MHF Community Board
Medicaid’s Costly M...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Medicaid’s Costly Middlemen: Managed Care Organizations

3 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
10 Views
10x25mm
(@10x25mm)
Famed Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1603
Topic starter  

Michigan awarded $ 15 billion in Medicaid managed care contracts to nine private insurers which became effective on October 1, 2024.  Those contracts cover nearly 2 million residents under the Comprehensive Health Care Program. Each of these contracts will last for five years, with options for three one-year extensions.

These private insurers are exempt from the normal federal limits on fees that states can claim to finance Medicaid services. Routing money through these firms also makes funding much harder to track, letting states obtain billions of dollars in federal aid every year for purposes Congress never approved.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has studied these middlemen's contracts and produced an interesting report.  His cover story:

https://www.city-journal.org/article/medicaid-managed-care-organizations-insurance

https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid/downloads/michigan-mcp.pdf

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/reining-in-medicaid-managed-care.pdf

Medicaid’s Costly Middleman
States subcontract with private insurers to side-step limits on federal funding.
By Chris Pope - May 29, 2026

Medicaid was established in 1965 as a system of federal matching funds for states to deliver health care to low-income Americans. Initially, all states paid directly for medical services, but they increasingly subcontracted with private insurers, known as Managed Care Organizations, to administer and procure care. By 2024, 42 states employed MCOs to deliver Medicaid benefits to 78 percent of the program’s enrollees—at a cost of $491 billion.

That arrangement raises uncomfortable questions. Why do states subcontract Medicaid to private insurers if the government provides all the money, tells the insurers what they must cover and how much they have to pay for it, and doesn’t competitively bid the contracts? What’s the point of these middle men?

The answer, as I show in a new Manhattan Institute report, is that private insurers are exempt from normal limits on fees that states can claim from the federal government to finance Medicaid services. Routing money through these firms makes funding much harder to track—in turn letting states obtain billions of dollars in federal aid every year for purposes Congress never approved.

Managed care was originally meant to reduce needlessly high prices and volumes of health-care services. For Medicare, for example, the federal government’s Medicare Advantage program effectively gives beneficiaries a voucher to buy managed-care plans from private insurers. This arrangement in turn motivates insurers to procure cost-effective medical procedures and to encourage the use of preventive care services. For Medicare, the managed-care approach has worked well: it has helped avoid expensive hospitalizations, yielding better medical outcomes at lower cost.

But management by private insurers fits more awkwardly into Medicaid. Plans cannot compete for enrollees by reducing premiums since the government provides all the funding. Insurers must accept every eligible beneficiary who seeks to enroll, which creates a strong incentive for them to skimp on quality medical services that could attract seriously ill (and therefore expensive) beneficiaries. The program’s benefits and payments to providers are therefore specified in detail by law, which leaves little room for innovation.

The resultant system often works poorly. It’s hard for states to specify, regulate, and assure the quality of access to medical care indirectly through contracts with insurers. They often fail to enforce adequate provider networks as required by law, and denials of care due to prior authorization are much more common in Medicaid Managed Care (13 percent) than in Medicare Advantage (6 percent), due to the absence of federal oversight.

The government can more effectively (and efficiently) assure satisfactory access to care if it pays for it directly. That is also true of preventative care services, such as vaccinations or care coordination assistance, which are supposedly the strength of managed care. But Medicaid patients with major disabilities, who need the most care coordination assistance, are often specifically exempt from managed care by states.

As my new report details, the savings promised during Medicaid Managed Care’s expansion over the past four decades have consistently failed to materialize. Medicaid already pays very low rates for hospital care, physician services, and drugs, due to mandatory discounts. Few additional savings can be gained from further narrowing provider networks.

The involvement of private insurers tends to add another layer of administrative costs to Medicaid. These firms must negotiate contracts with providers, finance required capital reserves, advertise themselves to beneficiaries, and generate profits for shareholders. The government must police overpayments to plans and to providers. Payments to plans are often inflated. Three quarters of states pay Medicaid insurers without competitive bidding due to a concern that the winner of such bidding would be the insurer that most underestimated the cost of delivering care to beneficiaries.

To mitigate this risk of insolvency, the federal government requires that state Medicaid payments to insurers exceed their expected medical costs. But, as states typically sign three-to-five-year contracts with insurers, this effectively locks them into a higher level of expenditure and prevents them from reining in commitments when program costs increase. This arrangement also undermines the central point of managed care by encouraging insurers to inflate the volume of medical services they fund in order to increase the payments that states must give them.

Given all this, why do most states subcontract Medicaid to private insurers? The answer is that doing so expands access to free-flowing federal dollars.

