 1 and the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule will all be rolled out to marketplace consumers this coming Open Enrollment. In addition to the marketplaces, state departments of insurance, issuers, enrollment assistance professionals, and other stakeholders will play a critical role in helping consumers navigate the coming eligibility and affordability changes.鈥 – Zach Sherman

Impacted marketplace consumers need to be made aware of these coming changes. States and issuers should undertake a broad, aggressive, and coordinated communication effort around the overall rate changes. Ensuring consumers understand how their net premium is changing due to expiring enhanced premium tax credits as well as the other operational changes will be crucial to their ability to stay covered. We expect to see considerable consumer plan switching this coming open enrollment as a result. Some consumers may need to buy-down to silver or bronze plans to be able to afford to maintain their coverage. Marketplaces will need to ramp up customer service and navigation support. States with reinsurance programs or premium subsidies should consider ramping up funding to mitigate the affordability gaps that are likely to occur.

鈥淚t’s really important for folks in the ACA marketplace community to be active when it comes to policymaking and advocacy.鈥&苍产蝉辫; 鈥 Liz Wroe

These issues are part of the government funding debates underway right now as a government shutdown looms. Depending upon the outcome with the September funding deadline, or the possibility of a supplemental funding bill this year, these ACA marketplace issues could be addressed in several sets of negotiations.  Now is the time to talk to your state officials, insurance commissioners, associations and contacts in the Federal government to ensure they have a good understanding of how these ACA marketplace changes will impact coverage in your state.

To hear the full discussion, you can find the replay and materials for the ACA webinar here, and download the full Wakely paper at .

Navigating the Post-Subsidy Cliff – Mitigating Premium Increases After Enhanced ACA Subsidies Expire

Read Blog

As the end of 2025 approaches, the future of enhanced premium subsidies for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage remains uncertain. These subsidies, extended by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), are set to expire December 31, 2025. Without congressional action, millions of Americans will face a sudden and significant increase in out-of-pocket premium costs, reintroducing the 鈥渟ubsidy cliff鈥 and raising the percentage of income that they will need to direct toward health insurance premiums. More than 16 million consumers who now receive subsidies will be affected, making this a critical issue for policymakers, payers, and consumers.

A new  from Wakely, an 量子资源网 Company, offers a timely and detailed analysis of the potential impacts and strategic considerations for stakeholders navigating this uncertain terrain.

How ACA Subsidies Are Calculated: The Mechanics Behind Premiums

The white paper explains that advance premium tax credits (APTCs) are designed to cap a household鈥檚 health insurance premium contribution at a specific percentage of income. The calculation is based on household income, size, the cost of the benchmark Second Lowest Cost Silver Plan (SLCSP), and age. The expiration of enhanced subsidies will revert contribution percentages to higher levels, increasing costs for all income brackets.

Premium Shock: Quantifying the Impact of Subsidy Expiration

Wakely鈥檚 analysis shows that the expiration of enhanced subsidies will result in a substantial increase in monthly premium contributions. For example, a hypothetical single 40-year-old at 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will see monthly premiums jump from $0 to $81.97 in order to keep the same plan.

Mitigation Strategy: Buying Down to the Lowest Cost Silver Plan

Consumers may offset part of the premium increase by switching from the SLCSP to the Lowest Cost Silver Plan (LCSP). The difference in premiums between these two plans translates directly into monthly savings, independent of income. In Raleigh, NC, a hypothetical 40-year-old could save $53.03 per month by buying down, mitigating about two-thirds of the premium shock. For older consumers, the savings are even greater; however, in highly competitive markets like Charlotte, NC, the premium gap鈥攁nd the savings鈥攚ill be much smaller, offsetting only a modest portion of the increase.

Consumer Savings

After applying the buy-down strategy, the net premium increase for a hypothetical single 40-year-old at 150 percent of the FPL in Raleigh will be $28.94 per month rather than $81.97 without mitigation. Depending on age and location, consumers can offset 37鈥100 percent of the premium increase in less competitive markets, but only 7鈥28 percent in highly competitive ones.

