CMS 2025 Proposed Rule: Key Changes in Value-Based Care and Specialty Services
The CMS 2025 Proposed Rule represents a substantial change in healthcare delivery and pricing across the board. To accelerate the transition to value-based care, the new rule focuses on three main areas: primary care transformation, specialty model optimization, and mental health integration.
There is more to the 'CMS 2025 Proposed Rule' than merely a new regulation. The revisions are mandatory and represent a significant change in the government agenda's direction. They are structural. It has important ramifications for everyone working in primary, specialized, or mental health care delivery.
Although value-based care has long been considered primary care, the 2025 Proposed Rule gives the change a boost. CMS plans to shift investment toward frameworks supported by evidence and phase out underperforming models.
Important Takeaways: Low-revenue ACOs receive more upfront money under this new approach.
To address personnel expansion and Social Determinants of Health (SDoH), it permits flexible expenditure.
Designed to assist smaller or underfunded ACOs in competing in a high-risk environment. Prioritizes population-based, future payments above conventional fee-for-service.
Provides regular payments to increase providers' financial certainty. The regulation upholds equality as a concept of remuneration.
Reimbursements and standards will take high-need populations into account.
Value-based care initiatives have traditionally focused on primary care. By promoting experts into key strategic roles, the CMS 2025 Proposed Rule alters that. Specialty Area New Initiative Key Features Oncology Enhancements to the Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM) Stricter reporting, longer performance periods, and stronger cost-accountability. End-Stage Renal Disease Comprehensive Kidney Care Contracting (CKCC) Expanded options for nephrologists to manage patient outcomes. Behavioral Health Expansion of Integrated Care Models Primary-specialty integration with increased Medicaid alignment
Medicare and Medicaid should better coordinate, according to the plan, especially in the area of mental health. It acknowledges that fragmentation results in subpar outcomes as well as the loss of possible compensation.
The CMS 2025 Proposed Rule seeks to standardize the structure of telehealth while maintaining the post-pandemic flexibility around it. Increased Use Cases for Telehealth:
There is still a priority for behavioral and mental health consultations.
The new billing codes now promote virtual follow-ups with primary care providers. CMS intends to update the risk score calculation process to prevent overcoding.
More people are paying attention to 'coding intensity.' CMS wants to enhance the way that ACO benchmarks consider patient complexity.
Integrating behavioral health with physical treatment is now an operational policy rather than a philosophical one.
Important Features Introduced: New crisis intervention billing codes.
Incentives for behavioral health experts to work together in primary care settings.
For time spent arranging mental health care, CMS is proposing monetary reimbursement.
These are not superficial changes. They demonstrate CMS's understanding of the importance of mental health in managing chronic illnesses.
CMS wants to eliminate superfluous reporting and promote more concise, insightful measurements. Expectations for Changes:
MSSP has fewer quality measures than before.
Improved compatibility with Medicaid Core Set and MA Star Ratings.
Emphasis on longitudinal tracking and patient-reported outcomes.
Businesses will have to automate data collection or risk fines for underperformance or non-reporting.
CMS encourages APMs to assume genuine risk. The 2025 regulation strengthens definitions and plugs gaps that make models seem value-based without actually having any drawbacks.
Features of the APM Redefinition: More precise criteria for what constitutes 'advanced.'
More robust downside risk levels.
A preference for models that are accountable for both cost and quality.
This raises the bar. Passive participation is no longer viable.
Indirectly, CMS is indicating a greater demand for technology-enabled infrastructure.
The following are some implications: Exchanging data in real time amongst care teams.
Using predictive analytics to inform actions and stratify risk.
Reporting systems that eliminate human labor by obtaining data straight from EHRs.
All organizations, whether they are major multispecialty groups or small FQHCs, need to reevaluate their readiness to change. The purpose of the CMS 2025 Proposed Rule is not to encourage philosophical shifts. It necessitates financial and operational changes that will affect risk management, personnel, contracting, and reimbursement.
Now is the moment to fill any holes in your infrastructure that may be preventing real-time data interchange, risk adjustment, care coordination, and quality tracking.
