Financial and Administrative Alignment Demonstrations for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries Compared: States with Memoranda of Understanding Approved by CMS
| Table 4: State Interest in Financial Alignment Demonstrations for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries as of December, 2015 |
|||||
| State | Awarded Design Contract | Submitted Letter of Intent | Submitted Capitated Proposal to CMS | Submitted Managed FFS Proposal to CMS | MOU Signed with CMS |
| Alabama | |||||
| Alaska | X | ||||
| Arizona | X | X | |||
| Arkansas | |||||
| California | X | X | X | Capitated | |
| Colorado | X | X | X | Managed FFS | |
| Connecticut | X | X | X | ||
| Delaware | X | ||||
| DC | X | ||||
| Florida | X | ||||
| Georgia | |||||
| Hawaii | X | X | |||
| Idaho | X | X | |||
| Illinois | X | X | Capitated | ||
| Indiana | X | ||||
| Iowa | X | X | |||
| Kansas | X | ||||
| Kentucky | X | ||||
| Louisiana | |||||
| Maine | X | ||||
| Maryland | X | ||||
| Massachusetts | X | X | X | Capitated | |
| Michigan | X | X | X | Capitated | |
| Minnesota* | X | X | X | Administrative | |
| Mississippi | |||||
| Missouri | X | X | |||
| Montana | X | ||||
| Nebraska | |||||
| Nevada | X | ||||
| New Hampshire | |||||
| New Jersey | |||||
| New Mexico | X | X | |||
| New York* | X | X | X | X | 2 Capitated |
| North Carolina | X | X | X | ||
| North Dakota | |||||
| Ohio | X | X | Capitated | ||
| Oklahoma | X | X | X | X | |
| Oregon | X | X | X | ||
| Pennsylvania | X | ||||
| Rhode Island | X | X | Capitated | ||
| South Carolina | X | X | X | Capitated | |
| South Dakota | |||||
| Tennessee | X | X | X | ||
| Texas | X | X | Capitated | ||
| Utah | |||||
| Vermont | X | X | X | ||
| Virginia | X | X | Capitated | ||
| Washington* | X | X | X | X | Capitated (withdrawn);
Managed FFS |
| West Virginia | |||||
| Wisconsin | X | X | X | ||
| Wyoming | |||||
| TOTAL: | 15 | 38 | 21 | 8 | 13 |
| NOTES: *MN received approval for administrative alignment only, without financial alignment. NY withdrew its managed FFS proposal and received approval for 2 capitated models. WA received approval for two demonstrations, but subsequently withdrew its capitated model. | |||||
Also of Interest
- Dual Eligible Demonstrations: The Beneficiary Perspective
- Early Insights from One Care: Massachusetts’ Demonstration to Integrate Care and Align Financing for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries
- Early Insights From Ohio’s Demonstration to Integrate Care and Align Financing for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries
- Early Insights from Commonwealth Coordinated Care: Virginia’s Demonstration to Integrate Care and Align Financing for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries