Home Blog Page 16

Medicare Advantage Enrollees Account for 25% of all Inpatient Hospital Days

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Medicare Advantage Enrollees Account for 25% of all Inpatient Hospital Days



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage has grown rapidly in recent years, with more than half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries now receiving their coverage from a private plan. Although the pace of enrollment increases slowed in 2025, the total number of Medicare Advantage enrollees still increased and the share of Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their Medicare benefits from a private plan is expected to continue to grow over the next decade. This trend has implications for beneficiaries and health care providers, including hospitals, because Medicare Advantage differs from traditional Medicare in many ways.

For hospitals and beneficiaries, one key distinction is that virtually all Medicare Advantage enrollees are in a plan that requires prior authorization for inpatient hospital stays (96%), post-acute skilled nursing facility stays (99%) and home health care (91%). Prior authorization is intended to reduce unnecessary care and lower costs, but it also imposes administrative burdens on providers, and sometimes leads to delays and barriers to care. Medicare Advantage plans also typically establish provider networks and impose higher out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network care. In light of the reported uptick in utilization among some Medicare Advantage enrollees, insurers looking to protect profits and guard against losses may seek to cut costs in ways that could impact hospitals, such as by tightening networks to direct patients to providers with lower costs. As Medicare Advantage enrollment grows, decisions made by insurers (related to networks, payment rates, prior authorization, and denials) along with decisions made by hospitals (whether to be in a Medicare Advantage network) can be expected to affect a larger share of the Medicare population.

Recently, hospitals and other providers—including in rural areas—have raised concerns about the impact of Medicare Advantage on their finances. Some hospitals have terminated contracts over payment rates, delays in payment, more restrictive coverage determinations, and denials. One issue that has drawn scrutiny from these groups has been plans’ practice of shifting hospitalized patients to “observation status,” which often means lower payments to hospitals and higher costs for patients. Additionally, one study estimated that Medicare Advantage denials of inpatient services reduced provider revenue by approximately 7%.

This data note examines the growth of Medicare Advantage as a share of hospital inpatient days between 2015 and 2023 based on cost reports submitted by hospitals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Key Takeaways

  • Medicare Advantage represents a growing share of total hospital inpatient days. Medicare Advantage grew from 13% to 25% of total inpatient hospital days between 2015 and 2023, and as of 2023, half (50%) of all Medicare inpatient hospital days were attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees.
  • Nearly four in ten hospitals had more inpatient days from Medicare Advantage enrollees than traditional Medicare enrollees in 2023. The share of hospitals with more Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare inpatient days grew from 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023.
  • Medicare Advantage inpatient shares have grown fastest in rural areas. The share of inpatient hospital days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees more than doubled in rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas between 2015 and 2023 and nearly tripled in rural counties not adjacent to metropolitan areas.
  • Medicare Advantage inpatient shares ranged from 2% to 33% across states in 2023. Medicare Advantage inpatient shares were lowest in Alaska (2%) and Wyoming (6%) and highest in Ohio (32%) and Michigan (33%).
  • Within counties, the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees also varied widely across hospitals in 2023. For example, in Allegheny County, PA (where Medicare Advantage penetration is relatively high), inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees ranged from 14% to 59% across hospitals. Similarly, in Cook County, Illinois (where Medicare Advantage penetration is relatively low), the Medicare Advantage inpatient share ranged from 2% to 38% across hospitals.

Medicare Advantage steadily increased as a share of inpatient days between 2015 and 2023, while the share attributed to traditional Medicare decreased.

The share of total inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees grew from 13% in 2015 to 25% in 2023 among general short-term hospitals in the U.S (see Figure 1). During this same period, the share of inpatient days attributed to traditional Medicare declined from 36% to 25%. As of 2023, half of all Medicare inpatient days were attributed to Medicare Advantage patients. The rise in the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees coincided with an increase in Medicare Advantage enrollment as a share of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries from 32% in 2015 to 51% in 2023.

Medicare Advantage Steadily Increased as a Share of Inpatient Days Between 2015 and 2023, While the Share Attributed to Traditional Medicare Decreased

The share of hospitals with more inpatient days from Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare increased from 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023.

