WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
WEBINAR
MTM in 2026: Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage
How to redesign targeting, workflow, and measurement for continuous medication service
April 22, 2026
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
We will redesign MTM from trigger to proof
1
Why MTM now behaves like a continuous medication service
2
How Star Ratings reshape targeting and success measures
3
How med sync becomes the front door for timely intervention
4
How AI triage ranks risk without replacing clinical judgment
5
How roles, handoffs, and metrics prove the model works
6
How to launch one focused pilot in the next 90 days
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
MTM now competes on continuity, not isolated completion
The old unit of work was often a completed CMR. The new unit of value is a resolved medication risk at the right time.
✓Annual eligibility lists miss risk that appears between review cycles
✓Quality pressure rewards earlier touchpoints, not late documentation
✓Staffing constraints force teams to reserve clinicians for higher-yield work
✓Patients judge the service by friction removed, not program terminology
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 1—From Episodic MTM To Continuous Medication Service
flowchart LR
A[Payment and Star pressure] --> D[Continuous medication service]
B[Med sync touchpoints] --> D
C[AI triage queues] --> D
D --> E[Earlier outreach]
D --> F[Role-based workflow]
D --> G[Proof beyond completion]
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Star pressure turns MTM timing into a strategic choice
The most important Star-related MTM decision is often who gets contacted first, not who appears somewhere on a roster.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 1—Quality Pressure To Workflow Translation
Pressure point
Operational design question
MTM response
Adherence
Who is drifting before a gap locks in?
Weekly risk queue
Experience
Where does outreach create friction?
Preferred channel routing
Safety
Which regimen change needs review?
Pharmacist escalation
Equity
Who is systematically missed?
Language and access checks
Documentation
What proves action and outcome?
Structured closure codes
Use current CMS and payer specifications when mapping to measures.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Star-aligned targeting starts with recoverable risk
The best queue is not a list of every eligible patient. It is a ranked set of patients whose outcomes can still change.
✓Prioritize patients with open, time-sensitive medication gaps
✓Flag recent discharge, therapy change, or repeated contact failure
✓Blend clinical severity with likelihood of successful resolution
✓Refresh lists weekly so action follows current behavior
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Payers and pharmacies want alignment, but they feel different pain
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Similar completion rates can hide very different value
Presentation
Two MTM vendors serve similar Medicare populations. Vendor A reports 72% CMR completion. Vendor B reports 70% completion plus intervention acceptance, refill persistence, and adherence lift by drug class.
Which vendor performance story is more useful for 2026 MTM redesign?
AVendor A, because completion rate is slightly higher
BVendor B, because it connects completion to accepted actions and persistence✓
CThey are equivalent because both completed most CMRs
DNeither can be evaluated unless every patient received a pharmacist call
Teaching point
Completion is necessary, but it is not the value story. Programs need evidence that interventions were accepted and changed medication behavior.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Guardrails prevent Star work from becoming completion theater
Star alignment should sharpen clinical focus. It should not reward shallow outreach that looks busy and changes little.
✓Require a reason code for why each patient is prioritized now
✓Track barriers solved, not just calls placed or reviews closed
✓Audit high-risk patients who were deferred or unreachable
✓Separate easy-access wins from complex-risk performance
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 2—Sync As The MTM Front Door
flowchart TD
A[Patient enrolls in med sync] --> B[Refill dates aligned]
B --> C[Pre-sync review queue]
C --> D{Risk or barrier found?}
D -->|No| E[Technician confirms refill]
D -->|Yes| F[Pharmacist MTM review]
F --> G[Document action and next sync date]
E --> G
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 2—Sync Touchpoints And MTM Actions
Touchpoint
Signal to check
Best next action
Enrollment
Complex regimen or confusion
Baseline pharmacist review
Pre-call
Late fill or skipped item
Barrier check
Pickup or delivery
Questions or new symptoms
Warm handoff
Post-discharge
Medication list mismatch
Reconciliation review
Monthly cycle
Repeated partial fills
Persistence coaching
Quarterly review
Stable but high risk
Targeted CMR or TIP
Adapt cadence for 30-day, 90-day, specialty, and delivery models.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Sync enrollment can reveal MTM risk before the gap appears
Presentation
A 67-year-old patient enrolls in med sync. Metformin and lisinopril align easily, but atorvastatin is repeatedly declined because the patient says it causes leg pain and they have extra tablets.
