Thoughts on Healthcare Markets & Technology

Thoughts on Healthcare Markets & Technology

PAMA Round Two Is Here: How the CY2027 Clinical Lab Fee Schedule Reset, 15% Annual Cut Caps, and Crosswalk and Gapfill Fights Create Eight New Business Models for Labs, Payers and Investors

Sep 24, 2026
∙ Paid

🎧 Podcast episode for paid subscribers only. Also available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Thoughts on Healthcare Markets & Technology
PAMA Round Two Is Here: How the CY2027 Clinical Lab Fee Schedule Reset, 15% Annual Cut Caps, and Crosswalk and Gapfill Fights Create Eight New Business Models for Labs, Payers and Investors
CMS just dropped preliminary CY2027 Clinical Lab Fee Schedule rates. Medicare has been overpaying for lab tests by ~16% vs commercial prices. Over 6,400 labs reported. About 77% of priced codes are going down. Here is what that means…
Listen now
5 minutes ago

To listen to paid episodes in Apple or Spotify, link your Substack subscription via the show settings on those platforms (instructions inside the Substack app under Subscriptions → Podcast).

Table of Contents

1. What actually dropped in September

2. The math behind the haircut

3. Where the pain lands, by category and by lab type

4. Model one: PAMA compliance and data hygiene as a service

5. Model two: rate intelligence built off the public file

6. Model three: the crosswalk and gapfill evidence shop

7. Model four: repricing contracts pegged to Medicare

8. Model five: the PLA and ADLT pivot, and its limits

9. Model six: outreach carve-outs, rollups and lab-as-a-service

10. Model seven: cost-down tech sold as a PAMA offset

11. Model eight: playing the next collection window

12. What investors should actually underwrite

Abstract

  • CMS posted preliminary CY2027 CLFS rates on Sept 21, 2026, marking the second full PAMA data-collection and reporting cycle for most tests—not the first full reset since 2018

  • Data collection covered Jan to June 2025, reporting ran May 1 to July 31, 2026

  • 6,411 labs reported data; 1,947 HCPCS codes were evaluated, and 1,528 codes (78.5%) received a weighted median. The preliminary data imply an average cut of roughly 16%, and CMS estimates annual savings of about $1 billion

  • 1,171 codes go down, 186 go up, and 169 are flat; molecular pathology is down 22%, genomic sequencing down 23%, microbiology and immunology down 19.3%, chemistry down 16%, and PLA codes down 2.4%

  • Cuts are capped at 15% per year for 2027 through 2029, so the full reset lands over three years

  • Roughly 419 codes with no applicable information go to crosswalk or gapfill, through the Sept 15–16 advisory-panel process and subsequent comment windows

  • Hospital-lab reporters went from 21 in 2017 to 875 in 2026; total reporters rose from 1,942 to 6,411

  • This essay lays out eight business models that get created or supercharged by this: compliance services, rate intelligence, gapfill evidence shops, Medicare-pegged contract repricing, PLA and ADLT strategy, outreach carve-outs and rollups, cost-down tech, and next-cycle rate architecture

  • It ends with what investors should and should not underwrite

    Thoughts on Healthcare Markets & Technology is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

User's avatar

Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of Thoughts on Healthcare.

Or purchase a paid subscription.
© 2026 Healthcare Markets & Technology · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start your SubstackGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture