Session 107 PD, Value of ACA Coding Improvement: Market Effects. Moderator: Douglas T. Norris, FSA, MAAA. Presenters: Ksenia Whittal, FSA, MAAA

Transcription

1 Session 107 PD, Value of ACA Coding Improvement: Market Effects Moderator: Douglas T. Norris, FSA, MAAA Presenters: Douglas T. Norris, FSA, MAAA Ksenia Whittal, FSA, MAAA SOA Antitrust Disclaimer SOA Presentation Disclaimer

2 Ksenia Whittal, FSA, MAAA Doug Norris, FSA, MAAA, PhD Value of ACA Coding Improvement: Market Effects Tuesday, October 25, 2016

3 Today s topics Introduction of the analysis question Summary of results and practical considerations Detailed analysis and findings Methodology and Assumptions Carrier market share vs. transfer amount potential Market size vs. transfer amount potential Market average risk score vs. transfer amount potential Carrier average risk score vs. transfer amount potential Impact of market premium, ARF, AV, GCF and IDF on change in transfer amount 2

4 Introduction ACA risk adjustment necessitates coding optimization and improvement efforts, which are impacted by: Budget neutrality of RA program (unlike MA risk adjustment) Limitations of HHS-HCC risk adjuster model Market pressure of keeping up with competitors efforts Growth of the coding optimization industry (and their fees) 3

5 ACA risk adjustment methodology Risk Adjustment Transfer Formula Transfer = Actual risk Priced risk, relative to the market average 4

6 Question to answer Given the diversity of carriers and markets across the country, is it likely that every carrier will derive the same relative value out of coding improvement efforts? 5

7 ACA risk adjustment it s all about (market) balance 6

8 2014 vs 2015 Results What has changed in 2015? Market average premium, increased Market average risk score, increased Market size, increased Age of market participants 7

9 Coding improvement considerations (okay, in two slides) What are some ways that carriers can find underdiagnosed members in their population? For a near term coding improvement strategy, consider the following: Be realistic as to the gain that should be expected in a carrier s risk score Do you have prior risk adjustment experience (such as Medicare Advantage)? Are you a new market entrant? Simply finding a potential diabetic is not enough to improve one s risk score. potential diabetic actual diabetic right diagnosis codes 8

10 Coding improvement what s in it for me? Once your own potential for coding improvement has been estimated, evaluate the potential for transfer by examining: A carrier s market share carriers with the lowest market share gain the most from coding optimization. Carriers operating in smaller sized ACA markets stand to gain potentially greater return on investment (PMPM basis). However, carriers in smaller markets (with similar market share) have smaller populations, and so the ability to increase one s own risk score is less certain. The higher the market average risk score, the smaller the impact of additional HCC(s) coefficient(s) on ultimate transfer amount. The addition of an HCC has a moderately greater impact on a carrier with a lower starting risk score relative to the market average score. Prioritizing the coding improvements for members in areas with higher cost geographic areas and for members enrolled in higher metal level products will give a carrier the greatest return. 9

11 Coding efforts do the benefits outweigh the costs? Consider opportunity cost of coding improvement. To estimate the value of coding improvement efforts, one should estimate an expected transfer increase amount and use it as a benchmark to compare against the cost of doing so on a consistent basis (either total cost or PMPM). 10

12 Example - Estimate an expected transfer increase amount ALASKA INDIVIDUAL MARKET BEFORE CODING IMPROVEMENT AFTER CODING IMPROVEMENT WITHOUT CODING IMPROVEMENT Quantity Carrier Market Carrier Market Carrier Market Membership (Billable Member Months) 30, ,406 30, ,406 30, ,406 Market Share 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% PLRS (a) = / 30, = 1.39*0.2+ ( *0.2) IDF (b) GCF (c) AV (d) ARF (e) Market Average Premium PMPM (f) $ $ $ RA Transfer PMPM -$ $ $70.76 Total RA Transfer Change Total RA Transfer Change $317,898 =(-$ $68.56)*30,081 $384,280 =$317,898 (-$66,382) Vendor Cost $500,000 Net Return -$115,720 = $384,280 - $500,000 -$66,382 =(-$ $68.56)* 30,081 11

13 Underlying assumptions What you need to know before the presentation continues: Examine the impact of a coding improvement level of 100 HCC coefficient points per 12 months in a population. Assumed that the increase in score from adding the 100 points is certain In calculation of the change in the risk transfer payments for a carrier the following assumptions were made: Carrier s starting average plan liability risk scores (PLRS) = market PLRS, average actuarial value (AV) = market AV and allowable rating factor (ARF) = market ARF, and The market average values are equal to those in the CMS Risk Adjustment report released on September 17,

14 Carrier Market Share

15 Findings The lower the carrier s market share transfer amount the greater the potential risk adjustment Large carriers have a greater influence over the market values, and hence less potential to improve carrier s position with coding completeness efforts. 14