Which next step best fits a med sync-triggered MTM model?
AKeep atorvastatin off the sync cycle and document patient preference
BEscalate for pharmacist review of symptoms, adherence, and prescriber options✓
CWait until the adherence measure shows a larger gap
DSend only an automated refill reminder
Teaching point
A declined sync item is a clinical signal. The pharmacist should assess tolerability, beliefs, refill behavior, and alternatives before nonadherence hardens.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Med sync fails when operations ignore real-world barriers
The sync model is powerful, but only if it accounts for patient life, staffing limits, and system friction.
✓Copays, shortages, and cash flow can break the neat refill calendar
✓Prescriber changes and hospital discharges disrupt aligned lists
✓Technicians need clear scripts for exceptions and escalation
✓Health systems must bridge clinic, discharge, and pharmacy data gaps
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Early sync intervention narrows refill gaps before they compound
A six-month pilot should show whether med sync-triggered MTM changes refill behavior before year-end pressure arrives.
Illustrative pilot pattern based on expected operating logic, validate with local data.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
AI triage should rank risk and recommend the next best action
AI adds value when it reduces search work and protects clinician time. It creates risk when teams treat the score as the answer.
✓Combine multiple signals into a ranked outreach queue
✓Suggest the safest next action, not just a risk score
✓Route low-complexity work away from pharmacists
✓Show enough rationale for humans to challenge the output
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 3—Signal Sources For MTM Queue Ranking
Signal source
What it may reveal
Caution
Claims
Diagnoses, utilization, risk
Lag and coding gaps
Pharmacy fills
Late refills, switches, stops
Cash fills may be missed
Clinical notes
Symptoms, goals, barriers
Messy text and bias
Outreach history
Contact failure, channel preference
May reflect workflow flaws
Sync data
Declined items, partial fills
Needs local definitions
SDoH fields
Access and affordability barriers
Incomplete and sensitive
Signal governance matters as much as model sophistication.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 3—Risk-Routed MTM Queue
flowchart TD
A[New data arrives] --> B[AI ranks risk and action]
B --> C{Low complexity?}
C -->|Yes| D[Automation or technician]
C -->|No| E{Clinical risk high?}
E -->|Yes| F[Pharmacist review]
E -->|Unclear| G[Human queue check]
D --> H[Outcome documented]
F --> H
G --> H
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
AI triage works when it cuts low-yield work, not clinical vigilance
Presentation
A health-system specialty and ambulatory pharmacy team ranks outreach by refill risk, hospitalization history, and prior contact failure. Low-risk reminders are automated; high-risk cases go to pharmacists.
What is the strongest reason this model can improve MTM operations?
AIt removes the need for pharmacist judgment
BIt preserves pharmacist time for complex, higher-yield cases✓
CIt guarantees patients will refill on time
DIt eliminates documentation requirements
Teaching point
AI triage should reduce wasted clinician effort while keeping escalation and documentation intact. It helps teams focus, but it does not guarantee outcomes.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Human override protects patients from confident mistakes
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
AI governance must be lightweight enough to survive daily work
The governance model should help teams trust the queue without slowing every intervention to a committee meeting.