Market Dynamics: Why Local Competition Matters

The effectiveness of mitigation strategies depends on local market dynamics and competition. In markets with fewer carriers and larger premium gaps, consumers have greater opportunities to offset premium increases. In competitive markets, options are more limited. The paper notes that the 2026 landscape may shift due to carrier exits and price changes, underscoring the need for ongoing monitoring and adaptive strategies.

Recommendations for Payers, Regulators, and Brokers

  • Payers听should consider product design strategies that create meaningful premium gaps between Silver plans, where actuarially justified, to maximize consumer savings.
  • Regulators听can collaborate with insurers to support these strategies and, in state-based Marketplaces, may play an active role in limiting Silver offerings that erode premium gaps.
  • Brokers and Carriers听may want to market Bronze plans as a last-resort coverage option, as some consumers can access Bronze plans for free, which is preferable to going uninsured.

 Connect with Us

Wakely is experienced in all facets of the healthcare industry鈥攆rom carriers to providers to government agencies. Wakely actuarial and policy experts continually monitor and analyze potential changes to inform healthcare organization strategies and advance effective solutions to propel their success.

For questions about this analysis or to discuss strategies for navigating the post-subsidy cliff, contact听our expert below.

Is the ACA Marketplace Built to Survive Another Decade of Change?

Listen Now

Michelle Anderson, director and senior consulting actuary at Wakely, an 量子资源网 Company, joins Vital Viewpoints on Healthcare to unpack the state of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. From the market鈥檚 volatile beginnings to today鈥檚 uncertainty around subsidies, Michelle shares how insurers, states, and consumers have adapted and what challenges lie ahead. We explore the forces shaping affordability, coverage options, and consumer behavior, as well as the critical policy decisions that could redefine the individual market in 2026 and beyond.

Rural Health Transformation Program Represents a One-Time Opportunity to Reshape Rural Care

Read Blog

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has officially opened the window for the (RHTP)鈥攁 $50 billion federal initiative designed to stabilize and transform rural health systems across the country. This one-time opportunity allows states to submit a comprehensive plan that could redefine how rural communities access care, manage chronic conditions, and sustain their healthcare infrastructure.

As outlined in our earlier In Focus article, , RHTP represents one of the most significant federal investments in rural health in decades.

Applications must be signed by governors and submitted by November 5, 2025, and awards are expected by December 31, 2025, providing states with a very narrow window to act.

The remainder of this article explains key aspects of the RHTP application, including the evaluation and scoring aspects. Notably, the structure of the scoring system will reward states that are already aligned with these , as well as those willing to implement new initiatives or make state policy changes to achieve alignment.

Program Overview and Funding Structure

Created under HR.1, the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act, the RHTP allocates $10 billion annually from federal fiscal year (FY) 2026 to FY 2030, totaling $50 billion over five years. Funding is split into two tranches:

  • Tranche 1 (Baseline funding): $25 billion distributed evenly听across all states with approved applications.
  • Tranche 2 (Workload funding): $25 billion distributed based on CMS scoring criteria, which include:
    • The percentage of the state population in rural census tracts
    • The proportion of rural health facilities in the state
    • The financial and operational status of hospitals
    • Other factors explained in the RHTP application notice

States must submit a single, one-time that covers the full five-year period. Stand-alone provider applications will be declined. Hence, states must coordinate across agencies, providers, and stakeholders to develop a unified transformation strategy.

Importantly, this award is not a grant; rather, it is a cooperative funding agreement, which means CMS will play an active role in oversight and collaboration. States must be prepared to meet higher standards of accountability, transparency, and performance monitoring. According to the RHTP application, continued funding requires states to demonstrate satisfactory progress toward implementing their plan.

Application Requirements and Strategic Priorities

To be eligible for funding, states must submit a Rural Transformation Plan that addresses eight core priorities as follows:

Within these core priorities, state plans must propose activities that address several specific issues.

Technical Factor Weighting for Workload Funding Reflects Federal Policy Priorities

CMS outlines the eligibility criteria for baseline funding and the scoring components for workload funding. Baseline funds will be distributed equally among states, while workload funding will be based on each state’s rural facility and population score as well as their technical score. Evaluators will score technical factors based on state policy actions and initiative-based plans for each state.

