The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changes to the benchmark methodology for accountable care organizations (ACOs) entering a renewal Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) agreement period in 2017 and thereafter. The 2017 methodology introduced a regional adjustment, where an ACO’s historical expenditures are adjusted upward or downward based on how their costs compare to regional expenditures on a risk-adjusted basis. Because the risk adjustment depends on an ACO’s benchmark period risk scores, accurate and complete diagnosis coding during the benchmark period now has a significant influence on the calculation of the ACO’s benchmarks in future performance years.
CMS uses benchmark year (BY) 3 risk scores for the calculation of the regional adjustment, scores that are based on diagnoses from claims incurred in BY2. MSSP ACOs anticipating renewals in 2020 need to be working this year (2018) to ensure accurate and complete coding. Similarly, 2019 is the critical year for 2021 renewals.
In this paper, Milliman’s Jonah Broulette, Noah Champagne, and Kate Fitch explain how BY3 risk scores affect the benchmark calculation for MSSP renewals, present an overview of the prior and new risk adjustment calculations in MSSP, and illustrate how the change can affect an ACO’s benchmark under various scenarios.
In April, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided guidance for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans regarding the scope of the “primarily health related” supplemental benefit definition. The guidance clarified the types of long-term care (LTC) benefits that MA plans can provide as a supplemental benefit for individuals needing assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental ADLs (IADLs).
These plans face various challenges as they contemplate offering LTC coverage under the new CMS definition for primarily health related supplemental benefits. In this paper, Milliman’s Chris Giese and Al Schmitz examine some of these challenges and explain what MA plans must consider to make choices that benefit both plans and consumers.
Operating Medicare Part C and Part D plans has become increasingly complicated. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and a growing number of rules and regulations added each year have heightened the complexity and associated compliance burden for the health insurance companies that sell and administer these plans.
Actuaries are instrumental in developing the bids that plan sponsors submit annually to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Those bids include a plan benefit package and Part C and Part D bid pricing tools. The bid submission also includes a set of supporting documentation describing how the financial projections were developed and demonstrating compliance with the many bidding rules.
During desk review, CMS independently confirms that the bids pass compliance tests. It is critical that plan sponsors understand the tests and confirm compliance before bids are submitted.
In this paper, Chris Girod and Shyam Kolli discuss a relatively narrow area of rules that is sometimes loosely referred to as actuarial compliance. This information can be useful for actuaries and other professionals who are tasked with understanding and following the many rules and regulations as they relate to Parts C and D.
A number of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) experienced significant, unanticipated changes in their 2017 performance year historical benchmarks and performance expenditures. These changes were not consistent in direction or magnitude. The exclusion of some nursing facility visits from MSSP assignment, effective in 2017, is the likely cause of the unanticipated changes.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now excludes nursing facility provider evaluation and management visit codes with place of service (POS) 31 as a qualifying claim type for beneficiary assignment. This assignment methodology change is referred to as the POS 31 exclusion. It started with the 2017 performance year and is also applied to the corresponding baseline years for all MSSP tracks.
Some ACOs likely lost and some likely gained costly nursing facility beneficiaries due to the new exclusion in both the baseline and performance years. The POS 31 exclusion only works as intended if POS codes correctly differentiate between Part A skilled nursing facilities and other nursing facility patient services. Unfortunately, our analysis across the Medicare 5% sample indicates that POS codes for nursing facility-based claims may not always be reliable.
To read more about the possible impact of these changes, read this article by Tia Sawhney, Kate Fitch, and Cory Gusland.
In January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced a new voluntary bundled payment model, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI Advanced). This model starts on October 1, 2018, and creates a replacement for the current BPCI initiative. This paper by Milliman consultants Samuel Bennett and Pamela Pelizzari outlines the major provisions of the newly announced BPCI Advanced model.
Each Medicare Advantage (MA) plan has an associated “value added,” defined as the value of benefits provided to a specific plan’s beneficiaries above traditional Medicare that are not funded through member premiums. This report by Milliman actuaries Julia Friedman and Brett Swanson highlights key changes in beneficiary premiums and benefits for the 2018 MA market. The report also examines the reasons for, and the magnitude of, the decrease in value added within the MA market between 2014 and 2016 as well as the increases in value added in 2017 and 2018. The report aims to assist Medicare Advantage organizations in making strategic decisions during 2019 bid preparations.