Following Up on the 2016 CMS Advance Notice

Mintz Levin Alerts MA Organizations About Fraud Risks 

In the article written by Tara Swenson of Mintz Levin and published in the National Law Review recently, there are some worthwhile points to note.  First, CMS is now viewing the population of Medicare Advantage members as being no different than those beneficiaries in Original FFS Medicare, on the whole.  Therefore, the logic goes, the aggregate payment level show be equivalent to the "old school" AAPCC model used before the year 2000 (BIPA era, for the old schoolers).  

Second, CMS has moved to establish two critical pieces of policy regarding in-home assessments in order to tackle potential abuse on the part of MAOs that might try to solely mine for revenue without taking care of the healthcare conditions they might uncover in the visit.  One piece is the publication of the CDC model health risk assessment form as the recommended model for 2016.  The other piece is the publication of "best practices" in terms of follow-up treatnment, evaluation, management or consideration that affects the providers' care of the patient.  With these two tools, CMS hopes to drive monitoring, tracking and reporting to evaluate the legitimacy of the in-home program.  

Finally, Ms. Swenson goes on to suggest a linkage to the Department of Justice, FBI and OIG action against a capitated physician in Florida who allegedly "upcoded" diagnoses in order to boost his financial take home for patients under contract from a Medicare Advantage plan.  

It is worthwhile to read, digest and ponder the warnings that Ms. Swenson posted in this article.  The critical questions will have to be answered by every MAO: 

  1. Are the diagnoses we are capturing and reporting going to pass the validation test by CMS standards?  This includes not only actions by the MAO itself but those taken on behalf of the MAO (e.g., providers and vendors) 
  2. Do we have the mechanisms in place to monitor, report and track the in-home cases, as required, and their logical extensions into follow-up in the doctors' offices?  Will those charts reflect documentation that substantiates the diagnoses captured and reported as would be the case in a RADV audit? 
  3. In the process, are we also "looking both ways" and deleting diagnoses that do not validate and meet the threshold established?  
  4. Overall, what are we doing to ensure that our providers know how to properly document in order for proper validation to take place?


Categories: Risk Adjustment
Tags: advance notice, CMS, OIG, RADV

Log on to Your Rise Account

Forgot your password?
Create an Account


Latest Posts

CMS Gives EDPS Transition Some Breathing Room

CMS published the final call letter for 2018 yesterday, April 3, which included a welcome accouncement regarding the transition from RAPS to EDPS-based RAF scores. Citing numerous public comments on the subject, CMS throttled back the speed with which they plan to switch over to an encounter-based methodology. Instead of the blended rates originally contemplated, they announced that the more modest blend of 85% RAPS to 15% EDPS would be used in 2018, allowing more time to improve the reliability of the encounter data methods. While the RISE data collaboration study was not cited, we believe that the educational value of our study, along with our communication and advocacy of a more moderate approach by CMS, contributed to the confidence with which plans and other interested parties spoke up during the open comment period. Once again, we owe thanks to the folks at Avalere and Inovalon, as well as at AHIP, for the collegial and professional collaboration. Also, we want to thank the health plans that actively participated in our study for making this work possible. ...
Read More

Take Aways from RISE Nashville Summit

The 11th Annual RISE Nashville Summit continued the event’s tradition of yearly growth. The return to downtown Nashville was widely applauded by attendees, who were glad to be back near Broadway’s nighttime funk and fun. While festive, this year's event occurred in the wake of the new administration in Washington, D.C., and the healthcare themes surrounding the "repeal and replace" of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) cast a long shadow. In contrast to the upbeat, confident notes struck by last year’s keynote speaker Senator Tom Daschle, this year’s sobering keynote address by Howard Fineman, NBC/MSNBC political analyst, The Huffington Post Media Group global editorial director, and bestselling author, was an assessment of the pluses and minuses of our new president. Mr. Fineman's remarks indicated that the political alliances in power will seek to undo what Senator Daschle viewed as "irreversible” a year ago....
Read More

Upcoming Conference


Qualipalooza: The 2nd Annual RISE Quality Leadership Summit 

This unique event incorporates three conferences presented side-by-side: the Star Ratings Strategic Planning Forum, the HEDIS Forum, and the CAHPS, HOS & Member Survey Forum. Register for one conference for an in-depth examination of a single area, or design your own event by opting for the all-access pass and choosing the sessions from each conference which correspond exactly to your interests.


Upcoming Webinar

The Impact of Quality Incentive Models in Medicaid Markets


Thirty-one of our fifty states now have Medicaid managed care, and several markets are expected to implement managed care in the next few years. More than $160B in Medicaid spending occurs through the Managed Care Organizations. As more and more states seek to do more with less, increasing accountability for health quality outcomes is placed on health plans. Join this webinar to learn the typical quality payment approaches states use, issues often faced by health plans under each model and what states are expected to do with payment models tied to quality performance in light of near term Medicaid reform efforts.


Connect With Us

Copyright © 2014 Resource Initiative & Society for Education. All rights reserved.