ArticleHealth services research2026
Risk Adjustment in the Medicare Advantage Population Using Encounter Data.
Article in Health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk model using Medicare Advantage (MA) encounter data, as an initial step toward recalibrating risk-adjusted MA payments. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
settingA 20% sample of Traditional Medicare (TM) claims and MA encounter data for 2016-2022. Standardized fee schedules provide a measure of resource use in TM claims and MA encounters. STUDY
designOrdinary least squares regression replication of the CMS HCC version 28 model for relative resource use among community-dwelling, non-dual aged and disabled individuals. Robustness testing includes replication with version 22 model structure, sensitivity to MA chart review records, MA contracts with complete encounter data, and patterns of care during the COVID pandemic. PRINCIPAL
findingsUsing TM data from 2016 to 2022 results in modest changes in estimated coefficients and 1.7% lower average HCC scores, relative to 2018-2019 TM data used for CMS's HCC model v28. Using MA data result in 8.9% lower average scores than TM-based scores. The differences between MA- and TM-based HCC scores vary across the distribution of scores. When re-estimating HCC v28 coefficients, increasing trends in TM and MA diagnosis prevalence are associated with smaller (diluted) coefficients in TM and MA-based HCC risk models. Trends in medical technology can increase (e.g., high-cost targeted cancer therapies) or decrease (e.g., lower-cost biosimilars) HCC model coefficients, with evidence of larger technology-related decreases in an MA-based model. The decrease in MA-based scores does not create new disincentives to enroll beneficiaries who are racial/ethnic minorities or rural residents.
conclusionsWe make an important contribution to the policy debate about MA risk adjustment. Any changes in risk-adjusted MA payment need to be reviewed in the full context of MA payment policy and MA plan enrollment incentives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.