Health Care Industry
Industry: Email Alert RSS FeedRisk adjustment of Medicare capitation payments using the CMS-HCC model
Health Care Financing Review, Summer, 2004 by Gregory C. Pope, John Kautter, Randall P. Ellis, Arlene S. Ash, John Z. Ayanian, Lisa I. Iezzoni, Melvin J. Ingber, Jesse M. Levy, John Robst
INTRODUCTION
Medicare is one of the world's largest health insurance programs, with annual expenditures exceeding $200 billion. It provides health insurance to nearly 40 million beneficiaries entitled by elderly age, disability, or ESRD. Approximately 11 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in private managed care health care plans, with the rest in the traditional FFS program. The 1997 BBA modified the Medicare managed care (MMC) and other capitated programs, collectively called M+C. (1) Medicare pays private plans participating in M+C a monthly capitation rate to provide health care services to enrolled beneficiaries.
- More Articles of Interest
- Implementation of Risk Adjustment for Medicare
- Diagnosis-based risk adjustment for Medicare prescription drug plan payments
- Principal Inpatient Diagnostic Cost Group Model for Medicare Risk Adjustment
- Evaluating Alternative Risk Adjusters for Medicare
- Medicare Risk-Adjusted Capitation Payments: From Research to Implementation
Historically, capitation payments to MMC plans were linked to FFS expenditures by geographic area, with payments set at 95 percent of an enrollee's county's adjusted average per capita cost (AAPCC). The AAPCC actuarial rate cells were defined by: age, sex, Medicaid enrollment (indicating poverty), institutional status (for nursing home residents), and working aged status (for beneficiaries with employer-based insurance where Medicare is a secondary payer). Separate county factors were calculated for the aged and non-aged disabled (under 65 years), and at the State-level only (due to small numbers), for ESRD-entitled beneficiaries.
The AAPCC payment methodology explains only about 1-percent of the variation in expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries, and does not pay more for sicker people. Thus, research showed that the managed care program was increasing total Medicare Program expenditures, because its enrollees were healthier than FFS enrollees, and the AAPCC did not account for this favorable selection (Brown et al., 1993; Riley et al., 1996; Mello et al., 2003). Also, more money was not directed to plans enrolling sicker beneficiaries, or to plans specializing in treating high-cost populations, such as beneficiaries with particular chronic diseases or high levels of functional impairment.
The M+C program fundamentally changed the MMC payment method, including a mandate for health-based Medicare capitation payments by 2000. To support this mandate, the BBA required managed care organizations (MCOs) to report inpatient encounter data (i.e., records for each inpatient admission of a plan's enrollees noting, among other things, the beneficiaries' diagnoses) beginning in 1998. In 2000 CMS, which administers the Medicare Program, implemented the PIP-DCG model as a health-based payment adjuster (Pope et al., 2000a). This model estimates beneficiary health status (expected cost next year) from AAPCC-like demographics and the worst principal inpatient diagnosis (principal reason for inpatient stay) associated with any hospital admission. PIP-DCG-based payments were introduced gradually, with only 10 percent of total Medicare capitation payments adjusted by PIP-DCG factors in 2000. The other 90 percent of payments were still adjusted using a purely demographic (AAPCC-like) model.
The PIP-DCG model was intended as a transition, a feasible way to implement risk adjustment based on the readily available, already audited inpatient diagnostic data. Relying on inpatient diagnoses is the PIP-DCG model's major shortcoming, since only illnesses that result in hospital admissions are counted; MCOs that reduce admis-sions (e.g., through good ambulatory care) can end up with apparently healthier patients and lower payments. Congress's BIPA (2000) addressed the PIP-DCG limitations by requiring the use of ambulatory diagnoses in Medicare risk-adjustment, to be phased in from 2004 to 2007 at 30, 50, 75, and 100 percent of total payments. CMS began collecting encounter data from MCOs for the physician office and hospital outpatient settings (i.e., records of each enrollee visit to these providers with dates, procedures performed, diagnoses, etc.) in October 2000 and April 2001, respectively. However, following complaints from MCOs about the burden of reporting encounter data, CMS suspended data collection in May 2001, ultimately adopting a drastically streamlined data reporting strategy (discussed later).
CMS evaluated several risk-adjustment models that use both ambulatory and inpatient diagnoses, including ACGs (Weiner et al., 1996), the chronic disease and disability payment system (CDPS) (Kronick et al., 2000), clinical risk groups (CRGs) (Hughes et al., 2004), the clinically detailed risk information system for cost (CD-RISC) (Kapur et al., 2003), and DCG/HCCs (Pope et al, 2000b). CMS chose the DCG/HCC model for Medicare risk-adjustment, largely on the basis of transparency, ease of modification, and good clinical coherence. The DCG/HCC model, part of the same DCG family of models as the PIP-DCG, was developed with CMS funding by researchers at RTI International (2) and Boston University, with clinical input from physicians at Harvard Medical School. (3)
Prior to implementing Medicare risk-adjustment in 2004, the DCG/HCC model developers and CMS staff adapted the original model for consistency with CMS' simplified data collection, and for customized fit for Medicare subpopulations. The resulting CMS-HCC model reflects these Medicare-specific adaptations of the DCG/HCC model and provides a comprehensive framework for Medicare risk-adjustment.