The increase in Medicare Advantage enrollment has contributed to a shift in patient mix across hospitals, affecting some more than others. The share of hospitals with more Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare inpatient days increased from just 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023 (Figure 2). Hospitals with a greater share of patients from Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare may be more reliant on revenue from these plans and more affected by various plan rules and decisions, such as prior authorization requirements, denials of claims, observation stay designations, and network restrictions.

The Share of Hospitals With More Inpatient Days From Medicare Advantage Than Traditional Medicare Grew From 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023

Among rural hospitals, the share of inpatient days for Medicare Advantage enrollees more than doubled between 2015 and 2023.

Medicare inpatient shares more than doubled (from 11% in 2015 to 26% in 2023) in rural counties that are adjacent to metropolitan areas and nearly tripled (from 7% in 2015 to 19% in 2023) in rural counties that are not adjacent to metropolitan areas (referred to here as the “most rural” counties). Medicare inpatient shares were lower in adjacent rural areas versus urban areas in 2015 (11% versus 13%) but were higher in 2023 (26% versus 25%). Although Medicare inpatient shares grew fastest in the most rural areas, they also were lower in these areas in any given year than in other areas (e.g., 19% in 2023 versus 26% in adjacent rural areas and 25% in urban areas). The majority of Medicare beneficiaries in the most rural counties receive their coverage through traditional Medicare, unlike in rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas and urban counties, where most beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

Some rural hospitals have raised concerns about the growth of Medicare Advantage, pointing to payment rates that are lower than rates paid by traditional Medicare and payment delays and denials. Rural hospitals often face unique financial challenges, which could make it harder to adjust to the expansion of Medicare Advantage than other hospitals. As Medicare Advantage enrollment continues to climb, and as Medicare Advantage enrollees comprise a larger share of patients, rural hospitals may face new challenges.

Among Rural Hospitals, the Share of Inpatient Days for Medicare Advantage Enrollees More Than Doubled Between 2015 and 2023

Medicare Advantage inpatient shares ranged from 2% to 33% across states in 2023.

State-level Medicare Advantage inpatient shares tracked with Medicare Advantage enrollment. Medicare Advantage inpatient shares were lowest in Alaska (2%), and Wyoming (6%), which were also the two states with the lowest Medicare Advantage penetration in 2023 (2% and 11%, respectively). Meanwhile, Medicare Advantage inpatient shares were among the highest in states like Michigan (33%) and Hawaii (29%) where penetration was at least 60% of all Medicare beneficiaries. State-level Medicare Advantage penetration is influenced by a range of factors, including insurance market dynamics, beneficiary characteristics, and the share of the state’s population living in urban or rural areas. 

Medicare Advantage Inpatient Shares Ranged From 2% to 33% Across States in 2023

Medicare Advantage comprised a higher share of inpatient days in counties with higher Medicare Advantage penetration in 2023.

Across the country, the share of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage varies widely. As might be expected, counties with higher Medicare Advantage penetration also had higher Medicare Advantage inpatient shares than counties with lower Medicare Advantage penetration. Among counties in the top quartile of Medicare Advantage penetration, Medicare Advantage comprised 28% of inpatient days in 2023 (Figure 4), substantially greater than the 18% share among the bottom quartile of counties.

Medicare Advantage Comprised a Higher Share of Inpatient Days in Counties With Higher Medicare Advantage Penetration in 2023

The share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees varied widely across hospitals within counties in 2023.

Although the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage tracked county-level Medicare Advantage penetration, there was large variation within counties. The figure below illustrates the range in Medicare Advantage inpatient shares for a set of counties that have several hospitals and are geographically dispersed in each quartile of Medicare Advantage penetration. For example, in Allegheny County, PA, a high-penetration county where 73% of eligible Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2023, Medicare Advantage enrollees accounted for just 14% of all inpatient days in one hospital but more than half (59%) in others. Even in counties with lower than average penetration, there was substantial variation in the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage. For instance, in Cook County, Illinois, where 42% of beneficiaries were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, the Medicare Advantage inpatient share ranged from 2% to 38% across hospitals.