Medicaid allows states to claim up to $9 in federal funding for every $1 they spend on services covered by the program—without any upper limit. But payments to private insurers are exempt from normally tight limits on fees and services that states can use to claim this enormously lucrative federal matching aid. By routing payment for Medicaid services through private insurers, states can greatly inflate the funding they obtain from Washington.

Such “Medicaid money laundering” schemes have become notorious in recent years. Subcontracting with private insurers allows states to lump together expenditures for different services, obscuring how the funding gets used. A 2021 federal investigation found that only eight states provided complete and accurate data on the utilization of medical services, the data on which states base Medicaid payments to plans.

The workarounds can be elaborate. California obtained $19 billion in federal funding by taxing insurers it used to cover Medicaid patients—claiming that this represented an increase in the program’s costs. Various states use Medicaid MCOs to expand welfare benefits from housing to food under the pretext that doing so yields incidental health benefits. The federal government estimates that the exemption of managed-care plans from limits on Medicaid payments for services will account for $145 billion in Medicaid spending this year alone.

Last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act sought to curb such practices. But Medicaid Managed Care still makes it easy for states to develop similar schemes in the future, which will likely enable them to side-step whatever restrictions emerge.


This topic was modified 19 hours ago 2 times by 10x25mm

   
ReplyQuote
10x25mm
(@10x25mm)
Famed Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1603
Topic starter  

The lede to Chris Pope's report on Medicaid Middlemen:

https://manhattan.institute/article/reining-in-medicaid-managed-care

Reining in Medicaid Managed Care
By Chris Pope - May 28, 2026

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary
  • What Is Medicaid Managed Care?
  • The Debate Over Medicaid Managed Care
  • Evidence on MMC
  • Recommendations
  • Conclusion
  • Appendix
  • About the Author
  • Endnotes

Executive Summary

When Medicaid, the U.S. program that purchases health care for the poorest Americans, originally went into effect, states paid directly for health-care services provided to beneficiaries. But in recent decades, states increasingly subcontract procurement to private insurers known as managed care organizations (MCOs). From 1992 to 2022, the proportion of Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in MCOs increased from 9% to 77%. This health-care delivery system of state Medicaid agencies contracting with MCOs is called Medicaid managed care (MMC).

Private insurers design benefits, raise funds, manage risk, and develop networks of providers to treat their policyholders. But in MMC, the government dictates the bulk of benefits, provides all of the revenue, carries most of the risk, and largely determines the terms of payment to medical providers.

States argue that their employment of MCOs reduces costs and improves benefits. However, payments to these private insurers are usually not set through competitive bidding; the nature of plan expenditures cannot easily be compared from state to state; and there is little evidence of savings being passed on to taxpayers. In fact, the lack of transparency has encouraged states to increasingly use MCOs to bypass traditional restrictions on the amount and purposes for which they can claim federal Medicaid matching funding.

Federal policymakers have exempted MMC from many regulatory constraints on payments for Medicaid services under the assumption that it is inherently more cost-effective. This is a mistake. Payments made to Medicaid MCOs should be subject to stricter federal controls and their activities subject to much greater transparency. This will ensure that Medicaid’s structure gives taxpayers the best value for money.

What Is Medicaid Managed Care?

Medicaid is a system of federal matching funds for states to provide comprehensive health-care benefits to low-income residents. Initially, states paid health-care providers directly to treat Medicaid beneficiaries, but over recent decades they have increasingly used private insurers known as MCOs to purchase services.

The federal government generally provides between $1 and $3 to states for every $1 that states spend on health-care benefits for most Medicare beneficiaries, with higher-income states entitled to a higher matching rate. States may also claim $9 in federal funding for every $1 that they spend on health-care services for beneficiaries made eligible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

State Medicaid programs must provide a basic set of health-care and long-term care benefits to a core group of beneficiaries. But they may also claim federal matching funding to provide additional benefits to those beneficiaries or to expand Medicaid eligibility to a broader set of residents.[1]

There is no upper limit on the total federal matching funds that each state may claim for its own Medicaid expenditures. But the ability of states to claim federal funding is supposed to be limited to covered health-care and long-term care services, beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid, and payment amounts sufficient to enlist enough health-care providers to provide these services.

After Medicaid’s establishment in 1965, MMC was gradually expanded through waivers. The first managed care pilot was developed in 1968 in California, and managed care was implemented on a statewide basis from 1971.[2] Congress found that MCOs took advantage of this system to provide inadequate networks and engage in profiteering. In 1976, lawmakers sought to ensure quality care by limiting MCO participation to insurance plans that had more privately funded enrollees than Medicaid beneficiaries.[3] This requirement was gradually loosened before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 formally permitted states to contract with Medicaid-only MCOs under specific regulations that ensured an adequate provider network and quality assurance.[4]

With broad support from policymakers at state and federal levels, the proportion of Medicaid spending distributed through MMC greatly expanded over recent decades. In 2022, it accounted for 77% of Medicaid enrollees and 54% of the program’s spending (Figure 1).

