Tag: medicare

A wave of CMS regulatory changes – a new paradigm for risk adjustment

By Vatica Health | April 10, 2023 | Compliance, Risk Adjustment

By Steve Zuckerman, cofounder and chief strategy officer, Vatica Health

Over the last several months there have been dramatic regulatory changes that will have a significant impact on Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made sweeping changes to both the audit process and underlying risk adjustment model, based on concerns with coding of conditions that the government claims are not credible predictors of future expenditures. These changes are against the backdrop of a wave of lawsuits and reports by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), alleging billions in overpayments emanating from legacy risk adjustment models such as chart reviews and home assessments.

Risk adjustment is the foundation of Medicare Advantage (MA). It’s a necessary but complicated process that ensures at-risk entities have sufficient funding to provide the appropriate care and resources to members based on their clinical profiles. As membership in MAOs has steadily increased over the last decade, so have the costs, leading to recent reforms. The first blow occurred on January 30, 2023, when CMS released the final rule on Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV Final Rule). This rule authorizes CMS to extrapolate RADV audit findings across a health plan’s entire membership base. The practical effect is that audits will be more frequent, and the new extrapolation methodology will likely result in much more significant fines and penalties (CMS estimates it will collect $4.7 billion more from plans over the next 10 years).  

The government’s next initiative to address coding errors and variations occurred on March 31, 2023, when CMS released the Calendar Year 2024 MA Capitation Rates and Part C and Part D Payment Policies (Final Rate Notice), which shifts diagnosis coding from ICD-9 to ICD-10 and removes over 2,000 codes from the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) model. Despite a massive industry-wide lobbying effort from both payers and providers, the new risk adjustment model was adopted. However, CMS did agree to a phased-in approach over three years which represents a meaningful concession.

Finally, on March 27, 2023, a bipartisan senate bill was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, entitled the “No Unreasonable Payments, Coding or Diagnoses for the Elderly Act.” This bill seeks to exclude diagnoses from chart reviews and health risk assessments in the calculations of a patient’s risk score. While the bill is in the early stages of consideration, it is consistent with the prevailing perspective and momentum away from legacy models and toward involving treating providers in the risk adjustment process.

The phased-in approach under the Final Rate Notice gives MAOs an important opportunity to review their risk adjustment solutions to make sure they will be effective under the new regulatory landscape. Here are a few practical strategies to consider:

  1. Provider-centricity will be more critical than ever. As we transition to value-based care, it is critical for payers and primary care physicians (PCPs) to work together to improve care, outcomes and costs. Accurate risk adjustment is essential to ensure appropriate care for MA patients, the fastest growing healthcare segment. Therefore, it stands to reason that payers and providers should collaborate on risk adjustment and quality initiatives. Further, given the loss of several valuable HCCs under the Final Rate Notice, it will be more important than ever to ensure the capture and clinical substantiation of all risk adjustable conditions. Legacy models are deficient, work around providers, disrupt continuity of care and don’t accompany patient care plans. A better approach is to empower the PCP with tools and resources to perform HCC coding because the PCP has an existing relationship with the patient, direct knowledge of the patient’s history, and real-time access to the patient’s medical records. Enhanced payer and provider collaboration in this regard can produce better clinical and financial performance.

  2. Reevaluate chart reviews and home assessments. Chart reviews and home assessments that lack connectivity to the PCP and don’t impact care are being targeted by the Department of Justice, CMS and OIG. Both may become obsolete if the “No Upcode Bill” is ultimately passed. Lack of clinical oversight and perverse incentives within these legacy risk adjustment models create an environment ripe for error and malfeasance. Another major concern is that they are not coordinated with treating providers and therefore have minimal impact on improving overall population health and value-based care performance. Consider ways to coordinate your chart review and home assessment programs with in-office solutions to keep PCPs at the center of care.

  3. Focus on accuracy. In light of the RADV Final Rule and the myriad of lawsuits and investigations, at-risk entities should invest in solutions that produce compliant yield. They should focus on improving accuracy and completeness of documentation and coding and include a QI process that reviews both additions and deletions to validate coding prior to submission. The shift to value-based care will put even more pressure on payers and providers to use compliance-centric solutions that are focused on improving the accuracy and completeness of diagnoses codes and documentation.

How Vatica Health can help

Vatica Health is the #1 rated risk adjustment and quality of care solution for health plans and health systems. By pairing expert clinical teams with cutting-edge technology, Vatica increases patient engagement and wellness, improves coding accuracy and completeness, identifies and facilitates the closure of care gaps, and enhances communication and collaboration between providers and health plans. The company’s unique provider-centric solution is used prospectively at the point of care, giving the provider control and ensuring continuity of care. The solution helps providers, health plans and patients achieve better outcomes, together. Vatica Health is trusted by many of the leading health plans and thousands of providers nationwide. For more information, visit vaticahealth.com.