Differences in Medicare Advantage inpatient shares across hospitals within the same county may be due to a number of factors, including whether a given hospital is in Medicare Advantage networks, the extent to which a given hospital tends to serve people with Medicare based on the types of services and procedures it provides, and beneficiary preferences that might be based on convenience or perceived quality. As noted above, hospitals with a relatively large number of patients from Medicare Advantage may be more affected by prior authorization requirements, denials of claims, observation stay designations, and network restrictions of these plans. As Medicare Advantage enrollment continues to rise, the decisions made by Medicare Advantage plans related to reimbursement, coverage, and networks could have revenue implications for hospitals and other health care providers that can be expected to vary across counties and within local markets.

The Share of Inpatient Days Attributed to Medicare Advantage Enrollees Varied Widely Across Hospitals Within Counties in 2023

This work was supported in part by Arnold Ventures. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.



Source link

Tariffs Are Driving up Premiums for Small Businesses

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Tariffs Are Driving up Premiums for Small Businesses



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Small businesses may expect that the recent tariffs levied by President Trump will drive up the price of multiple imported goods from various countries. But less expected is how these trade policies may ripple through employee health benefits. Most recently, President Trump indicated that the administration will phase in tariffs on pharmaceutical imports—starting with a “small tariff,” climbing to 150% within roughly 12 to 18 months, and eventually rising to as much as 250%—as part of an effort to bring drug manufacturing back to the U.S.

Tariffs can indirectly affect health insurance premiums by increasing the cost of imported medical goods, especially prescription drugs. When pricing plans, insurers must make assumptions about future medical costs, often months in advance. In the absence of clear policy guidance, some insurers take a cautious approach by incorporating potential cost increases into their proposed rates for the upcoming plan year. Rather than waiting for final decisions, some carriers preemptively accounted for these risks to avoid underpricing. This can be particularly true when the affected drugs are brand-name or specialty medications with limited alternatives, many of which are imported. By building in assumptions about possible cost increases, tariffs can influence premiums even before any measurable price change has occurred, particularly in markets where insurers may already operate on tighter margins.

The share of total health claims attributable to pharmaceuticals varies by market segment but generally makes up between one-sixth and one-fifth of total claims after adjusting for pharmaceutical rebates.

Pharmaceuticals make up a slightly larger share of health claims for insurers covering small businesses

Pharmaceuticals comprise a slightly larger share of total health care claims in the small group market compared to the individual and large group markets. In the small group market, pharmaceuticals account for just under one-fifth of all claims (19.2%), while the share is slightly lower in the individual (18.2%) and large group (17.9%) markets.

Health insurance companies must submit their proposed premium changes for the coming year to state regulators in the spring and summer. As part of this process, some insurers in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)-compliant guaranteed-issue small group market — just as in the individual market — are explicitly citing tariffs, particularly those affecting pharmaceutical imports, as a reason for higher-than-expected premium increases. In the individual market, several insurers have included upward adjustments of about 3% in response to anticipated increases in drug costs tied to tariffs, while others acknowledge the risk but have not incorporated it into their pricing assumptions. Of the 88 small group market rate filings reviewed in detail, one-quarter (22 insurers) explicitly mentioned tariffs. Other insurers may have factored in tariff effects without stating so directly.

In several states, small group filings note that new import tariffs are expected to increase the cost of certain brand-name and specialty drugs, especially those without generic alternatives.

“IHBC is seeking an overall rate change of 18.9% in 2026, primarily due to increased costs due to inflation and tariffs.” – Independent Health Benefits Corporation (New York)

“To account for uncertainty regarding tariffs and/or the onshoring of manufacturing and their impact on total medical costs, most notably pharmaceuticals, a total claims impact of 2.9% is built into the initially submitted rate filings. This has increased our premium by roughly 2.7%.” – United Healthcare Insurance Company (Oregon)

Among small group insurers that have accounted for the potential impact of tariffs in their rate filings, the estimated premium effect ranges from 1.7% to 3.0%. Other insurers reference the possibility of tariffs but do not factor them into their pricing assumptions.

“Neighborhood did not consider the impact of tariffs during rate development as rates were created based on current law today and too much uncertainty remains of what (if any) tariffs will become final.” – Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island (Rhode Island)

Because insurers in the ACA-compliant small group market must lock in premiums well ahead of the coverage year — often six to nine months in advance — they are frequently pricing against policy uncertainty. Unlike inflation or shifts in service utilization where insurers can draw on historical experience, there is little precedent for how sweeping import tariffs could affect prescription drug pricing.

