Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40995402›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025

Unfairness toward rural beneficiaries in Medicare's hierarchical conditions categories score.

Ravi B Parikh, Kristin A Linn, Junning Liang, Sae-Hwan Park, Torrey Shirk, Deborah S Cousins, Caleb Hearn, Matthew Maciejewski, Amol S Navathe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ravi B ParikhWinship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Emory Midtown, Atlanta, GA 30307, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2692-6306
Kristin A LinnThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Junning LiangThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6324-6764
Sae-Hwan ParkThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5297-5502
Torrey ShirkThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4645-2405
Deborah S CousinsThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5468-9745
Caleb HearnThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5843-4926
Matthew MaciejewskiDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27701, United States.
Amol S NavatheThe Parity Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7182-4988

Funding

HSRD VA I01 HX003371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk adjustment is used in healthcare payment to mitigate the payer incentive to select for healthier populations and to improve fairness of quality assessment. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has used a spending-based metric, the CMS Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) score, to determine risk. However, the HCC score is potentially confounded by access and utilization differences, which are related to income and rurality. In this study, we investigate how related HCC scores are to mortality, a more objective indicator of clinical risk state, and whether that relationship differs between rural and urban populations. We examined calibration of the HCC spending model by calculating the predicted-to-observed spending ratio within deciles of the HCC score. We then compared urban and rural beneficiaries' clinical risk by comparing observed mortality rates within deciles. Our results demonstrate that the HCC model underpredicts mortality, while overpredicting spending, for rural beneficiaries. In contrast, it is well-calibrated for urban beneficiaries. These findings suggest that risk models based on HCCs may systematically disadvantage rural beneficiaries because HCC-based risk-adjusted spending may not fully account for baseline clinical risk.

Indexed as

health policyMedicarepayment reformrisk adjustmentrural health

Identifiers

PMID40995402
PMCPMC12456169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.