We recently sat down with Medicare experts from HMA and Wakely to break down the most important and most pressing developments shaping the future of Medicare Advantage, including the latest updates from CMS on Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits, specifically the two major announcements released on May 21st and May 30th that are sending waves through the payer and provider communities alike.
On May 21st, CMS issued new guidance related to extrapolation and how sampling methodology and medical record review standards will evolve under the updated RADV Final Rule.
Then, just nine days later, on May 30th, CMS released additional operational instructions that may tighten reporting windows, add new thresholds for error rate evaluation, and expand expectations around provider documentation compliance—particularly for retrospective reviews and risk adjustment data sourcing.
To help unpack this fast-moving landscape, we’ve spoken with our Medicare experts, Tony Pistilli, Ryan McEntee and David Nater, each bringing a unique lens to the RADV conversation.
What was your first thought when you read CMS’s latest RADV update last week?
Tony – My main takeaway was that CMS was really upping the game in terms of what payers need to do to not only do the appropriate measures to optimize their risk scores but then audit claims that are coming in from providers. So this isn’t just a matter of ensuring that risk score optimization strategies are appropriate, not overstepping, but also adding a new administrative task of auditing claims that you’re getting from providers that may have errors in them.
Can you quickly summarize what CMS actually changed in this latest announcement, and what’s most significant about it compared to the previous announcement in November last year and previous RADV audits?
Ryan – The core of these changes, prior to the old way of doing RADV is, of course the extrapolation methodology that CMS will be introducing, as well as the elimination of the fee-for-service adjuster, which is going to be huge. Then we can move on to that with the announcement of enhancements of staffing and technology.
It’s going to be very interesting how CMS looks to utilize that. As well as every single contract being audited that is eligible are probably the focus points within this, and with CMS they give you a little, and then you have to look into it a lot, so I think there’s still a lot more to come related to these initial announcements that are coming through.
What exactly does this mean from a health plan perspective in the near term – especially for those already in the trenches of risk adjustment audits or pre-audit reviews?
David – Most financial teams use claims as forecasting and having concurrent risk adjustment processes is really the optimal approach to make sure that there are no surprises on the financial end for month end and quarterly reports. Making sure that plans are getting ahead of this cleanup now is imperative to mitigate those financial impacts, and then on a concurrent level, optimizing the operational processes ensures just better forecasting and overall better financial outcomes.
With the latest announcements regarding RADV, what are the current unknowns at play related to this new look RADV strategy?
Tony – On a technical level, the key things we don’t know are how CMS is going to sample claims – They’ve indicated that they’re going to move from random sampling to targeted sampling – and we don’t know how they’re going to extrapolate that. So, if you do a targeted sample, do you extrapolate that just to a targeted extrapolation, or do you extrapolate that to the whole plan? And that’s your range of low impact to high impact.
Similarly, we don’t know what confidence interval CMS is going to use. There’s been some indications of 99% in the past. That’s going to be very conservative, but 95 or 90% would be plausible confidence intervals as well, and that gets you to much more aggressive recovery rates. There are a few other small technical issues that I don’t think will have as big of an impact, but those are the three ones that we’re really looking to CMS to figure out.
What’s the one thing you think plans need to prioritize immediately in light of this update – and what’s the trap they need to avoid?
Ryan – I think plans need to very quickly understand their exposure. One of the ways to do that—and one of the ways we are engaging our clients—is to run analytics looking at these high-risk codes. There are also certain indicators you can look at to see what needs to be reviewed and what has high error rates, based on previous OIGYG and CMS audits. From there, you need to get a quick plan in place to document and assess whether or not those codes are relevant. If they are not, submit them before the aggressive timeline CMS has put in place.
As I mentioned, there are less than two weeks to submit deletes for 2019 dates of service, and every 7 days after that thereafter for each payment year. So, the time to act is now. You need to quickly understand where your risk is and take action. And if you don’t have those capabilities, engage with strong consulting groups or partners who can support you through this.
What closing thoughts or takeaways would you like to share?
Ryan – If I put myself on the plan side, I see both a short-term, immediate plan and a long-term sustainability plan.
That short-term immediate plan is action to act NOW. Whether that is engaging with a partner, or engaging in your internal team, you need to be able to highlight where your risk areas are. Take action on this prior to CMS coming in and acting for you. What’s just as important is setting up a long-term roadmap to be able to mitigate this risk going forward.
To look at it concurrently, do you have the right analytics in place? Do you have the correct staffing in place to be able to look at these risk codes coming in? Assess them and send the necessary deletes coupled with closing the loop related to feedback. Are you pushing that information and education back to your physician groups? Because they’re the most important part to this. You need to be able to educate, communicate and meet with your providers to explain how important the act of documentation and coding is and have this at the forefront of every one of your initiatives and incentive programs going forward in value-based care.
David – HMA and Wakely are well-positioned to help in both the short-term and the long-term approach, and ideally both. Organizations need to act quickly and align their steady-state processes to ensure that they’re managing both the exposure at the health plan level and with the providers, especially those in risk-based arrangements.
Tony – Plans need to be thinking of the RADV risk here, apart from the risk that they might see from chart reviews and other add activity. You may be a plan that’s relatively unaggressive in chart reviews and adds that think “we’re not risk here”, but CMS has now assigned you risk for all the claims that providers are submitting, and you need to be ensuring that those are correct as well.
There’s a wholly separate administrative task here that plans have now assumed responsibility for, and your revenue is just as at risk for not doing the RADV as it is for being inappropriate in your chart reviews and adds and whatnot. So, you really want to be thinking of this as two separate things and acting from both fronts.
Check out our full conversation.