The technical factors, and the weighting of these factors, in the RHTP application are not just neutral scoring mechanisms; rather, they are closely linked to the Trump Administration鈥檚 health policy priorities.

  • Weighting Structure: The RHTP funding is split evenly between baseline funding (50%) and workload funding (50%). Although baseline funding ensures all states receive support, the workload funding is directly tied to technical scores that reflect how well a state鈥檚 plan aligns with federal objectives and demonstrates readiness to implement transformative change that furthers federal objectives.
  • Scoring Criteria: Technical factors, such as rural population share, facility density, hospital financial status, scope of proposed activities, administrative capacity, stakeholder engagement, evaluation framework, and especially alignment with federal priorities, all contribute to the overall score. States that have already adopted or are willing to adopt federal policy priorities are positioned to score higher and receive more funding.
  • Annual Recalculation: CMS will recalculate each state鈥檚 technical score and workload funding annually to incentivize ongoing alignment with federal priorities and measurable progress toward transformation goals.
  • Alignment with Federal Priorities: One of the explicit scoring factors is 鈥淎lignment with Federal Priorities,鈥 which measures the degree to which a state鈥檚 plan supports CMS goals for rural health transformation and sustainability. Under the Trump Administration, these priorities may include promoting value-based payment models, encouraging technology adoption, advancing adoption of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food restriction waivers that prohibit the purchase of non-nutritious items, availability of integrated care plans for the Medicare-Medicare dually eligible population, reporting of full Medicaid T-MSIS data, and align policies with federal guidance on short-term limited duration insurance plans.

Preparing for What Happens Next: Implications for States, Providers, and Health Plans

The RHTP offers a rare opportunity to reshape rural healthcare. But success will require strategic coordination and a commitment to long-term change. States in the short and long term should consider include:

  • Identifying stakeholders who will be involved: Hospitals, rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), behavioral health providers, and community organizations must be part of the planning process.
  • Reexamining priorities: States will need to reconcile competing needs across regions and provider types, balancing infrastructure investments with service delivery redesign.
  • Understanding infrastructure needs to support their project: Technology, workforce, and models of care must be strengthened to support long-term transformation.
  • Designing evaluation frameworks: States must include robust performance monitoring and reporting mechanisms to meet CMS expectations and secure future funding.

Providers and other stakeholders should also prepare to align with state strategies. Examples include:

  • Participating in regional partnerships
  • Adopting new care models and payment arrangements
  • Investing in technology and workforce development
  • Contributing data and insights to support evaluation efforts

The scoring structure also incentivizes states that may not yet be fully aligned to implement new initiatives or make policy changes that would improve their technical scores and secure greater funding. States and their partners will need to be united on the goals and initiatives, disciplined about implementing and evaluating the plans based on data informed reports, nimble and willing to make strategic pivots based on feedback and experiences.

Connect With Us

States that are already aligned with Trump Administration priorities鈥攕uch as those with established value-based payment models, short-term limited duration plan options, preferred technology infrastructure, or strong rural hospital support policies鈥攁re positioned to be rewarded in the scoring and funding process.

量子资源网 (量子资源网), is actively supporting states in developing compliant and compelling RHTP applications. Our advisory services include:

  • Strategic assessments and stakeholder engagement
  • Program design and grant writing
  • Implementation support and technical assistance
  • Actuarial support
  • Evaluation and performance monitoring

We help clients navigate the complexities of federal funding, align transformation goals with community needs, and build sustainable models for rural care delivery. For details about the RHTP, including the 量子资源网IS State Action Tracker, contact 量子资源网 experts below.

Webinar Replay – Beyond Bundles: Preparing Hospitals for Success in TEAM and the Next Generation of Value-Based Models

Watch Now

This webinar was held on September 30, 2025.

Hospitals and health systems are under growing pressure to succeed in new value-based models that demand both operational transformation and strategic alignment. In this webinar, advisors from 量子资源网, Wakely, an 量子资源网 Company and Nixon Peabody broke down the latest regulatory and contractual developments, explored lessons learned from the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, and discussed how organizations can prepare for upcoming opportunities.