Organizations require more than fragmented solutions due to shifts in care delivery standards, payment mechanisms, and benchmarks. Persivia CareSpace® provides a single platform that can do: Overseeing value-based agreements for several payer sources.
Anticipatory notifications and real-time data for patients at high risk.
Combining processes for general, specialist, and behavioral care.
Combining SDoH, quality, and population health metrics into a single dashboard.
Platforms such as CareSpace® offer not just visibility but also control over value-based performance in a rapidly aligning and accountable healthcare environment.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Republicans Who Might Vote 'No' on Trump's Spending Bill
The Senate is back in session — and facing a steep challenge right out of the gate. At the top of its agenda: President Trump's sweeping tax and immigration package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill. Republicans hope to pass it by July 4, but that timeline is already in doubt. Several GOP senators — including Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski — have raised concerns about the bill, which squeaked through the House last month by a single vote. The stakes are high. The outcome could reshape everything from border enforcement to corporate taxes, and test just how unified Republicans really are heading into the 2026 midterms. House Speaker Mike Johnson has even crossed the Capitol to urge Senate Republicans to stay in lockstep and make 'as few modifications as possible.' Here's a look at the internal pushback — and the parts of the bill causing the biggest rift. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has emerged as one of the loudest Republican critics of Trump's sweeping budget plan, arguing it would send the national debt soaring. 'There's no one left in Washington who cares about the debt if I vote for this,' Paul said Sunday on Face the Nation. 'The GOP will own the debt once they vote for this.' His concern isn't without merit: the House-passed bill raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, while a Senate-approved blueprint from earlier this year calls for a $5 trillion increase. But as Paul argues, 'the math doesn't add up.' Instead of backing the full package, Paul is pushing a more limited alternative: a $500 billion short-term debt ceiling hike that would buy time for Republicans to confirm whether promised spending cuts are actually being enforced. Still, Paul's opposition has drawn the ire of the president, who wrote on Truth Social that Rand 'never has any practical or constructive ideas.' Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is sounding the alarm over proposed changes to Medicaid, a program she says is vital to her state and not equipped for what's coming. She's particularly concerned about new work requirements, warning they could be 'very challenging, if not impossible' to implement given Alaska's outdated administrative systems. The legislation, passed by the House, would require childless, nondisabled adults ages 19 to 64 to meet work requirements to maintain coverage. It would also require states to conduct more frequent eligibility checks — a provision Murkowski fears could disrupt care for vulnerable residents, especially in tribal communities that rely heavily on Medicaid. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is a somewhat unexpected voice of dissent on this issue, given his close alignment with President Trump. But he's sounding alarms about potential Medicaid cuts — particularly their impact on low-income Americans and rural communities. In a New York Times op-ed earlier this month, Hawley called 'slashing health insurance for the working poor' both 'morally wrong and politically suicidal.' He's also criticized efforts to freeze provider taxes, warning it could force rural hospitals to shut their doors. 'If rural hospitals close, what's the difference between that and a benefit cut?' he said. And Hawley hasn't stopped at statements. Earlier this year, he joined Sen. Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins in supporting an amendment to strip a directive from the budget resolution that would have instructed lawmakers to cut $880 billion from Medicaid, though the effort ultimately failed. Maine Sen. Susan Collins has been a consistent voice against cuts to federal Medicaid funding. 'Medicaid is a critically important program for Maine's health care system and a vital resource for many seniors, low-income families, disabled patients, and those who cannot work,' she said in a recent statement. Like Sen. Josh Hawley, Collins warns that shifting more health care costs to states could push already struggling hospitals and providers 'to the edge of insolvency.' Though she joined Murkowski and Hawley in backing a Medicaid amendment earlier this year, Collins seems poised to support the final bill. For her, the need to keep the party united and push the administration's priorities may outweigh earlier reservations. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson is calling for deeper spending cuts than those proposed in the current package. He went so far as to dismiss the plan's $1.5 trillion reduction, saying it 'isn't squat.' Like Sen. Paul, Johnson supports breaking the bill into smaller parts and favors a short-term spending hike extension. While he hasn't explicitly said he will oppose the final bill, Johnson has signaled that conservative lawmakers could push back hard. 