The RADV final rule – strategies for mitigating the impact

By Vatica Health | March 13, 2023 | Compliance, Risk Adjustment

By Brian Flower, vice president of client solutions, Vatica Health

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released on January 30 the long-awaited final rule on Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV). The rule includes two significant modifications to the RADV audit methodology used by CMS to address overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans based on the submission of unsupported risk-adjusting diagnosis codes. First, the final rule authorizes CMS to extrapolate RADV audit findings beginning with payment year 2018 (not 2011-2017 as originally proposed) but did not elaborate on the extrapolation methodology. Second, a fee-for-service (FFS) adjuster will not be applied to RADV audit results, which was previously leveraged as a method of normalizing Medicare Part C payment errors against fee-for-service Medicare.

Industry leaders and health plan advocates have expressed concerns. Matt Eyles, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said, “Our view remains unchanged: this rule is unlawful and fatally flawed, and it should have been withdrawn instead of finalized. The rule will hurt seniors, reduce benefits for those who choose MA, and yield fewer plan options in the future.”

Health plans had similar reactions. “While we all can agree that improvements can be made, the failure to adjust for the legitimate differences between Medicare Advantage and original Medicare will have a detrimental effect on the seniors and people with disabilities who rely on the Medicare Advantage program,” the BCBS Association said. “CMS should have implemented a narrower solution aimed at a few bad actors, but instead this overreaching regulation will raise costs, reduce choice and make it more difficult for seniors and those with disabilities to effectively manage their health.”

As analysis of the rule continues, here are a few insights and practical strategies we have shared with our payer and provider clients.

  1. Assess your “thin HCC” risk
    Even while the focus remains on accurate submissions, some HCCs will be easier to substantiate than others in an audit. It is important to understand what percentage of your submissions and Risk Adjustment Factor share would qualify as “thin” (associated with only one or two encounters, especially if significant effort is required to obtain a valid medical record). Understanding your risk will inform decision making on remediation within and after a given measurement period, as well as financial planning. 
  2. Prioritize treating providers
    Invest in programs that inform treating providers and empower them to code directly and accurately in a consistent and submittable manner, in favor of downstream coder abstraction that is not associated with the patient’s care plan. Engaged providers will become better organic coders over time, and a structured process can ensure necessary supporting documentation is reliably collected. In addition, compliant conditions collected shortly after encounters are recognized earlier than retrospective coding, allowing plans to identify open revalidation candidates within, instead of after, the measurement period.
  3. Anchor on primary care
    The clinical benefits of encouraging a strong patient-to-PCP relationship are largely understood. Build a risk adjustment strategy that recognizes PCPs as partners in accuracy and quality capture as well. PCPs are your starting lineup for long-term chronic care management, medication compliance, specialty referrals and testing needed to fully assess many HCCs.
  4. Engage the member
    As scrutiny over coding escalates, payers and providers should collaborate on member engagement to ensure annual visits are performed so that chronic conditions can be properly managed, as well as documented. Medicare Annual Wellness Visits (AWVs) are a great opportunity to engage patients in preventive care. AWVs can also be used as a springboard to participate in health plan-sponsored programs designed to capture accurate clinical documentation and close risk and quality care gaps. This expanded scope, which Vatica Health has dubbed an “Enhanced Wellness Visit,” ensures appropriate care and reimbursement while enhancing performance under value-based care arrangements.
  5. Focus on accuracy above all else
    The final rule can result in more severe penalties, as well as myriad legal actions against payers and providers relating to alleged improper practices focused on boosting risk scores and associated payments. In light of this, at-risk entities should evaluate the compliance (real and perceived) of their current risk adjustment solutions. Consider solutions that produce compliant yield, focus on improving accuracy and completeness of documentation and coding, and include a QI process to validate coding prior to submission.

How Vatica Health can help

Vatica Health is the leading provider-centric risk adjustment and quality of care solution for health plans and health systems. By pairing expert clinical teams with cutting-edge technology, Vatica increases patient engagement and wellness, improves coding accuracy and completeness, identifies and facilitates the closure of care gaps, and enhances communication and collaboration between providers and health plans. The company’s unique solution helps providers, health plans, and patients achieve better outcomes, together. Vatica Health is trusted by many of the leading health plans and thousands of providers nationwide. For more information, visit https://www.vaticahealth.com/.

