Webinar MTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
watching
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
1 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service

We will redesign MTM from trigger to proof

  1. 1
    Why MTM now behaves like a continuous medication service
  2. 2
    How Star Ratings reshape targeting and success measures
  3. 3
    How med sync becomes the front door for timely intervention
  4. 4
    How AI triage ranks risk without replacing clinical judgment
  5. 5
    How roles, handoffs, and metrics prove the model works
  6. 6
    How to launch one focused pilot in the next 90 days
2 / 32
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
3 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 1From 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]
4 / 32
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.

5 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 1Quality Pressure To Workflow Translation
Pressure pointOperational design questionMTM response
AdherenceWho is drifting before a gap locks in?Weekly risk queue
ExperienceWhere does outreach create friction?Preferred channel routing
SafetyWhich regimen change needs review?Pharmacist escalation
EquityWho is systematically missed?Language and access checks
DocumentationWhat proves action and outcome?Structured closure codes

Use current CMS and payer specifications when mapping to measures.

6 / 32
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
7 / 32
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

8 / 32
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?

  1. AVendor A, because completion rate is slightly higher
  2. BVendor B, because it connects completion to accepted actions and persistence
  3. CThey are equivalent because both completed most CMRs
  4. 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.

9 / 32
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
10 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 2Sync 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
11 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 2Sync Touchpoints And MTM Actions
TouchpointSignal to checkBest next action
EnrollmentComplex regimen or confusionBaseline pharmacist review
Pre-callLate fill or skipped itemBarrier check
Pickup or deliveryQuestions or new symptomsWarm handoff
Post-dischargeMedication list mismatchReconciliation review
Monthly cycleRepeated partial fillsPersistence coaching
Quarterly reviewStable but high riskTargeted CMR or TIP

Adapt cadence for 30-day, 90-day, specialty, and delivery models.

12 / 32
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?

  1. AKeep atorvastatin off the sync cycle and document patient preference
  2. BEscalate for pharmacist review of symptoms, adherence, and prescriber options
  3. CWait until the adherence measure shows a larger gap
  4. 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.

13 / 32
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
14 / 32
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.

15 / 32
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
16 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 3Signal Sources For MTM Queue Ranking
Signal sourceWhat it may revealCaution
ClaimsDiagnoses, utilization, riskLag and coding gaps
Pharmacy fillsLate refills, switches, stopsCash fills may be missed
Clinical notesSymptoms, goals, barriersMessy text and bias
Outreach historyContact failure, channel preferenceMay reflect workflow flaws
Sync dataDeclined items, partial fillsNeeds local definitions
SDoH fieldsAccess and affordability barriersIncomplete and sensitive

Signal governance matters as much as model sophistication.

17 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 3Risk-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
18 / 32
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?

  1. AIt removes the need for pharmacist judgment
  2. BIt preserves pharmacist time for complex, higher-yield cases
  3. CIt guarantees patients will refill on time
  4. 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.

19 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service

Human override protects patients from confident mistakes

20 / 32
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
21 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 4Continuous 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
22 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 4Task Ownership By Role
Task typeBest ownerEscalate when
Preference updateAutomation or technicianPatient reports clinical concern
Barrier screeningTechnicianSide effect, confusion, refusal
Medication assessmentPharmacistComplex risk or prescriber issue
Queue monitoringAnalystPattern suggests workflow failure
Payer reportingAnalyst or managerMetric definition changes
Patient educationTechnician or pharmacistRequires clinical judgment

Local scope of practice, contracts, and policy determine final assignments.

23 / 32
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
24 / 32
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.

25 / 32
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?

  1. AHave the technician document refusal and try again next month
  2. BEscalate to pharmacist urgently using a high-risk handoff rule
  3. CSend an automated reminder about adherence
  4. 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.

26 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 5Balanced Measurement Set For Continuous MTM
Metric familyOperator viewExecutive view
AccessReach rate, channel successEquity and member experience
CompletionCMR, TIP, barrier closureProgram reliability
Clinical yieldAccepted interventionsMedication-risk reduction
PersistenceRefill recovery, gap daysStar-relevant adherence lift
EfficiencyHours per resolved caseCost to deliver value
SafetyEscalations, adverse eventsRisk control and trust

Completion without yield is activity. Yield without throughput is boutique care.

27 / 32
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.

28 / 32
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
29 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Table 6Pilot Selection Criteria
CriterionStrong pilotWeak pilot
ScopeOne population and one triggerAll MTM work at once
OwnerNamed accountable leaderShared vague ownership
MetricDefined before launchChosen after activity starts
WorkflowClear roles and escalationEveryone helps as available
DataAvailable weeklyManual year-end review
StakeholdersPayer, pharmacy, clinicians alignedSurprised after launch

Small pilots create evidence. Sweeping announcements create meetings.

30 / 32
WEBINARMTM in 2026: How Star Ratings, Med Sync, and AI Triage Are Rewriting the Service
Figure 590-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
31 / 32
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
32 / 32