'We need to be responsible, and the first goal of our budget reconciliation process should be to reduce the deficit,' he told CNN last weekend. 'This actually increases it.' North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis is pushing back on the bill's proposed rollback of energy tax incentives, warning it could have serious economic consequences for his state. He argues that ending the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy credits would derail years of planning and leave many companies scrambling to adapt. Adding to the pressure, Trump adviser Elon Musk — though not an elected official — has denounced the package as an 'abomination' that would balloon the deficit. With criticism mounting from both inside and outside the party, the question now isn't just whether the bill will pass, but what it might cost to get there. The post The Republicans Who Might Vote 'No' on Trump's Spending Bill appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration rescinds emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration has rescinded guidance telling health care workers who provide abortions to save their patients' lives that they are protected under federal law. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Tuesday that it is rescinding guidance issued during the Biden administration, reinforcing to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) they must provide emergency abortions to pregnant patients if they are needed to save their lives. 'Legally, it means nothing,' Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project told The Hill. 'The obligation to provide emergency care comes from a federal statute… and as much as they might like to President Trump and Secretary Kennedy can not erase 40 years of law with this press release.' CMS said in a statement that the agency will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all emergency room patients seeking treatment, including 'identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' 'CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions,' the statement adds. The guidance change comes about two months after the Trump administration dropped a high-profile case over the right to an emergency abortion in Idaho, which health care policy experts said signaled an 'imminent reversal' of EMTALA guidance issued by the Biden administration. EMTALA was passed in 1986 to protect Americans from 'patient dumping,' a practice at hospitals and other clinics where patients are transferred to other facilities without their consent due to their inability to pay. The Biden administration in 2022 issued guidance on abortion specifically, following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. A cascade of state laws quickly banned abortion, but the guidance allowed for emergency procedures and protected physicians in those cases. The move does not change the law, but it does make it more confusing for doctors to know what care they can legally provide pregnancy terminations, especially if they practice in states with abortion bans, according to Kolbi-Molinas. Reproductive rights groups and health care providers are bashing the move, arguing that it will profoundly hurt the health of pregnant people in the United States. 'By rescinding this guidance, the Trump administration has sent a clear signal that it is siding not with the majority, but with its anti-abortion allies — and that will come at the expense of women's lives,' Kolbi-Molinas said. 'The ACLU will use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives.' Jamila Perritt, president and CEO of the group Physicians for Reproductive Health, said that she is 'deeply troubled' by the Trump administration's decision to change the guidance, arguing that it is abandoning its responsibility to people who need emergency medical care. 'This action sends a clear message: the lives and health of pregnant people are not worth protecting,' she said in a statement. 'Complying with this law can mean the difference between life and death for pregnant people, forcing providers like me to choose between caring for someone in their time of need and turning my back on them to comply with cruel and dangerous laws…' Meanwhile, some anti-abortion groups lauded CMS's move, calling it a 'victory.' 'Led by Dr. Oz, the Trump administration has delivered another win for life and truth—stopping Biden's attack on emergency care for both pregnant moms and their unborn children,' wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. 'We call on more states to follow the Trump administration's lead and pass Med Ed laws to protect women from abortion lobby misinformation.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
GOP Rep's ‘We Are All Going To Die' Mentality Inspired Quite The Observation ... And It's Bleak
