Katia Noyes1, Hangsheng Liu, Helena Temkin-Greener. 1. Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14620, USA. katia_noyes@urmc.rochester.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine financial implications of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC) risk-adjustment model on Medicare payments for individuals with comorbid chronic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: The study used 1992-2000 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and corresponding Medicare claims. Pairs of comorbidities were formed based on prior evidence about possible synergy between these conditions and activities of daily living (ADLs) deficiencies, and included heart disease and cancer, lung disease and cancer, stroke and hypertension, stroke and arthritis, congestive heart failure (CHF) and osteoporosis, diabetes and coronary artery disease, and CHF and dementia. METHODS: For each beneficiary, we calculated the actual Medicare cost ratio as the ratio of the individual's annualized costs to the mean annual Medicare cost for all people in the study. The actual Medicare cost ratios, by ADLs, were compared with HCC ratios under the CMS-HCC payment model. Using multivariate regression models, we tested whether having the identified pairs of comorbidities affected the accuracy of CMS-HCC model predictions. RESULTS: The CMS-HCC model underpredicted Medicare capitation payments for patients with hypertension, lung disease, CHF, and dementia. The difference between the actual costs and predicted payments was partially explained by beneficiary functional status and less-than-optimal adjustment for these chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: Information about beneficiary functional status should be incorporated in reimbursement models. Underpaying providers who care for populations with multiple comorbidities may provide severe disincentives for managed care plans to enroll such individuals and to appropriately manage their complex and costly conditions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine financial implications of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC) risk-adjustment model on Medicare payments for individuals with comorbid chronic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: The study used 1992-2000 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and corresponding Medicare claims. Pairs of comorbidities were formed based on prior evidence about possible synergy between these conditions and activities of daily living (ADLs) deficiencies, and included heart disease and cancer, lung disease and cancer, stroke and hypertension, stroke and arthritis, congestive heart failure (CHF) and osteoporosis, diabetes and coronary artery disease, and CHF and dementia. METHODS: For each beneficiary, we calculated the actual Medicare cost ratio as the ratio of the individual's annualized costs to the mean annual Medicare cost for all people in the study. The actual Medicare cost ratios, by ADLs, were compared with HCC ratios under the CMS-HCC payment model. Using multivariate regression models, we tested whether having the identified pairs of comorbidities affected the accuracy of CMS-HCC model predictions. RESULTS: The CMS-HCC model underpredicted Medicare capitation payments for patients with hypertension, lung disease, CHF, and dementia. The difference between the actual costs and predicted payments was partially explained by beneficiary functional status and less-than-optimal adjustment for these chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: Information about beneficiary functional status should be incorporated in reimbursement models. Underpaying providers who care for populations with multiple comorbidities may provide severe disincentives for managed care plans to enroll such individuals and to appropriately manage their complex and costly conditions.
Authors: J M Guralnik; A Z LaCroix; R D Abbott; L F Berkman; S Satterfield; D A Evans; R B Wallace Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1993-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gregory C Pope; John Kautter; Randall P Ellis; Arlene S Ash; John Z Ayanian; Lisa I Lezzoni; Melvin J Ingber; Jesse M Levy; John Robst Journal: Health Care Financ Rev Date: 2004
Authors: Lindsey M Philpot; Kristi M Swanson; Jonathan Inselman; William J Schoellkopf; James M Naessens; Bijan J Borah; Stephanie Peterson; Barbara Gladders; Nilay D Shah; Jon O Ebbert Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Amit Kumar; James E Graham; Linda Resnik; Amol M Karmarkar; Alai Tan; Anne Deutsch; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Amit Kumar; James E Graham; Linda Resnik; Amol M Karmarkar; Anne Deutsch; Alai Tan; Soham Al Snih; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2015-11-12
Authors: Jeffrey H Silber; Joseph G Reiter; Paul R Rosenbaum; Qingyuan Zhao; Dylan S Small; Bijan A Niknam; Alexander S Hill; Lauren L Hochman; Rachel R Kelz; Lee A Fleisher Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Allyson M Kats; John T Schousboe; Brent C Taylor; Tien N Vo; Peggy M Cawthon; Andrew R Hoffman; Lisa Langsetmo Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Igor Akushevich; Julia Kravchenko; Lucy Akushevich; Svetlana Ukraintseva; Konstantin Arbeev; Anatoliy I Yashin Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Shelley-Ann M Girwar; Robert Jabroer; Marta Fiocco; Stephen P Sutch; Mattijs E Numans; Marc A Bruijnzeels Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-23