Maryland Medical Advisory Committee - Duties and Workgroup to Study the Adoption of a Fee-for-Service Model for All Medicaid Services
HB 971 would expand the responsibilities of the Maryland Medicaid Advisory Committee and create a temporary workgroup to study whether Maryland should move from managed care organizations to a fee-for-service, or direct care payment, model for all Medicaid services. The bill requires the Committee to form subcommittees and workgroups as needed to support its duties, and it adds a new duty to review reports from ombudsmen. It also preserves the Committee’s existing role in advising the Secretary of Health on managed care implementation, regulations, contracts, quality oversight, data review, enrollment processes, and consumer-facing performance information.
The bill establishes a one-year Workgroup to Study the Adoption of a Fee-for-Service Model for All Medicaid Services. That workgroup would include legislative members, a Maryland Health Care Commission representative, Medicaid providers, an advocacy organization representative, and any additional member the Committee deems necessary. Its charge is to examine Connecticut’s experience, Maryland’s own prior experience with fee-for-service arrangements, other states’ direct-care models, relevant research, and the feasibility and timeline for a statewide transition. The workgroup must report its findings by January 1, 2027, and then expires on June 30, 2027.
If enacted, the bill would amend the Health-General Article provisions governing the Maryland Medical Assistance Program and the Maryland Medicaid Advisory Committee. It would not immediately replace managed care in Medicaid, but it would create a formal study process that could inform future changes to how Medicaid services are financed and delivered in Maryland. The bill would also broaden the Committee’s administrative structure by authorizing subcommittees and workgroups, and it would require state support staff for the new study group.
The available context suggests the bill was introduced as an exploratory policy measure rather than a direct overhaul of Medicaid. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge detailed support or opposition. The sponsor’s withdrawal of the bill indicates it did not advance, but the text itself reflects a policy interest in evaluating alternatives to managed care and in gathering evidence before any major transition.
The central point of contention is the proposed study of a statewide shift from managed care organizations to a fee-for-service model for Medicaid. Supporters are likely to view the workgroup as a way to assess provider participation, access to care, data transparency, and administrative coordination. Potential critics would likely be concerned about the fiscal and operational implications of moving away from managed care, including cost control, network management, and whether a fee-for-service model would improve outcomes. The bill also touches on broader Medicaid policy questions affecting enrollees, providers, hospitals, advocates, and state agencies.