Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32925467›Full record

ReviewMedical care2021

Medicare Advantage Chart Reviews Are Associated With Billions in Additional Payments for Some Plans.

David J Meyers, Amal N Trivedi

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Identification of prevalent dementia in Medicare Advantage encounters, compared with rigorous cohort assessments.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Osteoporosis testing and treatment remain low in both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Validation of a Rule-Based ICD-10-CM Algorithm to Detect Fall Injuries in Medicare Data.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David J MeyersDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI.
Amal N Trivedi

Funding

VARIATIONS IN LIFE'S FINAL CHAPTERP01AG027296 · NIA · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI AMAL N. TRIVEDI, Kali St. Marie Thomas · 2007 to 2026
$38.9M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG027296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, private plans receive capitated payments that are adjusted based on their enrollees' number and type of clinical conditions. Plans have the ability to review charts to identify additional conditions that are not present in claims data, thereby increasing risk-adjusted payments. Recently the Government Accountability Office released a report raising concerns about the use of these chart reviews as a potential tool for upcoding.

objectivesTo measure the extent to which plans receive additional payments for chart reviews, and the variation in chart reviews across plans. RESEARCH

designIn this cross-sectional study we use 2015 MA Encounter data to calculate how many additional diagnoses codes were added for each enrollee using chart reviews. We then calculate how these additional diagnosis codes translate to additional reimbursements across plans. SUBJECTS: A total of 14,021,692 beneficiaries enrolled in 510 MA contracts in 2015. MEASURES: Individual and contract level hierarchical condition category codes, total plan reimbursement.

resultsChart reviews were associated with a $2.3 billion increase in payments to plans, a 3.7% increase in Medicare spending to MA plans. Just 10% of plans accounted for 42% of the $2.3 billion in additional spending attributed to chart review. Among these plans, the relative increase in risk score from chart review was 17.2%. For-profit plans engaged in chart reviews substantially more frequently than nonprofit plans.

conclusionsGiven the substantial and highly variable increase in payments attributable to chart review, further investigation of the validity of this practice and its implications for Medicare spending is needed.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesHealth Care CostsHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthMedicareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32925467
PMCPMC7855237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.