✓Name the model owner, workflow owner, and clinical safety owner
✓Review samples of accepted, overridden, and missed recommendations
✓Track actionability, not just prediction accuracy
✓Refresh thresholds when staffing, measures, or patient mix changes
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 4—Continuous MTM Operating Loop
flowchart LR
A[Trigger: Star, sync, discharge, refill risk] --> B[Triage and segmentation]
B --> C[Automation or technician action]
B --> D[Pharmacist intervention]
C --> E[Barrier resolved or escalated]
D --> E
E --> F[Document outcome]
F --> G[Report and learn]
G --> B
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 4—Task Ownership By Role
Task type
Best owner
Escalate when
Preference update
Automation or technician
Patient reports clinical concern
Barrier screening
Technician
Side effect, confusion, refusal
Medication assessment
Pharmacist
Complex risk or prescriber issue
Queue monitoring
Analyst
Pattern suggests workflow failure
Payer reporting
Analyst or manager
Metric definition changes
Patient education
Technician or pharmacist
Requires clinical judgment
Local scope of practice, contracts, and policy determine final assignments.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Service-level agreements keep handoffs from becoming hiding places
A handoff is only reliable when the receiving role knows the clock, the expected action, and the closure rule.
✓Define response time by risk tier, not first-in-first-out habit
✓Use structured handoff notes with barrier, action, and urgency
✓Close the loop with patient, prescriber, pharmacy, and payer as needed
✓Review aged cases weekly before they become invisible backlog
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Capacity planning exposes where pharmacist time is leaking
A future-state model should reduce low-yield pharmacist activity while increasing time for complex interventions.
Illustrative mix; validate with time studies and local scope rules.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
The right role depends on risk, not convenience
Presentation
A technician calls a sync patient who declined insulin refill. The patient says they are rationing due to cost and felt dizzy twice this week. The pharmacist is booked for the next three hours.
What is the safest workflow decision?
AHave the technician document refusal and try again next month
BEscalate to pharmacist urgently using a high-risk handoff rule✓
CSend an automated reminder about adherence
DWait for the payer to identify the patient as nonadherent
Teaching point
Cost-related insulin rationing with symptoms is not routine refill work. Role design must include urgent escalation paths even on busy days.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 5—Balanced Measurement Set For Continuous MTM
Metric family
Operator view
Executive view
Access
Reach rate, channel success
Equity and member experience
Completion
CMR, TIP, barrier closure
Program reliability
Clinical yield
Accepted interventions
Medication-risk reduction
Persistence
Refill recovery, gap days
Star-relevant adherence lift
Efficiency
Hours per resolved case
Cost to deliver value
Safety
Escalations, adverse events
Risk control and trust
Completion without yield is activity. Yield without throughput is boutique care.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Two vendors can match completion and diverge on value
A side-by-side view should reveal whether completed MTM translated into accepted interventions and refill persistence.
Illustrative scenario; normalize definitions before comparing vendors.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
A useful dashboard gives executives and operators different answers
One dashboard can serve both groups if it separates strategy signals from daily workflow controls.
✓Executives need trend, value, equity, and risk signals
✓Operators need queue age, bottlenecks, handoffs, and yield
✓Segment results by risk tier, channel, site, and medication class
✓Use exception review to explain why the numbers moved
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 6—Pilot Selection Criteria
Criterion
Strong pilot
Weak pilot
Scope
One population and one trigger
All MTM work at once
Owner
Named accountable leader
Shared vague ownership
Metric
Defined before launch
Chosen after activity starts
Workflow
Clear roles and escalation
Everyone helps as available
Data
Available weekly
Manual year-end review
Stakeholders
Payer, pharmacy, clinicians aligned
Surprised after launch
Small pilots create evidence. Sweeping announcements create meetings.
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 5—90-Day MTM Redesign Timeline
timeline
title 90-Day Pilot Path
Days 1-15 : Pick pilot, owner, metric
Days 16-30 : Map workflow and escalatio
Days 31-45 : Configure queue and scripts
Days 46-75 : Run pilot and weekly huddles
Days 76-90 : Review results and scale decision
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Thanks for watching
Pick one MTM pilot and leave with an owner, a metric, and a start date
Name the accountable owner before the meeting ends
Choose one primary metric and two balancing metrics
Set the first workflow huddle date within 30 days
Use the 90-day plan to decide scale, revise, partner, or stop