Additionally, ACA-compliant small group insurers must also adhere to Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements, which limit the share of premiums that can go toward administrative costs and profit. If premiums overshoot actual spending, carriers are required to issue rebates. But if they underprice premiums and tariffs drive up drug costs, insurers could face financial shortfalls.

This dynamic could translate into higher employee benefit costs for small businesses as these tariffs take effect and impact drug prices. For employers operating on narrow margins, even small premium increases can influence decisions around employer contributions, cost sharing, or continuing to offer coverage at all. While ACA’s MLR rules shield employers from some costs by requiring insurers to return excess premiums if spending falls short, these rules do not insulate businesses or workers from the upfront burden of higher premiums. With no clear precedent to guide assumptions, tariff-related uncertainty is now a factor in how some small group insurers approach rate-setting — adding a new variable to the affordability of some job-based coverage.



Source link

Health Costs Consume a Large Portion of Income for Millions of People with Medicare

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Health Costs Consume a Large Portion of Income for Millions of People with Medicare



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Medicare and Social Security play a central role in the lives of tens of millions of older adults and people with disabilities in the U.S., in the form of health insurance from Medicare and retirement or disability income from Social Security. Yet, even with Medicare coverage, beneficiaries can face substantial out-of-pocket health care costs, which can erode the financial support provided by Social Security. Medicare Part B and D premiums and cost sharing alone account for nearly one-fourth of average monthly Social Security benefits, not taking into account other health care expenses, such as dental services, home care, or care in a nursing home, or premiums for supplemental coverage. While most Medicare beneficiaries have other sources of income in addition to Social Security, more than one third of Social Security recipients age 65 and older rely on Social Security for half or more their income. Additionally, many Medicare beneficiaries live on relatively low incomes: one in four Medicare beneficiaries had income below $21,000 per person in 2023, while half had income below $36,000 per person.

Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes and limited financial resources can get help paying for out-of-pocket costs and services not covered by Medicare if they qualify for and receive full Medicaid benefits, which covers long-term care, vision, and dental care. They can also receive help if they are enrolled in the Medicare Savings Programs, which pay for Medicare’s premiums and, in most cases, cost-sharing requirements. However, the recently enacted tax and spending bill includes provisions that are projected to result in fewer low-income Medicare beneficiaries accessing these benefits, and reduce household resources for individuals in the bottom of the income distribution, including households with Medicare beneficiaries. And even today, not all low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for these benefits are receiving them, while others may have income or assets just above the qualifying thresholds.

To document the affordability challenges posed by out-of-pocket health care costs for people with Medicare, this brief analyzes out-of-pocket health care costs as a share of Social Security income and total income, including other sources of income in addition to Social Security. Due to differences in the underlying data sources, the analysis presents average out-of-pocket spending as a share of average Social Security income on a per person basis, and a broader range of measures – average, median, 75th and 90th percentile – for out-of-pocket spending as a share of total income. (See Methods for more details and data sources).

Out-of-pocket health care spending by Medicare beneficiaries accounted for 39% of Social Security income per person in 2022, on average

In 2022, Medicare beneficiaries spent a total of $6,330 out of pocket on health care costs, on average, including premiums for Medicare and costs for Medicare-covered services and services Medicare doesn’t cover, like dental, vision, and hearing services and long-term services and supports, while average per capita income from Social Security was $16,157 (Figure 1, Appendix Table 1).

Figure 1

Medicare beneficiaries spent 11% of their total per capita income on out-of-pocket health care costs, on average, but 1 in 4 beneficiaries spent at least 21% and 1 in 10 beneficiaries spent 39% or more

Taking into account other sources of income in addition to Social Security, out-of-pocket spending on health care amounted to 11% of total per capita income for Medicare beneficiaries in 2022, on average (Figure 2). Out-of-pocket health care costs represent a smaller share of total income than Social Security income because most beneficiaries have other sources of income, such as pensions, 401ks, or income from savings. In 2022, Social Security income accounted for 29% of total income per Medicare beneficiary, on average. Out-of-pocket spending consumed a larger share of income for some Medicare beneficiaries, with one in four (15 million beneficiaries) spending 21% or more and one in 10 (6 million) spending 39% or more.