Speakers shared practical insights on:

  • The regulatory, operational, and actuarial considerations hospitals must navigate
  • Key takeaways from bundled payment initiatives like CJR
  • How to leverage data and design strategies to build partnerships that position organizations for success in new Medicare models

This session was designed for hospital executives, provider organizations, payers, and policy leaders seeking to better understand how emerging value-based models will shape the future of care delivery and payment.

Featured Speaker:

Whitney Phelps, J.D., Partner Nixon Peabody

Reference-based pricing 鈥 a tool to improve consumer behavioral health access and affordability

Read Blog

Reference-based pricing is a tool that can help to address growing healthcare costs and ultimately improve healthcare affordability, especially for consumers with private health coverage.  Two states 鈥擮regon and Montana鈥攈ave already implemented reference-based pricing (RBP), and several others have considered it or are in the process of implementation. RBP can be implemented in two ways- either through setting limitations on what insurers can reimburse for health services or by setting limitations on what providers can charge for services. The 鈥渞eference price,鈥 usually a percentage of what Medicare pays, can also function as a floor for provider payments. This is especially important to combat issues of access to behavioral health services, where payments are notoriously low, and workforce shortages and limited network participation issues are a significant barrier to patients seeking care.

since implementing caps in 2019 on what insurers can pay providers- $107.5 million over 27 months- and recently demonstrated reductions in out-of-pocket spending without unintended consequences such as hospital network disruptions or price hikes. `

In Washington, reference-based pricing was evaluated as a possible policy intervention in two reports prepared by 量子资源网 (量子资源网). The reports were produced for the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) to address healthcare affordability in 2023 and 2024. The included a landscape of the healthcare system in Washington as well as an overview of several policies for consideration, while the involved actuarial and economic analyses of selected policies to understand their potential impacts they might have in lowering healthcare costs and improving healthcare affordability for consumers.

量子资源网 and Wakely, an 量子资源网 Company, worked closely with the OIC and other partners to select and model the impact of various policies. The process for developing a model to evaluate reference-based pricing involved Wakely accessing the state鈥檚 , and included a review of claims from the state鈥檚 commercial and Medicaid health plans. To establish a baseline, Wakely compared different sets of healthcare services to what Medicare reimburses for that category of services, on average. This data showed vast differences in how much was being reimbursed by private plans relative to Medicare depending on service category- ranging from .

Recognizing the value of access to primary care services, that 12% of healthcare dollars should be spent on primary care. Ever since, the state鈥檚 has been focused on tracking progress towards this goal. There had not been a similar focus on establishing targets for behavioral health services until this analysis. The low reimbursement rate for outpatient behavioral health services was not surprising and confirmed what had long been suspected as a contributor to challenges accessing outpatient behavioral health services for those with private insurance. Poor access to behavioral health services also contributes to healthcare affordability issues for consumers with private insurance, who end up going without, or paying for care out-of-pocket when they can鈥檛 find behavioral health providers that take private insurance. An analysis by the found that privately insured adults who had a diagnosed mental health condition had twice as much out-of-pocket expense compared with those who did not have an identified mental health condition and that employers reported narrower networks for mental healthcare than their overall provider networks.

These findings, combined with the data from the APCD about low reimbursement rates, were catalysts for how Washington approached legislation to apply reference-based pricing for its public and school employee health plans in the 2025 legislative session. Recognizing that reference-based pricing could be used not only as a tool to improve affordability, but also to potentially increase access to important services, , signed into law in May 2025, sets caps on how much insurers can pay providers for specific sets of services, but establishes floors for how much insurers must reimburse for primary care and outpatient behavioral health services to 150% of Medicare. Notably, Colorado was considering , but it did not pass.   

