We work on Medicare's hardest, least-examined problems — from plan stability and rating reform to the experiences of dually-eligible seniors at community health clinics. Our reports are published openly when complete. Below is what we're working on now.
A diagnostic review of the information systems CMS relies on to administer Medicare, Medicaid, and the marketplaces — and a set of design proposals for what modernization would actually look like. Written for agency leadership, congressional staff, and the contractor community building toward the next generation of CMS infrastructure.
The Medicare Star Rating system rewards plans for outcomes seniors can see, but doesn't measure the year-over-year stability of a plan's offerings and pricing. We're developing new methods for quantifying plan stability as a counterweight to predatory practices that quietly erode a plan's value after enrollment.
Dually-eligible seniors — those qualifying for both Medicare and Medicaid — make up some of the most vulnerable enrollees in the system. We're studying their enrollment journey at community health clinics serving low-income patients, with a focus on whether duals are consistently placed onto worse Medicare Advantage plans than the broader MA population, and what drives the disparity if so.
Most seniors do not optimally select their Medicare plan, but the actual cost of suboptimal selection — in dollars and in health outcomes — has not been well quantified at the individual level. This study models both, with the aim of giving plan-finders, agencies, and policymakers a clearer picture of what's at stake in the comparison process.
If you're a health plan, agency, university, federal contractor, or policymaker interested in collaborating on research at the intersection of Medicare and the people who navigate it, we'd like to hear from you.
Get in touch →