CMS itself has acknowledged there may be issues with whether it is adequately adjusting payments to Medicare Advantage plans to account for the costs of seriously ill patients. An Avalere analysis indicates the significance of the problem. (Avalere Report) Medicare does its risk adjustment primarily through Hierarchical Condition Categories modeling. The model has been revised, most recently in 2014, to add, delete or modify conditions. Avalere compared actual fee-for-service expenditures for beneficiaries with various chronic conditions to the costs projected by the CMS model. The researchers concluded that the model under-predicted costs for these beneficiaries by a total of 3.3% or $2.6 billion annually. On the other hand, the model appears to over-predict spending for people with no chronic conditions. In particular, the model forecast spending that was too low for rheumatoid arthritis by 15.3%, osteoarthritis by 12%, chronic kidney disease by 4% and dementia, which is not even included in the model, although it is one of the highest cost and fastest growing diseases. The model was even lower than actual spending for very high utilizers within each chronic condition. Some of the conditions with over-prediction of spending included heart attack by 11% and transplants by 15%. Some of the mismatch on under-prediction would seem to me to be driven by higher specialty drug spending for arthritis, spending that often is picked up in Part B. An interesting side fact of the analysis is that 57% of the Medicare population is said to have three or more chronic conditions. CMS has recently indicated that it will change the model and pay more with people who are dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. This subset of patients tends to have more chronic conditions and higher costs. Whether these changes fully address the model inaccuracies is uncertain, but they likely erase at least some of the dissonance between model and reality. CMS has a difficult task with its Medicare Advantage rate-setting. It wants to not pay plans more than it would be paying for the same beneficiary in the fee-for-service arm of the program, but it also wants to pay plans enough to entice them to enter or stay in the program. The risk-scoring model unfortunately is the main mechanism for that balancing and appears to have some weaknesses.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 28, 2024
More Economic News
The Congressional Budget Office is expressing increasing alarm at the federal deficit and debt situation.
Commentary
March 27, 2024
Funniest Story of the Day
Would would have thought that hail could destroy a solar farm? Certainly not the nut-case…
Commentary
March 27, 2024
What Is Going on in the US Debt Markets?
The Treasury seems determined to rely on massive amounts of short-term debt to finance our…