Page 46

46

We also disagree with the commenter’s suggestion that we should not incorporate into MA rates the 0.5 percent adjustment to Part B payments beginning in 2026 in our calculation of the adjusted average per capita cost for 2026 under section 1853(c)(1)(D) of the statute. That provision instructs that in a rebasing year, CMS calculates MA capitation rates based on “the adjusted average per capita cost for the year involved,” which is “determined under section 1876(a)(4)” of the statute. Section 1876(a)(4), in turn, defines “the term ‘adjusted average per capita cost’” to mean “the average per capita amount that the Secretary estimates in advance . . . would be payable in any contract year for services covered under parts A and B, or part B only.” Because the 340B remedy rule added 42 C.F.R. § 419.32(b)(1)(iv)(B)(12), which reduces by 0.5 percent the amount “payable” under Part B for hospitals enrolled in Medicare before January 2, 2018, we must account for that in the “average per capita amount.” That is different from the lump sum payments CMS made in 2024, which do not change the amount “payable” in 2026 for Medicare Part B. We read section 1876(a)(4) to require the use of actuarial principles to estimate the average per capita amount. In applying those actuarial principles, we determine when an amount is “payable” based on underlying utilization. For example, we base our estimate on the amount actually “payable” in 2026 on service utilization in 2026 (and not 2018-2022), as reflected in the 2026 USPCC. As for the third alternative, section 1852(a)(2) of the Social Security Act mandates that MA organizations reimburse non-contract providers at least the amount they would have received under Medicare FFS. The 340B Remedy Rule finalized that providers that enrolled in Medicare after January 1, 2018 are excluded from the prospective rate reduction starting in CY 2026. We expect that MA organizations will comply with the statutory requirements at section 1852(a)(2) of the Social Security Act. The commenter has not explained why the procedures in section 1852(a)(2) of the Social Security Act to challenge such non-contract payments are inadequate to protect their interests here, and we therefore decline in this announcement either to accept the commenter’s suggestion that we prejudge the outcome of such challenges or else set up an extra- statutory method to adjudicate them. Section C. MA Benchmark, Quality Bonus Payments, and Rebate Comment: A commenter thanked CMS for including 2023 FFS data with the release of the CY 2026 Advance Notice. The commenter encouraged CMS to continue to release this data at the county level going forward with each Advance Notice, as this data allows MA organizations to plan for the rebasing impact for the county benchmarks released with the Rate Announcement. Response: We appreciate the support and feedback submitted by the commenter. Comment: A few commenters urged CMS to use its administrative authority to lift the statutory cap on benchmarks or exclude the quality bonus payment from the benchmark cap. Commenters noted that the MA benchmarks are capped at what the benchmark would have been using the