Figure 2

The health care spending burden is higher for some Medicare beneficiaries, including those with lower incomes and those ages 85 and older

On average, out-of-pocket health care costs accounted for a substantially larger share of per capita total income among Medicare beneficiaries with lower incomes than higher incomes (34% among beneficiaries with incomes of $10,000 or less vs. 7% among beneficiaries with incomes greater than $50,000) (Figure 3). While Medicare beneficiaries with lower incomes have lower out-of-pocket health care costs than higher income beneficiaries, on average, their out-of-pocket costs account for a larger share of their lower incomes. Assistance from Medicaid and the Medicare Savings Program can help limit out-of-pocket spending for Medicare beneficiaries with the lowest incomes, but not all low-income beneficiaries qualify for or receive help from these programs. Without some form of financial assistance, lower-income beneficiaries may be more likely to forego needed care since they are less likely than higher-income beneficiaries to be able to afford services with high cost-sharing requirements or services not covered by Medicare, like dental services or long-term services and supports.

Medicare beneficiaries ages 85 and older spent a larger share of their income on out-of-pocket health care costs than younger beneficiaries (22% vs. 9% among beneficiaries ages 65-74), on average. Medicare beneficiaries ages 85 and older have much higher average out-of-pocket health care costs than those ages 65-74, largely due to higher out-of-pocket spending on long-term care, which accounts for more than half of total out-of-pocket spending on all services for those ages 85 and older. Beneficiaries in the oldest age cohort also have lower per capita total income than younger aged beneficiaries, on average, likely due in part to lower income from earnings after retirement. (For details on additional demographic groups, see Appendix Table 1 and Table 2).

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

Methods

Data on out-of-pocket health care spending is from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2022 Cost Supplement File (the most recent year of data available). The sample includes 59.9 million people with Medicare in 2022 (weighted), including beneficiaries in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage and those living in the community and in facilities, excluding beneficiaries who were enrolled in Part A only or Part B only for most of their Medicare enrollment in 2022 and beneficiaries who had Medicare as a secondary payer.

The Cost Supplement File links Medicare claims to survey information reported directly by beneficiaries. The file collects out-of-pocket information on inpatient and outpatient hospital care, physician and other medical provider services, home health services, durable medical equipment, long-term and skilled nursing facility services, hospice services, dental services, hearing services, vision services, and prescription drugs.

Survey-reported out-of-pocket payments are those payments made by the beneficiary or their family, including direct cash payments and Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) checks paid directly to nursing homes. Out-of-pocket spending on premiums is derived from administrative data on Medicare Part A, Part B, Part C (Medicare Advantage), and Part D premiums paid by each sample person along with survey-reported estimates of premium spending for other types of health insurance beneficiaries may have (including Medigap, employer-sponsored insurance, and other public and private sources).

Starting in 2019, the MCBS introduced an imputation method that uses Medicare Advantage encounter data to improve estimation of medical events and costs for Medicare Advantage enrollees and account for unreported Medicare Advantage utilization. Because data for Medicare Advantage enrollees is imputed, estimates of total average out-of-pocket spending in this analysis may be conservative.

Income data are based on both beneficiaries’ self-reported income in the MCBS and estimates from the Urban Institute’s Dynamic Simulation of Income Model (DYNASIM4). DYNASIM4 is a dynamic microsimulation model that projects the population and analyzes the long-term distributional consequences of retirement and aging issues. DYNASIM4 takes into account income from all sources, including Social Security, wages, pensions, and asset income including withdrawals from IRAs. The simulation is aligned to the 2024 Social Security Trustees’ intermediate cost economic and demographic projections.  DYNASIM4 generates average and percentiles of per capita Social Security and total income for specific demographic groups. It calculates average per capita Social Security and total income for married couples by dividing income for the couple by two. KFF adjusts beneficiaries’ self-reported income in the MCBS with estimates from DYNASIM to adjust for under-reporting of income from certain sources.

