MAOs use chart reviews to increase risk-adjusted payments is seen as inappropriate by the OIG.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a study that should cause a chill to run down the spines of hospital and Medicare Advantage plan leaders alike. The study was published on Dec. 13, 2019.
First, you have to understand how risk scoring works, and why hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans could even collude to increase reimbursement for both entities.
Medicare Advantage plans are reimbursed via a base “per patient day” (PPD) amount, adjusted for the individual weighted score computed using Hierarchical Condition Codes (HCCs). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) takes all of the diagnosis codes submitted on paid claims and uses them to adjust how much they think a patient with those codes should cost on a daily basis.
Hospitals are paid based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) assigned, based on the same diagnosis codes.
Here is where it gets crazy. Since most contracts between hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans are based on Medicare DRGs, both the hospital and the Medicare Advantage plan increase reimbursement by coding (or maybe over-coding) certain diagnosis codes.
Let’s look at why the OIG performed this audit, in their own words:
“We undertook this study because of concerns that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) may use chart reviews to increase risk-adjusted payments inappropriately. Unsupported risk-adjusted payments are a major driver of improper payments in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, which provided coverage to 20 million beneficiaries in 2018 at a cost of $210 billion.”
What is the OIG talking about, with chart reviews to increase reimbursement to the Medicare Advantage plan? Most plans have teams of “risk adjustment auditors” that review claims using “suspect” data analysis. The plans look at billings from the last Medicare Advantage plan for patients, medications the patient may be taking, and computer modeling to see if the patient is really sicker than the billed claims data shows. If they confirm that the patients may have other diagnoses not listed on the billed data, they notify the providers, asking them to rebill claims with the new diagnosis found during the “audit.” That’s good news for the plan, and good news for the provider, in most cases. It is bad news for Medicare.
This is how the OIG described its audit process:
“We analyzed 2016 MA encounter data to determine the 2017 financial impact of diagnoses reported only on chart reviews, and not on any service record in the encounter data that year. We also analyzed CMS’s responses to a structured questionnaire to identify action taken by CMS to review the impact of chart reviews on MA payments.”
What did the OIG find?
“Our findings highlight potential issues about the extent to which chart reviews are leveraged by MAOs (Medicare Advantage Organizations) and overseen by CMS. Based on our analysis of MA encounter data, we found that MAOs almost always used chart reviews as a tool to add, rather than to delete, diagnoses – over 99 percent of chart reviews in our review added diagnoses. In addition, diagnoses that MAOs reported only on chart reviews (and not on any service records) resulted in an estimated $6.7 billion in risk-adjusted payments for 2017. CMS based an estimated $2.7 billion in risk-adjusted payments on chart review diagnoses that MAOs did not link to a specific service provided to the beneficiary – much less a face-to-face visit.”
What should hospitals do?
We think that hospitals should perform regular coding audits and compare findings between Medicare Advantage, standard Medicare, and managed care payers. We specifically think that providers need to request the results of coding audits performed by Medicare Advantage plans and to notify the compliance officer of the hospital of any changes made by the plan. Providers should also make sure that contracts with MA plans require the plan to disclose the results of any claim audits performed.
Read the OIG report: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-03-17-00470.asp
While the coverage of telehealth is definitely a good thing, it has caused needless confusion. I would like to address a little of that today.
Compliance teams get nervous when rules are not followed. And when an expired form is used, they get really nervous. Thankfully, there is one fewer
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis sequencing continues to challenge even experienced coding and CDI professionals, with evolving guidelines, documentation gaps, and payer scrutiny driving denials and data inconsistencies. In this webcast, Payal Sinha, MBA, RHIA, CCDS, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, CCDS-O, CRC, CRCR, provides clear guideline-based strategies to accurately code sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, assign POA indicators, clarify the relationship between infection and organ dysfunction, and align documentation across teams. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen audit defensibility, improve first-pass accuracy, support appeal success, reduce denials, and ensure accurate quality reporting, empowering organizations to achieve consistent, compliant sepsis coding outcomes.
Expert presenters Kathy Pride, RHIT, CPC, CCS-P, CPMA, and Brandi Russell, RHIA, CCS, COC, CPMA, break down complex fracture care coding rules, walk through correct modifier application (-25, -57, 54, 55), and clarify sequencing for initial and subsequent encounters. Attendees will gain the practical knowledge needed to submit clean claims, ensure compliance, and stay one step ahead of payer audits in 2026.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
In this timely session, Stacey Shillito, CDIP, CPMA, CCS, CCS-P, CPEDC, COPC, breaks down the complexities of Medical Decision Making (MDM) documentation so providers can confidently capture the true complexity of their care. Attendees will learn practical, efficient strategies to ensure documentation aligns with current E/M guidelines, supports accurate coding, and reduces audit risk, all without adding to charting time.
Join Ronald Hirsch, MD, FACP, CHCQM for The PEPPER Returns – Risk and Opportunity at Your Fingertips, a practical webcast that demystifies the PEPPER and shows you how to turn complex claims data into actionable insights. Dr. Hirsch will explain how to interpret key measures, identify compliance risks, uncover missed revenue opportunities, and understand new updates in the PEPPER, all to help your organization stay ahead of audits and use this powerful data proactively.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
