CMS Medicare Advantage Final Rules: Why 2025 will be Significantly Different for Plans, Enrollees and Providers

Last Monday, CMS announced the base payment rate it will pay Medicare Advantage plans in 2025: plans will see an average 3.7%, or $16 billion, increase in payments once risk scores are factored in but a cut to base payments of 0.16% since 2025 risk scores were expected to be 3.86%. That’s the math.

It came as a surprise to insurers and investors who had imagined CMS would modify its November proposed rule to increase payments as has been the precedent in prior years. Per Bloomberg:

Only once in the past 10 years have final rates not improved from regulators’ initial proposals…The tougher stance in the face of lobbying signals another hurdle for insurers that already face faster-than-expected increases in medical costs. Humana Inc., which is the most exposed to Medicare among large insurance companies, fell 9.2% in premarket trading. UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest US health insurer, dropped 4.3%, while CVS Health Corp. declined 5.2%. Stocks including Elevance Health Inc. and Centene Corp. retreated in post-market trading after the announcement.

Then on Wednesday, CMS released a 1327-page final rule with sweeping directives about how Medicare Advantage plans should operate starting next year: 

“This final rule will revise the Medicare Advantage (Part C), Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (Part D), Medicare cost plan, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) regulations to implement changes related to Star Ratings, marketing and communications, agent/broker compensation, health equity, dual eligible special needs plans (D-SNPs), utilization management, network adequacy, and other programmatic areas. This final rule also codifies existing sub-regulatory guidance in the Part C and Part D programs.”

When first proposed in November, insurers pushed back. In response, most of the 3463 comment letters received by CMS said they needed more time to modify their plans. CMS replied: “We appreciate the commenter’s concern regarding the plans having enough time to understand the impact of finalized regulations. We will take their recommendation into consideration for future rulemaking.” P20). Accordingly, all MA plans must get approvals from CMS reflecting these changes on or before June 3, 2024.

Arguably, CMS took this hardline approach because bona fide studies by MedPAC, USC Shaeffer and others found widespread risk-score upcoding by Medicare Advantage plans that resulted in 6%-20% annual overpayments by Medicare.

Recent high-profile missteps by two of the biggest and most profitable MA players no doubt reinforced CMS’ get tougher posture: UnitedHealth Group’s Change Healthcare cybersecurity breech and Cigna’s $172 million Fraud and Abuse penalty for inflating its MA risk coding.

So, the transition from Medicare Advantage circa 2024 to Medicare Advantage 2025 will be its most significant since Medicare Choice was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In 2024, Medicare Advantage experienced enrollment growth and profitability to which its players were accustomed despite a late-year spike in utilization:

  • 33.8 million Medicare enrollees (or 51% of total Medicare enrollment) get their coverage from Medicare Advantage plans—up 6.4% from 2023.
  • The average Medicare beneficiary has access to 43 Medicare Advantage plans in 2024, the same as in 2023, but more than double the number of plans offered in 2018. The majority of options do not require an extra payment above what Medicare pays private issuers on their behalf and the majority offer supplemental benefits including dental, eyecare, wellness et al.
  • And Medicare Advantage insurers entered the year on solid financial footing: the biggest issuers posted strong profits in 2023 i.e. UnitedHealth Group: $22.4 billion, CVS (Aetna) Health: $8.3 billion, Elevance Health: $6 billion, Cigna Group: $5.2 billion, Centene: $2.7 billion, Humana: $2.5 billion
  • In 4Q 2023, pent-up demand for services by Medicare Advantage enrollees pushed utilization of doctors, hospitals and other providers up 8.1% above prior year levels including 4Q 2023 increases for outpatient surgery 14.4%, outpatient visits excluding ER and surgery 8.7%, physician visits 6.0%, inpatient adult care 5.3%, Part B drugs 5% and ER visits 4%.

But 2025 will be different. The 4Q spike in utilization and impact of the new rules will have profound impact on Medicare Advantage: the biggest players like United and Humana will adapt and be OK, but others downstream will be disrupted or impaired:

