STAT Opinion Piece By MA Opponents Uses Misleading Statistics
A STAT opinion piece written by two well-known opponents of Medicare Advantage (MA), Paul Ginzburg and Steve Lieberman, again uses misleading statistics to attack the program and argues MA is exorbitantly overpaid.
The authors have some recommendations, such as a move to standardization and delinking MA rate setting from the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) program over time, that could be considered with a more dispassionate discourse on the program overall. But their misleading statistics on the overpayment issue makes it difficult to take their recommendations seriously.
They argue the MA overpayment is more than $80 billion or 22%, generated by “beneficial selection” and “upcoding.” I have argued there is some over-reimbursement and that some reforms need to be made on risk adjustment. And many others have dispelled what the critics here say and what MedPAC, the congressional policy arm, constantly reports. Another misleading statistic from the authors: they argue MA profits are more than double the employer-based market. We know this is just not the case right now given the publicly disclosed financials of MA plans.
It is ironic that, just as the STAT editorial was written, another study from management consulting firm BRG finds that the new risk model being phased in MA from 2024 to 2026 will actually lead to lower MA payments vs. FFS. I peg the risk model changes as worth about 7% of revenue once fully in. There are other reforms that should be made, such as ending diagnosis code submissions in risk adjustment tied only to health risk assessments and manual chart reviews. But all of this in toto is far less than the critics’ $80 million plus overpayment numbers. BRG also pokes holes in MedPAC’s calculations and approach, which are similar to the critics.
In essence, some of the MA overpayment is being programmed out already through the risk model change, yet critics of MA look past this in favor of political arguments. It is clear that the goal of critics is to undermine MA and augment benefits in and grow the tired, fraud-ridden, and inefficient FFS system. That would be a hugely costly mistake.
(Some articles may require a subscription.)
Additional articles: https://www.statnews.com/2024/09/25/medicare-advantage-reform-cms-election-trump-harris/ and https://insidehealthpolicy.com/daily-news/brg-analysis-ma-pay-declines-compared-ffs-when-accounting-ra-change
#medicareadvantage #riskadjustment #overpayments
https://ecommunication.thinkbrg.com/22/2684/uploads/comparing-ma-payments-to-ffs-spending-during-risk-model-transitions.pdf