Full-Risk Capitation, Medicare Advantage Rate Compression, and Mandatory Episode Payments
Cedar Valley Health is a 210-bed community hospital with $310M net revenue and $6.2M of operating income. Medicare Advantage now covers 52% of its Medicare patients, up from 38% three years ago. The two largest MA plans pay 94% of fee-for-service rates today, and the newly signed contracts step down to 91% in 2026. A regional MA plan offers a three-year, 100% global capitation arrangement covering 9,000 lives at $1,180 PMPM, with no stop-loss and a state requirement to hold $4.5M in restricted reserves. The plan's actuarial estimate puts the population at an 88% medical loss ratio with 8% administration. Cedar Valley has never held a delegated-risk contract and currently operates no care management or claims adjudication function. Separately, CMS's mandatory TEAM episode payment model begins in the region in January 2026, covering surgical episodes the hospital currently performs profitably.
1. Quantify the full-risk offer on the plan's own assumptions, then explain why those assumptions are the problem. What counterproposal would you make?
Read the worked answer
The offer on the plan's numbers.
- Premium: 9,000 × $1,180 × 12 = $127.4M
- Claims at 88% MLR: $112.1M
- Administration at 8%: $10.2M
- Margin: $5.1M (4.0%)
At first glance that is a business worth $5.1M on a $6.2M operating income base. The problem is every input.
Why the assumptions break.
- The 8% administration is the plan's cost, not Cedar Valley's. A hospital building delegated functions from scratch - claims adjudication, credentialing, utilization management, actuarial - will not hit 8% at 9,000 lives. At 12%, administration is $15.3M and the margin is negative $1.9M before a single bad year.
- The variance is enormous relative to the base. 1 PMPM = $108,000. A 2% adverse MLR swing is $2.55M, or 41% of the system's operating income. There is no stop-loss and no risk-sharing corridor.
- Capital and float. The $4.5M restricted reserve plus roughly two months of claims runout (about $18.7M) must be funded. Cedar Valley has no balance sheet room for that on top of its existing covenants.
- Downstream revenue substitution. Capitation replaces fee-for-service revenue with premium; if the hospital manages cost well, it cannibalizes its own facility revenue and must be sure the premium covers it.
Counterproposal. Two-sided shared savings first: 30% downside with a cap at 1.5% of benchmark ($1.9M), full claim-level data monthly, and a quality gate. Or full risk with a per-member stop-loss at $250,000, a 3% aggregate cap, and delegated functions initially outsourced to a third-party administrator. Move to global risk in year three, after the data shows Cedar Valley can manage the population - not before.
2. The MA rate step-down from 94% to 91% of FFS is already contracted. Assuming MA represents about $61M of Cedar Valley's revenue, what are the realistic responses, and which do you sequence first?
Read the worked answer
Size it. A 3-point cut on $61M is $1.83M, roughly 30% of the system's $6.2M operating income, arriving in a single contract year. Because MA patients cannot be balance-billed, there is no revenue-recovery lever on the patient side; the response has to be cost, mix, or rate.
Sequence.
- Quantify the true cost-to-serve by payer. Before negotiating, know the fully loaded cost per MA patient versus FFS. If MA patients are younger and lower-acuity, the 91% may be closer to cost-neutral than the rate comparison implies. Many systems negotiate against a percentage without ever computing the underlying cost, which is the weakest possible position.
- Cost reduction targeted at MA length of stay and post-acute. The largest controllable variance in a Medicare population is usually skilled nursing days and readmissions. A 0.3-day reduction in average length of stay across the MA population typically recovers more than the rate cut, and it compounds when risk contracts begin.
- Renegotiate with data, not grievance. Bring cost-to-serve, quality performance, and network-adequacy evidence - Cedar Valley's presence may make it a must-have for the plan. Ask for a step-down corridor tied to quality performance rather than a flat 3-point cut.
- Network tiering and service-line focus. If a plan will not move on rate, narrow the non-profitable service lines it steers volume to, and protect the high-margin lines explicitly.
- Use risk selectively. Do not take capitation as retaliation for a rate cut. Take it only where Cedar Valley has primary care density and care management capability.
What not to do. Do not exit the MA network. At 52% penetration, exiting means writing off half the Medicare base to make a point about 3 points of rate.
3. TEAM begins in January 2026 and covers surgical episodes the hospital currently profits from. What capabilities should Cedar Valley build, in what order, and what does 'readiness' actually look like?
Read the worked answer
What the model changes. TEAM pays a target price for a 30-day surgical episode and reconciles actual spend against it. Profitability shifts from volume per case to efficiency across the episode - including post-acute, readmissions, and complications that occur after discharge. A hospital that is currently profitable per case can be exposed if its post-acute spend and readmission rates are above the regional target.
Build order.
- Episode-level cost accounting. Without the ability to see all spend for a given procedure across 30 days and across sites, the hospital is arguing blind. This is prerequisite to everything else and is usually the binding constraint.
- Post-acute network and preferred SNF relationships. Post-acute is where episode variance concentrates. Negotiate preferred rates and shared quality expectations; get discharge data back from partners.
- Surgeon and care-team engagement at the service-line level. Episode performance is driven by implant selection, OR time, discharge disposition, and complication management. Give surgeons their own episode data with peer comparison.
- Readmission and complication reduction. Targeted, procedure-specific, and measurable within a year.
- Contracting strategy. Decide where to lean in and where to accept reconciliation risk, based on which episodes are structurally advantaged.
What readiness looks like. You can name your top five episode types by volume, state the target price and your current spend for each, identify the largest variance driver for each, and show a named owner and a 12-month plan for it. If you cannot produce that on one page by the start date, the hospital will be managing the model retrospectively - which means paying reconciliations it could have avoided.