For average out-of-pocket spending as a share of average per capita Social Security and average per capita total income, this analysis uses average per capita out-of-pocket spending from the MCBS and average per capita Social Security and total income from DYNASIM. Percentile values of out-of-pocket spending as a share of total income (median, 75th, and 90th) are calculated from MCBS data on out-of-pocket spending and DYNASIM-adjusted income values in the MCBS.

This work was supported in part by AARP Public Policy Institute. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.

Nancy Ochieng, Juliette Cubanski, and Tricia Neuman are with KFF. Anthony Damico is an independent consultant.

Appendix Tables

Interactive DataWrapper Embed

Interactive DataWrapper Embed



Source link

How Recent Manufacturer Savings Programs May Impact Individual Out-of-Pocket Spending on Asthma and COPD Inhalers

healthissuesadmin
-
0
How Recent Manufacturer Savings Programs May Impact Individual Out-of-Pocket Spending on Asthma and COPD Inhalers



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

A new analysis shows that individuals with employer insurance could save 41% on their out-of-pocket spending for asthma and COPD inhalers through manufacturer savings. In response to a U.S. Senate investigation into inhaler costs, 3 drug makers voluntarily capped out-of-pocket costs on their brand-name asthma and COPD inhalers.

Among the asthma and COPD inhalers covered under the voluntary out-of-pocket spending caps, over half may have patient savings of $19 or less per 30-day supply.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

How Recent Manufacturer Savings Programs May Impact Individual Out-of-Pocket Spending on Asthma and COPD Inhalers

healthissuesadmin
-
0
How Recent Manufacturer Savings Programs May Impact Individual Out-of-Pocket Spending on Asthma and COPD Inhalers



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

A new analysis shows that individuals with employer insurance could save 41% on their out-of-pocket spending for asthma and COPD inhalers through manufacturer savings. In response to a U.S. Senate investigation into inhaler costs, 3 drug makers voluntarily capped out-of-pocket costs on their brand-name asthma and COPD inhalers.

Among the asthma and COPD inhalers covered under the voluntary out-of-pocket spending caps, over half may have patient savings of $19 or less per 30-day supply.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

How Much and Why ACA Marketplace Premiums Are Going Up in 2026

healthissuesadmin
-
0
How Much and Why ACA Marketplace Premiums Are Going Up in 2026



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

A new analysis of initial rate filings for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans submitted by 312 insurers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia finds the median proposed increase for 2026 is 18%, more than double last year’s 7% median proposed increase. The proposed rates are preliminary and could change before being finalized in late summer.

In addition to rising cost and utilization of services, insurers cited the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits as a significant factor in their rate hikes for next year. The analysis includes a data table showing proposed premium increases by state and by insurers.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

How Much and Why ACA Marketplace Premiums Are Going Up in 2026

healthissuesadmin
-
0
How Much and Why ACA Marketplace Premiums Are Going Up in 2026



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

A new analysis of initial rate filings for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans submitted by 312 insurers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia finds the median proposed increase for 2026 is 18%, more than double last year’s 7% median proposed increase. The proposed rates are preliminary and could change before being finalized in late summer.

In addition to rising cost and utilization of services, insurers cited the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits as a significant factor in their rate hikes for next year. The analysis includes a data table showing proposed premium increases by state and by insurers.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

How Much is Health Spending Expected to Grow?

healthissuesadmin
-
0
How Much is Health Spending Expected to Grow?



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

This updated chart collection explores how health spending is expected to grow in coming years, based on National Health Expenditure (NHE) projections from federal actuaries.

Health spending is projected to reach $5.6 trillion in 2025, with hospitals making up the largest share of spending ($1.8 trillion). By 2033, health spending is expected to hit $8.6 trillion.

These projections do not account for recent regulatory changes under the Trump Administration, nor do they account for recent legislative changes in the tax and budget law (formerly “the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”), which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects to decrease spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces by over a trillion dollars through 2034.

The analysis can be found on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

A Closer Look at the $50 Billion Rural Health Fund in the New Reconciliation Law

healthissuesadmin
-
0
A Closer Look at the $50 Billion Rural Health Fund in the New Reconciliation Law



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Editorial Note: Originally published on July 16, this brief is being updated regularly as new information becomes available.

