The bill amends title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish monthly total and average Medicare expenditures by county and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in machine‑readable files, beginning with reports covering 2027. The disclosure covers a detailed set of beneficiary categories (combinations of Part A/Part B entitlement, Part D enrollment, Medicare Advantage enrollment and plan types, enrollment in federal health plans, and supplemental coverage), and requires inclusion of a 10‑year historical window and a Secretary‑specified projected window (up to five years).
The bill also requires the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) to produce a public, retrospective comparison of average expenditures for Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees versus fee‑for‑service (FFS) beneficiaries, with mandatory publication of methodology and a comment period; and it directs the Boards of Trustees to include disaggregated expenditure information in the annual trustees’ reports. The measure creates a new, data‑intensive transparency baseline that will inform oversight, plan bidding, research, and state/local policy but also raises practical challenges around methodology, privacy protection, and CMS implementation costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires CMS to publish monthly county/MSA total and average Medicare expenditures in machine‑readable files for numerous beneficiary categories, starting with 2027 data and including a retrospective historical window. It instructs MedPAC to issue a retrospective MA vs FFS expenditure analysis with public methodology and comment opportunities, and directs Trustees to add disaggregated expenditure tables to trustees’ reports.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CMS (reporting and IT delivery), Medicare Advantage organizations and other insurers, health systems and providers that supply cost data or reconcile payments, MedPAC and the Boards of Trustees, state and local policymakers, and researchers who use granular Medicare data for comparisons and policy analysis.
Why It Matters
This statute would create the most detailed, public county/MSA‑level Medicare expenditure dataset mandated by statute, enabling systematic MA vs FFS comparisons and local spending analysis. Those insights can influence rate‑setting, enforcement, plan strategy and public accountability — and they will force agencies to make contentious methodological choices public.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core requirement directs CMS to publish, in machine‑readable form, monthly total and average Medicare spending at the county and MSA level for a long, enumerated list of beneficiary groups. Those groups are combinations of Part A entitlement, Part B enrollment, Part D enrollment, Medicare Advantage enrollment (with plan‑type detail, including MA‑PD and special needs plans), enrollment in federal health programs or federal employee plans, and presence or absence of employer group or supplemental coverage.
The statute sets a recurring calendar: for each year beginning with 2027, data for that year’s months must appear on the CMS public website within 30 days after year‑end.
For 2027 specifically, CMS must backfill enrollment information for each year beginning with 2015, broken down by county and MSA and by the enumerated beneficiary categories. The bill defines the 'specified historical period' as the 10‑year period ending on the last day of a reporting year and allows the Secretary to set a 'specified projected period' up to five years; the combination yields both retrospective and short‑range projected views of expenditures.MedPAC must add to its annual report a retrospective comparison of average per‑person expenditures for MA enrollees versus comparable FFS beneficiaries who were eligible but did not enroll in MA.
The Commission must use Chief Actuary and Trustees data (and other appropriate sources), publish the analysis data in a replicable form while protecting personal confidentiality, and publish the methodology 60 days before submission with at least 30 days for public comment plus a published response to comments.The Boards of Trustees must include aggregate and average expenditure information for three high‑level categories (Part A only; Part B only; Part A and B beneficiaries not in MA) in their statutory reports and, where practicable, disaggregate the public datasets to match those categories. Taken together, the three requirements push federal actors toward publishing replicable, public datasets and transparent methodologies that enable apples‑to‑apples comparisons across geography and enrollment types.
The Five Things You Need to Know
CMS must publish monthly total and average Medicare expenditures by county and MSA in machine‑readable files and make the data public within 30 days after each calendar year, starting with 2027 data.
The 2027 CMS publication must include backfilled enrollment information for every year beginning with 2015, broken out by county/MSA and each beneficiary category listed in the bill.
The statute defines the 'specified historical period' as the 10‑year window ending on the reporting year’s last day and lets the Secretary set a 'specified projected period' up to five years for future‑looking monthly figures.
MedPAC must produce an annual retrospective analysis comparing MA enrollee expenditures to FFS beneficiaries eligible for MA but not enrolled, must use Chief Actuary and Trustees data, must publish all replication data (with confidentiality protections), and must release methodology 60 days before the report with a 30‑day public comment period.
The Boards of Trustees must add aggregate and average expenditure data for three beneficiary groups to the trustees’ reports and publicly, to the extent practicable, disaggregate data tables to align with those categories.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Formally names the bill the 'Apples to Apples Comparison Act of 2026.' This is purely formal but signals the legislative intent: enable direct comparisons of Medicare spending across program types and geographies.
