Trump Administration Accepts 150+ Companies for AI-Driven Healthcare Model
CMS accepted over 150 companies for its ACCESS model, which will reward AI and tech-driven care with increased Medicare reimbursement if they improve health outcomes.
Objective Facts
The Trump administration announced on April 13 that over 150 companies have been accepted to participate in the first cohort for CMS' ACCESS model, which will reward artificial intelligence and tech-driven care with increased Medicare reimbursement if they can improve health outcomes. Participating companies include weight management company Noom, Alphabet-backed life science company Verily and wearable maker Whoop, with a May 15 deadline for additional applications when the model launches in July 2026. Under the Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions Model, participants will receive recurring monthly payments for using digital health technologies to manage chronic conditions including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, anxiety and depression over a 10-year period. The model creates Outcome-Aligned Payments (OAPs) that provide recurring payments to organizations for managing chronic conditions, with total payment tied to patient outcome measures, though digital health leaders view the model as promising while some expressed concerns about proposed reimbursement rates. The initial April 1 deadline was extended to allow more to join, with CMS officials saying the large number of applications exceeded their expectations and suggesting modest payment rates and restrictions did not discourage digital health companies from applying.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Limited explicit left-leaning coverage of this specific story was found. However, privacy and oversight concerns align with broader progressive healthcare frameworks. PBS News reported that the system, spearheaded by an administration that has already freely shared highly personal data about Americans in ways that have tested legal bounds, could put patients' desires for more convenience on a collision course with their expectations that their medical information be kept private, with Georgetown University law professor Lawrence Gostin stating there are enormous ethical and legal concerns and that patients across America should be very worried that their medical records are going to be used in ways that harm them and their families. This reflects left-leaning concerns about tech company participation in sensitive health data ecosystems. The lack of named left-leaning commentary specifically criticizing this April 2026 announcement suggests either limited progressive opposition to the model itself or focus on broader AI healthcare concerns rather than this particular initiative. Coverage from centrist outlets like Healthcare Dive and STAT News emphasizes implementation details without partisan framing. Left-leaning outlets generally emphasize patient protections and equity concerns when covering AI in healthcare, though specific partisan analysis of the ACCESS model announcement itself was not found in available sources.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Right-leaning and pro-innovation coverage emphasizes regulatory streamlining and market-driven solutions. Healthcare Dive noted the model is a big deal for digital health firms, which have long said that inconsistent reimbursement from payers challenges uptake of their tools, and that ACCESS also tackles chronic care, a priority area for the HHS under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has said he wants to fight chronic conditions by reforming food and health systems. Several major payers including Blue Shield of California, CVS Health, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and Cigna have voluntarily pledged to adopt an outcomes-based payment structure aligned to the ACCESS model, indicating industry support that aligns with conservative preferences for market-based solutions. The Trump Administration's framing emphasizes innovation, private-sector leadership, and outcomes-based payment—all aligned with conservative healthcare reform principles. HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz joined other leaders to build momentum for the new CMS Innovation Center ACCESS Model, supporting CMS' work on modernizing the nation's digital health ecosystem and empowering Medicare beneficiaries through greater access to innovative health technologies. The administration's narrative focuses on removing barriers to innovation rather than regulatory oversight.
Deep Dive
The ACCESS model represents a significant shift in how Medicare reimburses chronic care management—moving from activity-based fee-for-service to outcome-aligned payments. CMS's new ACCESS payment model is a novel approach in how Medicare pays for chronic-disease management with recurring, condition-specific payments tied to clinical improvement rather than billing for discrete encounters or tightly defined remote-monitoring activities, with the promise of more reimbursement for technology-enabled longitudinal care and more choice and competition for patient care, but ACCESS leaves many questions unanswered about payment levels, how quality is measured, risk adjusted, and how these patients facing technology-enabled services coordinate care with the traditional delivery systems. What each perspective gets right: Proponents correctly identify a genuine payment gap—traditional Medicare fee-for-service billing poorly accommodates continuous, technology-enabled care for chronic conditions affecting over two-thirds of beneficiaries. Only 4% to 7% of US health expenditures are allocated to primary care, well below the level observed in other high-income countries, and within Medicare, spending on longitudinal care is similarly constrained. Critics correctly note that modest payment rates ($180-$360 annually for new patients) may not sustain traditional service models, potentially limiting participation to well-capitalized, AI-heavy organizations that can operate at lower margins or rely on large patient volumes. What each side omits: Right-leaning coverage underemphasizes data governance risks and the reality that outcome measurement itself can create perverse incentives for patient selection or data manipulation. Left-leaning sources that do address healthcare issues often overlook that original Medicare's fee-for-service model genuinely fails to incentivize or reimburse proactive chronic disease management—a gap the ACCESS model attempts to fill. Neither side adequately addresses the tension between outcome-based payment (which rewards results) and equity concerns (which suggest results may correlate with patient demographics and baseline health status, potentially disadvantaging organizations serving sicker or more complex populations unless strong risk adjustment is implemented). What to watch: The ACCESS Model will be evaluated for its impact on quality of care and Medicare spending, and if the model is found to improve quality without increasing costs or reduce costs without harming quality with certification from the CMS Office of the Actuary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may consider expanding or making the model permanent through rulemaking. The critical questions are whether participating organizations genuinely improve outcomes or optimize for measurement, whether payment rates prove sufficient to sustain quality care, and whether the model exacerbates or mitigates healthcare equity gaps across socioeconomic and geographic lines.