.png)
.png)
When CMS launched the ACCESS Model in July 2026, it introduced something health systems and ACOs had been asking about for years: a way for Medicare to pay for technology-supported chronic care between visits, tied to the outcomes patients achieve. Within weeks of launch, NAACOS and Innovaccer set out to understand how the people responsible for technology strategy were responding. We surveyed 116 provider and value-based care leaders, most of them in executive, clinical, or medical roles, and published what we learned in The Technology Strategy Survey 2026.
The headline is that the market has decided where it is going well before it has decided how it will get there. 73% of leaders say the CMS ACCESS Model has already shifted their technology strategy, yet far fewer are confident the model will help fund that strategy. The report explores that gap in detail, along with what leaders say would close it.
An industry already in motion
The CMS ACCESS Model did not arrive in an industry starting from scratch. Most organizations we heard from already have an AI strategy for care delivery, and many have begun investing in care management and virtual care technology, even if much of that work is still early. The model is entering a conversation leaders were already having about how technology fits into chronic care.
What stands out is where leaders plan to focus next. Their priorities point to the foundations that make chronic care programs work in practice: identifying which patients need support, and making sure their data moves cleanly between systems. The report breaks down how those priorities rank, and why the order matters for organizations deciding where to invest first.
A gap between conviction and confidence
The most important finding in the survey sits in the distance between strategy and funding. The same leaders who say the model has changed their plans are, for the most part, still waiting to see whether its payments will support those plans. The report calls this gap the defining finding of the survey, and it reads less like skepticism and more like suspended judgment from leaders who want evidence before they commit.
Budget pressure is a large part of the story. Technology at most organizations is still funded from operating budgets, where every new investment competes with staffing, facilities, and everything else on the balance sheet. The report looks at how organizations are paying for technology today, and what kinds of funding they say they need to move forward.
Part of the hesitation is also structural, and it reflects one of the most common points of confusion about the model.
Participant or partner: two different roles
An ACCESS participant is the organization that enrolls Medicare beneficiaries in the model and delivers their technology-supported chronic care. CMS pays the participant directly for each enrolled patient, and that payment depends on the overall share of patients who meet their defined outcomes, measured against a minimum threshold that rises each participation year. In return, participants and their affiliated entities may not submit Medicare fee-for-service claims for other services furnished to the beneficiaries aligned to them.
For most health systems and ACOs, giving up fee-for-service revenue on their patients is not a realistic trade, particularly while many are also managing other CMS models. Partnership offers a different path. A health system or ACO can refer patients to an ACCESS participant, and providers who are not affiliated with the participant continue to bill Medicare for their services under standard rules. Their clinicians can also bill the ACCESS co-management payment for reviewing a participant’s care update and documenting a coordination activity.
The distinction that matters most is where the risk sits. Outcome-based payment adjustments apply to the participant’s reimbursement. The co-management payment that a health system’s clinicians receive for documented review and coordination is not tied to whether patients meet their clinical targets. For leaders weighing the funding question, understanding this structure can change the calculation considerably.
What it takes to earn commitment
The survey also asked leaders what would give them the confidence to commit to a long-term partner, and the answer was clear. Leaders are far less interested in better contract terms than in evidence that a program works and confidence that it will connect to their systems. The report shows how strongly that preference comes through, and how organizations are vetting new partners before they scale.
Beyond funding, leaders named the conditions that would help a cautious organization move forward. Each one comes back to reducing uncertainty, whether about data, rules, or risk. These needs offer a useful guide for anyone evaluating where the model is headed over its ten-year run.
The finding leaders should sit with
The report saves one of its most important findings for primary care. Most leaders expect primary care’s role to evolve as new technology and models like ACCESS take hold, yet relatively few can formally see which of their patients ACCESS participants are already serving. That combination raises a question every health system will need to answer: as care between visits expands, how do patients stay connected to the clinicians who know them best?
This shifts the decision for health systems away from whether to engage with the model and toward how to engage, and whether the chosen approach strengthens the relationship between patients and their primary care teams. Over a ten-year program, the partner organizations they choose will shape care coordination, patient engagement, and how clinicians experience the model day to day.
To help with that decision, the report closes with five questions leaders should ask any ACCESS or chronic care partner before they commit. Each question maps to something respondents told us they need.
Where Story Health fits
Story Health, powered by Innovaccer, is an ACCESS participant in the eCKM and CKM tracks. We partner with health systems and ACOs so their patients receive ongoing support between visits, with outcome accountability held by the participant and clinical updates flowing back to each patient’s PCP.
Get the full findings. The Technology Strategy Survey 2026 includes the complete data, charts, leader perspectives, and the five-question partner checklist. Download the report.
Talk through your ACCESS strategy. If your organization is weighing how to work with the CMS ACCESS Model, our team can walk you through how partnership works for your patients and clinicians. Book a demo