16 Example Colorado Individual Market Market Share MARKET SHARE IMPACT FROM CODING IMPROVEMENT RA Transfer Increase (PMPM) RA Transfer Increase (Total Dollars) 1% $18.88 $306,689 5% $3.62 $294,297 10% $1.72 $278,808 20% $0.76 $247,829 30% $0.44 $216,851 40% $0.29 $185,872 50% $0.19 $154,893 60% $0.13 $123,915 70% $0.08 $92,936 80% $0.05 $61,957 90% $0.02 $30, % $0 $0 15

17 Findings Select States, Individual Market $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 Change in RA Transfer PMPM vs. Carrier Market Share Individual Market $0 1% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MS AR ND NH NE DC FL 16

18 Findings Select States, Small Group Market $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Change in RA Transfer PMPM vs. Carrier Market Share Small Group Market 1% 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AK CA MS NH NY WV WY 17

19 Market Size vs. Transfer Amount potential

20 Findings The larger the market size (e.g., number of insureds), the smaller the risk adjustment transfer potential (for 100 HCC points) for a carrier on a PMPM basis (or a percent of average premium) However, the aggregate transfer amount potential (PMPM x carrier member months) is generally flat across different market sizes. The transfer amount is less influenced by the market size and much more influenced by the market share. 19

21 Findings INDIVIDUAL MARKET: MARKET SIZE AND MARKET SHARE PMPM Transfer Change Market Share Total Transfer Change Market Share State Market Size 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) DC 90,739 $26.92 $2.99 $0.33 $244,251 $135,695 $27,139 ND 237,030 $10.36 $1.15 $0.13 $245,531 $136,406 $27,281 NM 417,315 $5.89 $0.65 $0.07 $245,876 $136,598 $27,320 IA 681,420 $3.61 $0.40 $0.04 $246,053 $136,696 $27,339 ID 899,436 $2.74 $0.30 $0.03 $246,120 $136,733 $27,347 MD 1,219,565 $2.02 $0.22 $0.02 $246,176 $136,764 $27,353 TN 1,606,013 $1.53 $0.17 $0.02 $246,213 $136,785 $27,357 AR 2,080,321 $1.18 $0.13 $0.01 $246,240 $136,800 $27,360 GA 3,172,366 $0.78 $0.09 $0.01 $246,272 $136,818 $27,364 PA 4,018,929 $0.61 $0.07 $0.01 $246,284 $136,825 $27,365 20

22 Market average risk score vs. Transfer amount potential

23 Findings For a given fixed market size, a higher market level risk score (PLRS) correlates with a lower benefit to coding improvement efforts. The higher the market average risk score, the smaller the impact of the additional HCC(s) coefficient(s) on transfer amount. This relationship has implications for carriers operating in multiple states 22

24 Findings $6 Change in PMPM RA Transfer vs. Market PLRS, 2014 Small Group Individual Change in RA Transfer PMPM $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $ Market Average PLRS 23

25 Carrier average risk score vs. Transfer amount potential

26 Findings The risk adjustment transfer benefit increases as a carrier s average risk score decreases (relative to the market risk score) If your plan s enrollees are already significantly more morbid than the overall market, there is less additional benefit by producing further evidence of morbidity. Law of diminishing returns 25

27 Findings Change in the transfer amount Market Share % Carrier PLRS / Market PLRS 1% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 200% $18.68 $1.53 $0.25 $0.00 N/A N/A 180% $18.72 $1.56 $0.29 $0.04 N/A N/A 160% $18.76 $1.60 $0.33 $0.08 N/A N/A 140% $18.80 $1.64 $0.37 $0.11 $0.01 N/A 120% $18.84 $1.68 $0.41 $0.15 $0.04 N/A 100% $18.88 $1.72 $0.44 $0.19 $0.08 $ % $18.89 $1.74 $0.46 $0.21 $0.10 $ % $18.91 $1.75 $0.48 $0.23 $0.12 $ % $18.94 $1.78 $0.51 $0.26 $0.15 $ % $18.97 $1.81 $0.54 $0.29 $0.18 $

28 Impact of market premium, ARF, AV, GCF and IDF

29 ACA risk adjustment methodology Risk Adjustment Transfer Formula 28

30 Findings Addition of HCC coefficient(s) impacts the Plan Level Risk Score (PLRS) only. AV and ARF have no effect on the change in the transfer. The Induced Demand Factor (IDF) and Geographic Cost Factor (GCF) both act as scalars to the plan s average risk score Prioritize the coding improvements for members in areas with higher cost geographic areas and enrolled in higher metal level products (Gold, Platinum) Transfer = Market average premium x PLRS Change 29

31 Findings Market Average Premium vs. Market Average PLRS $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 $600 $650 Small group market Individual Market 30

32 In Summary Market share has the greatest impact on the potential risk score improvement Smaller impacts are observed for overall market size and market average risk score Carrier starting average risk score does have a meaningful impact, particularly for carriers with small market share Market average premium directly scales the transfer amount IDF and GCF scale the plan risk scores and hence directly impact the change in transfer amount Strategically prioritize your coding improvement efforts considering: Key features of the state(s) and market(s) you operate in (market share, size, PLRS and average premium) Focus on products in highest cost rating area, and higher metal levels 31

33 Thank You! Ksenia Whittal, FSA, MAAA Doug Norris, FSA, MAAA, PhD 32