Healthcare affordability and access to behavioral health services are two persistent problems that contribute to poor health outcomes for many Americans and the relationship between the two is complex.  It will be important to track how Washington鈥檚 new law impacts both of these issues to better understand and explore other questions, such as how expanded access to outpatient behavioral health services could improve overall healthcare affordability by addressing behavioral health issues before they become critical and/or emergent? Will it avoid or reduce traumatic and expensive trips to emergency room and crisis services? Washington鈥檚 new law offers an opportunity to closely evaluate and understand these types of questions and offers a potential model to address these intertwined and persistent problems.   

量子资源网鈥檚 work on reference-based pricing was supported in part by Arnold Ventures.

As states struggles to address healthcare costs and invest in behavioral health, reference-based pricing and supporting analytics are one tool that 量子资源网 can offer to organizations.  Contact us to learn more.

Highlights from 量子资源网 Analysis of Specialty Services in Medicaid

Read Blog

This week, our鈥In Focus鈥痵ection highlights key insights from a new 量子资源网 (量子资源网), white paper,鈥. Experts from 量子资源网 and Wakely, an 量子资源网 company, used the national Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) database to learn more about specialty provider networks and examine the provision of specialty services across various states.  

The analysis, released in January 2025 with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, focuses on three representative services that are relatively common, potentially difficult for Medicaid beneficiaries to access, significantly affect quality of life, typically accessed as elective procedures, and unlikely to be provided by other clinicians, such as primary care or mid-level practitioners.  

T-MSIS Analysis Overview  

T-MSIS analytic files are a comprehensive resource for Medicaid encounter, beneficiary demographics, program enrollment, service utilization, and payment data. Individual states compile their Medicaid claims data and submit monthly files to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). As each state submits data individually, numerous state-specific variations occur in data availability and quality. Currently, T-MSIS data are available for 2016鈭2023. 量子资源网 data scientists have permission to use the T-MSIS files for healthcare services research. 

This paper examines services in 10 states that met a threshold of data integrity in the T-MSIS dataset for 2022. Other important design aspects of the analysis are as follows:  

  • The three service procedures included in the analysis are total knee replacement (TKA), cataract removal, and impacted tooth extraction.听
  • Selected states represented a diverse sample of geographic, socioeconomic, and other demographic factors.听听
  • The analysis includes non-dually eligible adult populations, ages 22鈭64 years.听听
  • The data cover all services provided in 2022 for each procedure and the providers who rendered the service; facilities are excluded.听听

Concentration of Specialty Providers  

Table 1 summarizes findings about the concentration of specialty services.  

table of percentage of procedures rendered by top ten percent of providers

The authors further analyzed the provision of services and, building on a previous study, examined network concentration. Findings were as follows: 

  • When looking at the same procedure across states, no consistent pattern emerged regarding which states had the highest and lowest concentration of services in the top 10/25 percentile of providers.听
  • However, when looking at the same procedure across multiple states, TKA tended to have the lowest concentration of services among those studied.听听
  • Regardless of procedure and state, the 50 percent of providers with the lowest number of procedures tended to provide fewer than 10 percent of the total services combined.听

These findings suggest that the specialty networks within each state are highly nuanced, and state policymakers need to look at individual specialty networks when considering health policy. State policymakers and managed care organizations (MCOs) need to examine each specialty individually to assess the distribution of services and access to care. 

Looking Ahead  

Timely access to healthcare services is critical for ensuring optimal health outcomes. The report authors鈥 analysis of T-MSIS data showed significant concentration of selected specialty services among providers, which may affect appropriate access to these services.  

The analysis of concentration of specialty services among Medicaid specialty providers can guide MCOs and state policymakers in developing strategies to improve network adequacy, including clarifying the level of network adequacy and developing policies to assess and regulate access to specialty care. Addressing gaps in access to specialty care can contribute to better health outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries and may be aligned with provisions in value-based contracts.  

Connect with Us 

Medicaid consumers, providers, MCOs, and states all have an interest in ensuring access to specialty care for Medicaid beneficiaries. The methodology applied in the analysis for the 量子资源网 white paper can be applied and adapted for future analysis to monitor network stability and to compare access among various payers.  

For details about this analysis, its implications for state and local policies, and additional research using T-MSIS, contact听our experts below.

Ready to talk?