People are still grappling with shocking remarks made by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), whose response to constituents concerned about proposed cuts to Medicaid has been panned as 'callous' and 'evil.' Ernst has since defended her comments, insisting that she's 'very compassionate' — but many online aren't convinced. During a town hall event in Parkersburg, Iowa, on Friday, Ernst was grilled by furious constituents who expressed concerns about a House-passed GOP bill that includes massive cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs. The bill is now under consideration in the Senate. While answering a question about the potential changes to the eligibility and work requirements for Medicaid and food assistance under the legislation dubbed 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' one person from the audience yelled out, 'People will die.' Ernst responded: 'People are not ― well, we all are going to die. So, for heaven's sakes, folks.' She received wide backlash for her response, but the criticism didn't seem to bother her much. She later doubled down and posted a non-apology video, seemingly filmed in a cemetery, in which she mocked the backlash by saying she thought everyone in the auditorium already understood that 'we are all going to perish from this earth.' 'So I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well,' she jeered. Deepak Sarma, inaugural distinguished scholar in the public humanities at Case Western Reserve University, offered a bleak observation about Ernst's town hall comments and the remarks she made in her subsequent non-apology video: They are reminiscent of a 'monarchy/royalty where the masses are to fend [for] themselves.' Sarma charged that Trump, who's facing several lawsuits for exceeding his authority, has 'aspirations' to be a king, and that GOP leaders, like Ernst, 'think that they will also earn/achieve/be awarded nobility if they remain loyal.' Republicans have argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which looks to slash $1 trillion in cuts to federal health and food programs — targets individuals who don't meet eligibility requirements for food assistance and Medicaid. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would result in an estimated 8 million fewer Americans having health insurance. When pressed on Monday about her responses to constituents concerned about the grave consequences the bill would have on millions of people, Ernst defended her retort at the town hall, telling reporters: 'I'm very compassionate, and you need to listen to the entire conversation.' Sarma said that Ernst's claim that she's 'very compassionate' is 'aspirational, at best, and intentionally delusional, at worst.' Ernst's comments to reporters on Monday were meant to 'placate her constituents,' and to create a sound bite that she can use to 'defend her cruelty,' Sarma said, adding: 'Her use of the term is manipulative and an attempt to hijack the narrative.' Sarma said that Ernst's statements about people dying is proof that she and other GOP leaders view their constituents — including MAGA supporters — as 'mere commoners.' 'Ernst has called her constituents 'baskets of deplorables' in indirect and underhanded [ways],' they said. Other experts, political figures and commenters have shared similar sentiments. Some people on X, formerly Twitter, argued that Ernst demonstrated a 'disdain'toward her constituents with her responses to concerns about Medicaid cuts, and that her response that she's 'compassionate' was condescending. Nathan Sage, a Democrat who's seeking the party's nomination to run against Ernst in the 2026 Senate election, said in a statement, per the Des Moines Register, that Ernst is 'not even trying to hide her contempt for us.' David Axelrod, ex-senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday that Ernst's non-apology video was 'really insensitive' and 'politically stupid.' Christopher Hansen, a licensed professional counselor with Thriveworks who specializes in relationships and coping skills, said that he believes the backlash to Ernst's comments is likely due to the fact that her remarks 'reinforced a lot of people's belief that people in places of power and the government do not really care about them.' Hansen doesn't believe Ernst's initial 'we all are going to die' response at her town hall event was necessarily intended to be malicious, but he thought it was nonetheless 'not appropriate and well thought out.' 'It does not give the country confidence when representatives and others don't seem to understand the impact on the people receiving these services,' he told HuffPost, noting that people are 'experiencing anxiety, anger and some may even feel like they're in limbo, waiting for the next shoe to drop.' While discussing what might be behind Ernst's remarks about people dying, Shawn Donahue, assistant professor of political science at the University at Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences, pointed out that Republicans have done 'quite well in the Trump era in Iowa.' 'Part of Trump's brand is never to apologize, and Ernst may be taking that to heart,' he told HuffPost, while discussing what could've been behind Ernst's remarks. 'If Ernst tries to distance herself from Trump, it could easily lead to a primary challenge from the right MAGA part of the party. 'She may be thinking that the voices of constituents that are attending town halls may not be representative of the state as a whole, and definitely not representative of Republican primary voters,' he later continued, adding, 'Ernst may feel she has more to worry about from primary voters than facing a general election challenge.' Sarma, however, thinks Ernst's rhetoric surrounding people dying reflects a GOP embrace of a 'monarchical system.' 'Her constituents should protest and try to wake up others who remain deluded,' they said. Joni Ernst Says GOP, Trump 'Worked Very Hard' To Overturn Abortion Rights Ex-Obama Adviser Knocks Joni Ernst's Town Hall Fumble In 1 Blunt Takedown GOP Senator Doubles Down On 'We All Are Going To Die' Comment In Wild Non-Apology