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed a budget reconciliation bill into law that includes significant reductions in federal health care spending, large tax cuts, and other changes. The new law will reduce federal Medicaid spending alone by $911 billion over ten years and lead to 10 million more people becoming uninsured by 2034 based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. While this legislation was being debated, Members of Congress from both parties raised concerns about the potential impact on rural hospitals, particularly given the ongoing trend of rural hospital closures. In response, and just prior to passage, the Senate added $50 billion in funding for a new “rural health transformation program,” referred to here as the “rural health fund.”

This brief describes the rural health fund, explains what the law says about the allocation of funds, and highlights outstanding questions about how the funds will be distributed across and within states to pay rural hospitals and for other purposes. Based on the statutory language, it is not yet clear what specific criteria the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will ultimately use to approve or deny state applications and distribute funds across states; what share of the $50 billion fund will go to rural areas; what share will go to the nearly 1,800 hospitals in rural areas or be used for other providers or purposes; whether funds will be targeted to certain types of rural hospitals, such as the 44% of rural hospitals with negative margins; and to what extent the CMS Administrator will be able to influence how states use their funds prior to approving an application. Further, the law does not require CMS to publish information about the distribution of funds so that the allocation decisions are transparent. Similar questions were raised during the COVID-19 pandemic about how well provider relief funds were targeted to hospitals with the greatest need.

The rural health fund includes $50 billion, which is a little over one third (37%) of the estimated loss of federal Medicaid funding in rural areas

The fund provides $50 billion for state grants (DC and the U.S. territories cannot apply). Half ($25 billion) will be distributed by CMS “equally among all states with an approved application,” which appears to suggest that each state with an approved application would receive the same amount from this pool regardless of the size of its rural population, the number of rural hospitals or other providers in the state, the financial standing of its rural hospitals, or other factors. For example, Connecticut (which has 3 rural hospitals based on one definition) could receive the same amount as Kansas (which has 90 rural hospitals) if both are approved for funding. CMS will have some discretion in determining how to allocate the remaining half ($25 billion) (see Figure 1 and more details below).

The Rural Health Fund Includes $50 Billion, With Half Distributed Equally Among States With Approved Applications and Half Distributed Based on an Approach Determined by CMS Within Broad Requirements

States can apply to use the funds in a variety of ways, such as for promoting care interventions, paying for health care services, expanding the rural health workforce, and providing technical assistance with system transformation.

The $50 billion in new funding could offset a little over a third (37%) of the estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas ($137 billion over ten years) based on KFF analysis of CBO’s estimates, or about 5% of the total estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending ($911 billion over ten years). This does not account for other revenue losses related to the bill, including cuts to federal spending for the ACA Marketplaces, or the revenue losses stemming from the increased number of people who will be uninsured because of the expiration of the enhanced ACA premium tax credits and the implementation of final Marketplace integrity rules. The impact of these changes on rural areas, and the extent to which the rural health fund offsets losses, will vary across the country.

The rural health fund will be temporary, while many of the cuts in health spending are not time limited

While many of the major cuts related to Medicaid and the ACA Marketplaces under the law are not time limited, the rural health fund is temporary. The law provides $10 billion per year through the rural health fund for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, a five-year period. According to statements made by the CMS Administrator, CMS will distribute applications to states in early September 2025, states will submit applications to CMS in that month, and CMS will process their applications in November and send out the first batch of funds at the end of the year. States will be allowed to spend funds that they receive at a given point through the end of the following fiscal year, and CMS may be able to redistribute some unused funds over time, but all funds must be spent before October 1, 2032. New legislation would be required to provide additional support to rural areas after the funds dry up.

The distribution of dollars from the rural health fund will occur before many of the health care spending cuts under the law are fully realized. The rural health fund was put in place, and doubled in size, to address concerns of lawmakers from rural states, and front loading these dollars could allow systems to absorb forthcoming cuts. As described above, the law specifies that rural health fund dollars will first be available for fiscal year 2026, with $10 billion dollars available per year over five years through fiscal year 2030, and all funds must be spent before October 1, 2032. Yet most of the health care spending reductions are backloaded and occur after fiscal year 2030. For example, based on KFF’s analysis of CBO estimates, nearly two thirds (64%) of the ten-year reductions in federal Medicaid spending would occur after fiscal year 2030.