CMS publication of county/MSA monthly expenditures and new reporting subsection
This is the operational heart of the bill. It inserts a new reporting duty into section 1874: publish machine‑readable monthly totals and averages by county and MSA for a long list of beneficiary categories. The provision establishes timing (annual publication within 30 days after year‑end beginning 2027), requires a backfill of enrollment data to 2015 for the 2027 release, and defines the historical (10‑year) and projected (up to 5‑year, Secretary‑specified) windows. Practically, CMS will need to map administrative payment streams (capitation payments, FFS claims, Part D payments, pass‑throughs) to the statutory categories and implement public data releases while managing small‑cell and privacy risks.
MedPAC retrospective MA vs FFS expenditure analysis with methodology and public comment
Adds a statutory requirement for MedPAC to include, beginning 2027, a retrospective comparison of average expenditures for MA enrollees versus comparable FFS beneficiaries. The Commission must rely on Chief Actuary and Trustees data (and other suitable sources), and must explicitly account for plan benefit differences and demographic/risk score differences, while prohibiting adjustment for 'favorable selection' differences. Critically, the bill requires pre‑publication of the methodology (60 days prior), a 30‑day public comment window, public release of replication‑level data (with confidentiality protections), and a formal response to comments — increasing transparency but raising workload and data‑access questions for MedPAC.
Trustees’ inclusion of disaggregated expenditure information in annual reports
Directs the Boards of Trustees for the HI and SMI trust funds to incorporate aggregate and average expenditure data for three named beneficiary categories into the statutory trustees’ reports starting in 2027, and to disaggregate publicly released expenditure tables to the extent practicable. That requires the trustees to align actuarial and financial reporting with the new granularity, which may necessitate new data exchanges with CMS actuarial systems and explicit documentation of assumptions used in disaggregation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Researchers and academic analysts — gain statute‑mandated, replicable county/MSA monthly expenditure datasets and published methodology from MedPAC that improve validity of local‑level and MA vs FFS research.
- Congressional oversight and state/local policymakers — receive richer, comparable data to spot geographic variation, assess plan payments or program integrity risks, and target policy responses at the county/MSA level.
- Consumers and advocacy groups (indirectly) — benefit from publicly available comparisons that can be used to pressure for clearer disclosures about MA plan value, supplemental coverage, and local spending patterns.
- Plan sponsors and large employers — can use granular spending data to benchmark retiree plans and employer group waiver arrangements against local Medicare experience.
- Health services purchasers and public health agencies — obtain county‑level expenditure signals to inform resource allocation and cost containment strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — must build and maintain machine‑readable publication pipelines, reconcile payment streams to statutory categories, manage small‑cell suppression and privacy, and absorb IT and staffing costs.
- Medicare Advantage organizations and insurers — face potentially unflattering public comparisons and the need to explain differences tied to benefits, risk adjustment, or encounter data completeness.
- Providers and health systems — may incur data‑reconciliation and reporting burdens when CMS requests clearer mapping between encounter/claims flows and expenditure categories used for public tables.
- MedPAC and the Boards of Trustees — will need additional analytic resources to publish replicateable analyses, handle public comment processes, and produce disaggregated trustee tables.
- CMS contractors and data processors — increased workload to prepare public, de‑identified datasets and to maintain ongoing monthly releases and historical backfills.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma pits the demand for high‑resolution, replicable public spending comparisons against the reality that Medicare benefit structures, risk adjustment, and data sources are heterogeneous and sensitive: transparency aids oversight and research but requires methodological choices and privacy tradeoffs that can change conclusions and expose beneficiaries; making those choices public improves accountability but also risks misinterpretation and operational burdens with no easy resolution.
Granularity versus confidentiality: publishing monthly county/MSA expenditure figures across many beneficiary slices increases the risk of small‑cell disclosure and re‑identification in low‑population counties or for rare plan types. The bill requires machine‑readable publication but does not specify suppression rules or de‑identification standards; implementing agencies will need to adopt cell‑suppression, noise‑injection, or data‑use agreements to mitigate privacy risk, which will affect the comparability and completeness of public tables.
Comparability and methodology choices are decisive. The statute pushes for 'apples‑to‑apples' comparisons but leaves several technical choices to agencies: whether to present capitated MA payments, encounter‑based service use, or a blend; how to adjust for risk scores and benefit differentials; and how to treat plan‑level supplemental benefits or out‑of‑pocket caps.
The bill instructs MedPAC not to account for 'favorable selection' differences, which is analytically fraught—omitting such adjustments may simplify comparisons but risks conflating payment policy with selection dynamics. Agencies must also reconcile timing and definitional mismatches between actuarial trust‑fund reporting and claims/encounter systems.
Operational timing and resource strain are nontrivial. A 30‑day deadline to publish year‑end monthly data creates tight turnarounds for data validation, especially in a first year that requires a 2015–2026 backfill.
Mandated public methodology, replication datasets, and formal responses to comments raise transparency standards but also require new staffing, stronger legal reviews for confidentiality, and potential contractual renegotiation with data vendors. Finally, the statute does not create explicit enforcement mechanisms or funding, so practical compliance will depend on CMS and MedPAC resourcing decisions and potential future appropriations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.