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

IF 2.7
Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2025-09-23 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf167
Ravi B Parikh, Kristin A Linn, Junning Liang, Sae-Hwan Park, Torrey Shirk, Deborah S Cousins, Caleb Hearn, Matthew Maciejewski, Amol S Navathe
{"title":"Unfairness toward rural beneficiaries in Medicare's hierarchical conditions categories score.","authors":"Ravi B Parikh, Kristin A Linn, Junning Liang, Sae-Hwan Park, Torrey Shirk, Deborah S Cousins, Caleb Hearn, Matthew Maciejewski, Amol S Navathe","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 9","pages":"qxaf167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12456169/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在医疗保险的等级条件类别中,对农村受益人的不公平得分。
在医疗保健支付中使用风险调整来减轻支付者选择健康人群的动机,提高质量评估的公平性。医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)使用了一种基于支出的指标,即CMS分层条件类别(HCC)评分来确定风险。然而,HCC评分可能会因与收入和农村有关的获取和利用差异而混淆。在这项研究中,我们调查了HCC评分与死亡率(临床风险状态的一个更客观的指标)的相关性,以及这种关系在农村和城市人群之间是否存在差异。我们通过计算HCC评分的十分位数内的预测与观察支出比率来检查HCC支出模型的校准。然后,我们通过比较观察到的十分位数内的死亡率来比较城市和农村受益人的临床风险。我们的研究结果表明,HCC模型低估了农村受益人的死亡率,而高估了支出。相比之下,它对城市受益者进行了很好的校准。这些发现表明,基于hcc的风险模型可能系统性地使农村受益人处于不利地位,因为基于hcc的风险调整支出可能不能完全考虑基线临床风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信