  • Smaller MA plan sponsors and their lobbyists: AHIP, ACHP, BCBSA, Better Medicare Alliance and the army of lobbyists deployed to defeat these rules took a hit. Members pay dues for results. These rules were disappointing (though it could have been worse).
  • MA brokers, agents and marketing organizations: The limits on compensation, constraints on MA marketing tactics and enrollee protections around transparency may reduce revenues for many third-party marketing organizations that sell their services to the plans. A shakeout is likely.
  • Supplemental services providers: lower payments by CMS will force some to reduce/eliminate supplemental benefits that are valued less by enrollees. Dental and prescription drug benefits appear safe but others (i.e. fitness programs) might be cut by some.
  • Hospitals and physicians: Cuts by CMS to MA plans will trickle-down as reimbursement cuts to direct providers of care. Hardest hit will be smaller and rural providers in communities with large MA enrollment.
  • MA enrollees: Though the rule adds behavioral health benefits, data privacy protections and equity considerations in utilization management decisions by the plans, the likely impact of the rate cut is fewer plan options for enrollees and higher premiums. Margin compression for MA plans will hurt bigger plans who will adapt but incapacitate smaller plans unable to survive.
  • The Presidential campaigns: MA sponsors must submit their proposed 2025 plans to CMS on or before June 3, 2024—in the midst of Campaign 2024. And open enrollment will begin in October as MA plans launch marketing for their newly-revised offerings. No doubt, the Campaigns will opine to Medicare security in their closing rhetoric recognizing MA covers more than half its enrollees.

My take:

These rules are a big deal. CMS appears poised to challenge the industry’s formidable strengths and force changes.

Together, these rules will disrupt day to day operations in every MA plan, intensify friction with providers over network design, coverage and reimbursement negotiations and confuse enrollees who might have to pay more or change plans.

Medicare Advantage remains a work-in-process.  Stay tuned.

Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly(“PACE”)

What is PACE? - SeniorAdvisor.com Blog

While the ongoing pandemic has impacted all Americans, Covid has been most detrimental to the elderly and people with disabilities, many of whom depend on long-term services and supports (LTSS). This has
placed greater emphasis on alternative care models that allow elderly Americans with
LTSS needs to live at home, where a vast majority of this population prefers to receive
care.
Today, more than 800,000 people are on waitlists to receive home and community-based services. This transition of care to the home is a theme that has become prevalent during Covid and warrants attention going forward.

Additionally, value-based care has emerged as a fixture of the healthcare landscape.
More than a trend, this secular theme has brought with it a proliferation of new
companies. While value-based care has different meanings depending on application,
the core concept is that all stakeholders win. Members receive better care, payers see
cost savings and providers are less encumbered with administrative work, allowing them
to be more engaged with members. Value-based care underscores the concept that the
best outcomes are achieved when all stakeholders are aligned.

One of these models that inherently encompasses value-based care AND offers an
alternative LTSS model that is home and community-based is the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (“PACE”). PACE is a fully integrated, highly coordinated
care model that provides comprehensive medical and social services to frail, medically
complex, elderly individuals, most of whom are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid
benefits.
PACE addresses the social determinants of health – transportation, meals, and
social isolation, to name a few. 95% of PACE participants live safely in the community.
PACE is a fully capitated model, which allows providers to deliver all services
participants need, rather than limit them to those reimbursable under Medicare and
Medicaid fee-for-service plans.

PACE produces tangible outcomes for all stakeholders:

 Members experience reduced hospital admissions, decreased rehospitalizations,
reduced ER visits, fewer nursing home admissions and better preventive care;

 States pay PACE programs 13% less than the cost of other Medicaid services;
 Seniors receive better quality outcomes and can remain living in their communities; and importantly
 97.5% of family caregivers would recommend PACE to someone in a similar situation.

The PACE model is roughly 50 years old, and in recent years enrollment has grown at a healthy 9% CAGR. Yet, while there are approximately 58,000 PACE participants, there are ~2 million Americans that could qualify, representing a penetration rate of just 3%. This is low. There are many reasons for this: regulation and policy challenges, limited access to the program, lack of awareness of the program by seniors, and capital-intensity to develop.

In Cain Brothers’ view, as we look to emerge from this pandemic, PACE is well positioned for an acceleration. There are a number of factors we have been watching that support this:


The current administration is pushing to expand home and community-based services. In April 2021, Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, introduced the PACE Plus Act that would strengthen and expand access to the PACE program;


 The existing PACE landscape remains very fragmented and many players would benefit from scale and
innovation;


 Over the last few years, more private investment has come into the sector, which should help to fuel growth and expansion; and


 More state Medicaid programs are planning for or are in the process of (most recently, DC and Illinois) developing and expanding PACE programs creating an opportunity for new entrants.


How might the PACE landscape change over the next few years? We could see consolidation of current players, new entrants, or partnerships between not-for-profits and for-profits. Whatever the form, PACE clearly benefits all stakeholders. The pandemic has cast a light on this value proposition and carved a path for adoption to meaningfully accelerate.