Perhaps the biggest headline from the largely uneventful 2023 final rate notice for Medicare Advantage and Part D plans is that they will, on average, receive a slightly higher-than-anticipated pay bump next year. Also, risk scores will not be reduced by any more than the statutory minimum adjustment of 5.9%. However, MAOs are still waiting on the final version of an MA and Part D rule containing some provisions that could impact 2023 bids, and sources at press time suggested its release was imminent.
With the April 4 release of the 2023 Rate Announcement, CMS finalized most aspects of its rate proposal for next year but increased the effective growth rate from 4.75% to 4.88%, bringing the expected average change in revenue to 8.50% — one of the highest updates in recent history. CMS maintained an estimated risk score coding trend of 3.5% and a fee-for-service normalization factor — which is used to offset the trend in risk scores and keep the FFS risk score at the same average level over time — of -0.81%. CMS also said it would continue to apply an across-the-board adjustment of 5.9% to offset the effects of higher levels of coding intensity in MA relative to FFS Medicare. That coding intensity adjustment generated much discussion in comment letters on the Advance Notice.
Anthem, Inc.’s pending contract to serve retired New York City workers and their dependents — which would have nearly doubled the insurer’s Medicare Advantage Employer Group Waiver Plan (EGWP) enrollment — is in peril. Just days before its planned start, the city’s comptroller refused to register the proposed contract and turned it back to Mayor Eric Adams (D) for a revised cost estimate, putting the already delayed transition to a retiree MA plan on hold.
“Due to the legal and budgetary uncertainties that remain while litigation over the City’s contract with Anthem Insurance Companies continues, the Comptroller’s office does not have sufficient information to register the proposed Medicare Advantage Plan contract at this time,” New York City Comptroller Brad Lander explained in a March 30 statement posted to the comptroller’s website. Subsequently, the city’s Office of Labor Relations posted that the transition to the NYC Medicare Advantage Plus Plan would not be implemented as of April 1 as planned and that all retirees “will remain in their current plans until further notice.”
Although Medicare Advantage is outpacing other payer types in the move from volume to value, there are still ways the program could hasten the shift to value-based care, experts agreed during a recent panel of the AHIP 2022 National Conference on Health Policy and Government Programs. These range from the increased use of Z-codes to document social determinants of health to the adoption of a Star Ratings measure that would influence more risk sharing between MA organizations and their providers.
According to the Health Care Payment & Learning Action Network survey, which is conducted in partnership with AHIP and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, 58% of MA payments to providers in 2020 were through an Alternative Payment Model (APM) such as the Shared Savings Program or an episodic/bundled care payment model, and 29.3% of such payments were for a risk-bearing arrangement. That’s compared with nearly 43% of payments through APMs in Traditional Medicare and roughly 35% in both commercial and Medicaid plans.
Value-based payment models can significantly lower acute care usage among Medicare beneficiaries, suggested a study of nearly 500,000 Medicare Advantage members published last month in JAMA Network Open. The study, which analyzed data collected between December 2017 and January 2019, was led and reviewed by the Humana Healthcare Research Human Subject Protection Office. (Humana is the second-largest MA insurer in the U.S). MA beneficiaries participating in two-sided risk models had lower rates of hospitalizations, observation stays and emergency department visits compared with fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare enrollees. This effect was particularly striking in avoidable acute care use — the two-sided risk model was associated with a 15.6% reduction in avoidable hospitalizations. Researchers noted a lack of significant differences between FFS and upside-only risk models, which “suggests that downside financial risk may play a key role in effective value-based payment arrangements.”
Aligning with the Biden administration’s goal of improving health equity, the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) last year unveiled a “strategy refresh” that included health equity as a key objective in testing models of care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Another strategic goal was to increase the number of beneficiaries in a care relationship where the provider is accountable for quality and total cost of care, with the objective of having all Medicare beneficiaries aligned with accountable entities by 2030.
Addressing a few recent changes to existing models, CMMI Director Elizabeth Fowler, Ph.D., said the agency’s goal in redesigning the Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC) Model was to reorient it toward provider participants and respond to feedback from stakeholders. The model had been criticized for furthering the privatization of Medicare and allowing for-profit entities to manage fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries without their full knowledge and consent.
Meet Our Reporters
Meet Our Reporters