Managed care share rose steadily, reaching about 75% of Medicaid enrollment and about 55% of spending by 2022.
Comprehensive MMC is currently employed to varying degrees by 41 states and the District of Columbia.[6] In 2024, the proportion of Medicaid spending distributed through MMC in these states ranged from 3% in Colorado to 91% in Iowa (Figure 2).

Most states directed at least half of Medicaid spending to comprehensive managed care in 2024, with substantial variation by state.
Most states use MMC to deliver Medicaid benefits to children and able-bodied adults, but many still rely on direct payments to finance services for disabled and elderly beneficiaries whose medical needs are more complex (Figure 3). Behavioral health services, substance abuse treatment, and dental care are also typically carved out of MMC contracts. In 2021, only 24 states paid for long-term care though managed care.[8] Until the 2010 Affordable Care Act allowed MCOs to claim Medicaid’s mandatory discounts on prescription drugs, most states also carved drugs out of managed care.

Managed care enrollment is highest for children and new adults and lowest for elderly beneficiaries across states in 2022.
States may allow Medicaid beneficiaries to opt for managed care plans or may require them to do so. If states require beneficiaries to enroll in managed care, they must provide a choice of at least two plans. Beneficiaries who do not choose plans may be auto-assigned to an MCO. Nationwide, 45% of beneficiaries are in plans to which they were assigned by states.[10]

MCOs must cover all mandatory Medicaid benefits and optional benefits established by states. That means they must generally provide access to hospital and physician services without charging beneficiaries premiums or out-of-pocket costs. MCOs are subject to network adequacy requirements for primary care, specialist physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, behavioral health providers, and pediatric dentists. They must also report physician fees, service utilization, quality-of-care metrics, and denials of payment due to prior authorization.[11] States must assure the solvency of MCOs and ensure that plans spend at least 85% of their revenues on health-care services.[12]

States typically contract with MCOs for three- to five-year periods, with contracts subject to approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). States have wide discretion over the content of contracts beyond the minimum federal requirements.[13]

State Medicaid programs generally pay MCOs up-front monthly fees for each beneficiary enrolled.[14] Federal law requires these payments to be “actuarially sound”—in other words, “projected to provide for all reasonable, appropriate, and attainable costs.” That means they must cover the price and volume of services consumed by Medicaid beneficiaries. As a result, state payments to MCOs are typically indexed for the expected increase in medical prices.

States can set different rates for subcategories of enrollees (such as the disabled or children) or risk-adjust payments according to age and health status. These risk adjustments may be based on beneficiaries’ medical diagnoses or their use of medical services. States may also choose to compensate MCOs for certain costly patients (such as those suffering from AIDS) on a fee-for-service basis or to provide add-on “kick payments” for unanticipated costs (such as childbirth). States may provide additional bonus payments to plans for compliance with target metrics, such as the quality of medical care or reductions in racial health disparities.[15] They also often provide additional ad hoc payments to ensure the solvency of plans, if actual costs exceed earlier official projections.

MCOs have some freedom over the procurement of medical care. For example, MMC payments to hospitals are exempt from “upper payment limits” on Medicaid hospital fees, which would otherwise limit the federal matching funds for states. In 2016, CMS formally authorized “state-directed payments” to allow states to specify terms of payment from MCOs to hospitals at levels greatly exceeding those which Medicare would pay. States may also require MCOs to pay for nonmedical goods “in lieu of services,” which would not otherwise be eligible for federal matching funds......



   
ReplyQuote
10x25mm
(@10x25mm)
Famed Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1603
Topic starter  

The MDHHS summary of the Michigan MCO situation is a three page pdf document which doesn't lend itself to reproduction on this site:

https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid/downloads/michigan-mcp.pdf



   
ReplyQuote
Q

Get MHF Insights

News and tips for your healthcare freedom.

We never spam you. One-step unsubscribe.

 

Name(Required)
Zip Code(Required)
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Sponsors

J & DE Family Charitable Fund

Friends
of MHF

Kelly Grotendiek

Philip Harbach

Dale Johnson

Drs. Jeffrey and Joni Jones

Vickie Kahle

Tammy Kipen

Marlin & Kathy Klumpp

Melanie Kurdys

Ruth Nobel

Patrick Peterson

Stephanie Poortenga

Jeanne Smit

Ben and Hope Staal

John Tuinstra

Jacki VanHuis

Sandy Walker

Sign Up for MHF Insights to keep up on the latest in Michigan Health Policy

Name(Required)
Zip Code(Required)
This field is hidden when viewing the form

5 great non profit logos 2021 - 2025
Michigan Healthcare Freedom Candid

Click here to join the MHF Community Forum!

Grow the community on our social media pages.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial