Through blogs and comments, patients and experts explore what it takes to find good health care and make the most of it.

An Advantage for Medicare Patients or Just for Health Plans?


article image
Follow us on Facebook

That the government overpays sellers of Medicare Advantage plans is well known in Beltway circles even if much of the public remains unaware. Just a few weeks ago, two Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) researchers posted new findings on the Medicare and Medicaid Research Review, a peer-reviewed online journal supported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), documenting how some insurance companies are overbilling the government and have been doing so for years.

Fred Schulte, a senior writer for the Center for Public Integrity who has been covering overbilling in the Medicare Advantage program, told me he spotted the new study while he was just cruising around the CMS website. "Despite its broad implications for Medicare spending, the study by HHS researchers Richard Kronick and W. Pete Welch has attracted scant notice in Washington," Schulte wrote.

The Medicare Advantage program, which is growing rapidly, costs the government some $160 billion a year, so waste in the program can add up to real money. Recall that Medicare Advantage plans were promoted as a way for private insurers to provide the basic Medicare benefits and to save the government money by providing care coordination, especially for seniors with multiple chronic conditions. Generous payments from the government have allowed insurers to offer low- or no-premium plans and lots of extras, like dental care and eyeglasses, which help account for their popularity. About 16 million seniors are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, almost one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries.

In June, the Center for Public Integrity published the results of its investigation showing that billions of tax dollars are misspent each year because of billing errors linked to payment tools called risk scores, which are at the heart of the recently published HHS study. In order to prevent Medicare Advantage health plans from trying to avoid covering high-risk participants, Medicare has been using a payment scheme based on diagnostic codes and adjusting payments to the plans accordingly. Health plans get more money for beneficiaries who need more care.

But as the General Accounting Office has pointed out, this payment method designed to solve one problem has simply created another: Medicare Advantage plans have learned to game the system to pad their reimbursements, a process called upcoding. That's hardly surprising given the history of fraud and other unsavory practices in the program on the part of providers and insurers.

The HHS researchers found unexpectedly high risk scores for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries for conditions such as alcohol and drug dependence, complications of diabetes, and depression. For example, they found that drug and alcohol dependence is as much as eight times more common in the Medicare Advantage health plans that upcode the most than it was among beneficiaries who remained in traditional Medicare. The researchers also concluded that people who join Medicare Advantage plans are generally healthier than those who remain in the traditional fee-for-service program.

Will the HHS researchers’ study be a wake-up call for CMS and the Obama administration to finally crack down on the overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans? Remember, that was something the president vowed to do when he was campaigning for office. But in the last two years, each time the agency proposed cutting payments to Medicare Advantage plans, lobbying campaigns by the industry won out and those proposed cuts turned into payment increases.

Maybe there's another route to cleaning up this mess: transparency. The researchers did not name the companies noted for upcoding the health risks and conditions of beneficiaries, but suggest that these are insurers with lots of Medicare customers. One of the highest billers had more than 200,000 policyholders. There's always a chance public shame will help do the trick.

More Blog Posts by Trudy Lieberman

author bio

Trudy Lieberman, a journalist for more than 40 years, is an adjunct associate professor of public health at Hunter College in New York City. She had a long career at Consumer Reports specializing in insurance, health care, health care financing and long-term care. She is a longtime contributor to the Columbia Journalism Review and blogs for its website,, about media coverage of health care, Social Security and retirement. As a William Ziff Fellow at the Center for Advancing Health, she contributes regularly to the Prepared Patient Blog. Follow her on twitter @Trudy_Lieberman.

Tags for this article:
Medicare   Inside Healthcare   Health Insurance   Medical/Hospital Practice   Medicare/Medicaid   Trudy Lieberman   Health Care Cost   End-of-Life Planning   Pay for your Health Care   Aging Well  

Comments on this post
Please note: CFAH reserves the right to moderate all comments posted to the Prepared Patient® Blog. Any inappropriate postings will be removed.

Dennis Byron says
August 21, 2014 at 5:12 AM

The writer of this article is amazed that so little attention has been paid to the breathless Center of Integrity articles. Supposedly according to the Center of Integrity (make you want to re-read "Animal Farm?") "Despite its broad implications for Medicare spending, the study by HHS... has attracted scant notice in Washington."

Maybe the scant attention is because the "HHS study" is not a study. Read the HHS document and you find that it is really kind of a white paper written on such a trivial subject that no one at HHS or anywhere else except the Center for Integrity wants to make it into a study. And the white paper actually says:

"Medicare has taken significant steps to mitigate the effects of (risk-score) coding intensity (that began in 2008) in (public Part C Medicare Advantage) MA, including implementing a 3.4% coding intensity adjustment in 2010 and revising the risk adjustment model (again) in 2013 and (again in) 2014. Given the continuous relative increase in the average MA risk score, further policy changes will likely be necessary."

The white paper also notes Medicare

" also recovering over payments identified by risk adjustment data validation (RADV) audits of selected MA contracts."

So this whole story is about a trivial policy begun in 2008, that didn't seem to be working so the rules were changed in 2010, 2013 and 2014, and the government is getting any money it overpaid back... if such overpayments are discovered (about which there is some doubt). I guess that's why no one is paying attention. The GAO has said less than 1% of public Part C Medicare Advantage program spending is involved and can be clawed back.