A solution for Medicare Advantage overpayments: Taking a provider-centric approach—not suspect analytics

By Admin | January 19, 2022 | Risk Adjustment, Value-Based Care

By Averel B. Snyder MD, CMO, CRC, CPC, CDEO, Vatica Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer

Driven by a flurry of lawsuits and Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports alleging billions in overpayments, government pressure is mounting for Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) to improve risk adjustment practices. Before we delve into how MAOs can effectively address the increased compliance scrutiny, it’s instructive to consider how we got here.

The Evolution of Risk Adjustment

The beginnings of Medicare Advantage (also known as Medicare Part C) go back to the 1970s. At that time, beneficiaries could receive managed care through private insurance companies. It was not until 1997 that the program, then called “Medicare Choice,” became official with the passing of the Balanced Budget Act. In 2003, Medicare Part D was created, and Medicare Choice plans were renamed “Medicare Advantage” plans. A major change in the program addressed favorable selection in Medicare Advantage and was phased in from 2004 to 2007. This introduced a new system for adjusting plan payments based to a large extent on severity of illness for each beneficiary. The system requires the health plans to submit to CMS the diagnosis data annually as each member is assumed to have no diagnostic conditions at the start of a new calendar year.

The new system created an industrywide frenzy to capture all diagnoses to optimize risk adjusted revenue.   This spurred new business models to help MAOs document members’ active medical conditions. These businesses include companies providing home health assessments, suspect analytics, gap closure programs, natural language processing, and machine learning to name a few. Many of these businesses focused more on increasing revenue at all costs without an equal, or greater, focus on improving the accuracy and completeness of coding and documentation.  Likewise, some health plans have developed internal coding programs that lack adequate safeguards to ensure the accuracy of conditions submitted to CMS.

The Challenge Around RADV Audits

As the government increases RADV audits, warning signs indicate that industry practices may need an overhaul. For example, a recent RADV audit of Plan A revealed that only 40% of 203 sampled enrollee-years had medical records supporting the diagnosis codes submitted to CMS. For the remaining 123 enrollee-years, the diagnosis codes were not supported in the medical records.  A RADV audit of Plan B found 43% of beneficiary risk scores invalid due to not supporting one or more diagnoses for the following reasons: the documentation did not support the associated diagnosis, or the diagnosis was unconfirmed. Similar reasons were responsible for the results of Plan C’s audit with only 54% of risk scores being valid.

The Problem with Retrospective Chart Reviews

The OIG released findings in a report dated December 2019 relating to supplemental diagnosis codes that were not linked to an encounter. This practice is used when submitting retrospective codes via a CMS submission in either Risk-Adjusted Processing System (RAPS) or an unlinked chart review through Encounter Data Processing System (EDPS). Of the submissions, it was found that $1.7 billion of the total $6.7 billion risk-adjusted payments were retrospective chart reviews. The OIG also found that within all chart review submissions, only 1% accounted for deletions for previous erroneous codes submitted. Regarding the supplemental unlinked chart reviews submitted, half were linked to only 10 hierarchical condition categories.

What I Learned Firsthand

I was a practicing clinical physician for 30 years before my 10-year involvement with Medicare Advantage. For 30 years, I would review the patient’s medical record prior to a face-to-face visit so that I could address those active medical conditions during the visit. I may have been more efficient, had a trained nurse or mid-level reviewed the record and presented me with all the active medical conditions, along with the documentation and clinical validation found within the medical record.

I strongly believe that had I been presented ‘lists’ composed of ‘suspect conditions’ or ‘other’ provider claims history, or lists generated by natural language processing, and machine learning, the abundance of false positive diagnoses generated by these techniques would have made me much more prone to err in documenting and coding inaccurate and non-compliant active medical conditions. On the other hand, a physician or mid-level provider responsible for patient care with access to mined data from that patient’s medical record prior to a face-to-face visit is the ideal process for Medicare risk adjustment.

What Comes Next

Due to a confluence of factors, including increased lawsuits, OIG reports claiming billions in overpayments, and negative RADV audit results. A strategy based on claims data and suspect analytics increases negative RADV exposure similar to the 40% to 50% unsupported conditions in recent RADV audits. MAOs should consider a physician-centric approach to risk adjustment, which should provide physicians with technology and expertly trained mid-level or nurse support. As a result, this will drive more accurate and complete coding and documentation to improve overall compliance and results.  

###

Dr. Averel Snyder is a cardiothoracic surgeon and is board certified in general surgery, critical care medicine and cardiothoracic surgery. He practiced heart surgery for over 25 years. He also has an AMA certification in age management, and several medical coding certifications (CRC, CDEO and CPC). Dr. Snyder is co-founder of Vatica Health, the leading PCP-Centric solution for risk adjustment and quality of care. To learn more about Vatica Health, please visit vaticahealth.com