CMS will have broad leeway in how it distributes funds across states

The law grants CMS broad discretion over the distribution of funds and confirms that these decisions are not subject to administrative or judicial review. The law gives CMS authority to determine which state applications to approve or deny, without specifying the criteria CMS should use to make these decisions, though it does specify certain items that states must include in their applications.

As noted above, half of the funds ($25 billion) will be distributed equally among states with approved applications. For the second half of the funds ($25 billion), CMS has more flexibility. The law requires that CMS considers certain factors when distributing these funds (the share of the state population that lives in a rural part of a metropolitan area, the share of rural health facilities in the state as a share of all rural health facilities nationwide, and the situation of hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients with special needs). It also allows the CMS Administrator to consider “any other factors that [it] determines appropriate.”  CMS could choose to restrict this $25 billion pool of funds to a subset of states, though the law specifies that it must distribute these funds to at least a quarter of states with approved applications.

States will have discretion in how they distribute funds among hospitals, and other providers, and may be able to steer some dollars to nonrural areas, subject to CMS approval

Just as the law grants CMS broad discretion over the distribution of funds across states, it also permits states to use the funds for a wide variety of purposes, subject to CMS approval. States must use the funds for at least three of the following purposes:

  • Promoting evidence-based, measurable interventions to improve prevention and chronic disease management.
  • Providing payments to health care providers for the provision of health care items or services, as specified by the CMS Administrator.
  • Promoting consumer-facing, technology-driven solutions for the prevention and management of chronic diseases.
  • Providing training and technical assistance for the development and adoption of technology-enabled solutions that improve care delivery in rural hospitals, including remote monitoring, robotics, artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies.
  • Recruiting and retaining clinical workforce talent to rural areas, with commitments to serve rural communities for a minimum of 5 years.
  • Providing technical assistance, software, and hardware for significant information technology advances designed to improve efficiency, enhance cybersecurity capability development, and improve patient health outcomes.
  • Assisting rural communities to right size their health care delivery systems by identifying needed preventative, ambulatory, pre-hospital, emergency, acute inpatient care, outpatient care, and post-acute care service lines.
  • Supporting access to opioid use disorder treatment services, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services.
  • Developing projects that support innovative models of care that include value-based care arrangements and  alternative payment models, as appropriate.
  • Additional uses designed to promote sustainable access to high quality rural health care services, as determined by the CMS Administrator.

Within the contours of this list, states could restrict the funds to rural hospitals or specific types of rural hospitals (such as those that are isolated and in financial distress) or they could use them for additional or different purposes, such as paying nursing facilities or recruiting clinical workers to rural areas.

While the fund is described as a “rural” program, the law appears to give states some ability to direct some of the dollars to urban and suburban areas, pending CMS approval. For example, most of the permitted uses in the list above do not specify that the funds would need to go to rural areas, such as the description of payments to hospitals and other providers and of support for opioid use treatment services, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services. The current CMS Administrator indicated that nonrural areas could potentially receive money from the fund. The law also does not define “rural” when describing the scope of the program, meaning that states or the administration could do so broadly.

The law does not direct CMS or states to be transparent about the allocation and use of funds

CMS is not required to publish information about how the funds are distributed—such as by posting the amount sent to each state or why certain state applications were approved or denied—though it could choose to do so. States are required to submit annual reports to CMS on the use of the allotments. CMS could require states to disclose information about the amount they receive or the use of funds to the public.

This work was supported in part by Arnold Ventures. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.



Source link

Implementation Dates for 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Implementation Dates for 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

On July 4, President Trump signed the budget reconciliation bill, previously known as “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” into law. The bill includes significant health care policy changes. This timeline provides a brief overview of the specific provisions and their effective dates. You can view all health provisions in the order they are implemented or can filter them by the following categories: Medicaid, Medicare, Affordable Care Act and Health Savings Accounts. You can read a detailed summary of the health provisions of the law.

Implementation Dates for Health Provisions in the 2025 Republican Tax and Spending Cut Legislation



Source link

1...151617...31Page 16 of 31
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv