The Cost of Risk Score and Star Rating Growth: Insights for Future Medicare Advantage Innovation Models
Clicks: 1
ID: 323101
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #77 of 89 articles by views in Health Affairs Scholar
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Structured abstract Introduction The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) may test a new Medicare Advantage (MA) innovation model for achieving broader Medicare efficiency. Informed by the MA Value Based Insurance Design (VBID) model experience, we simulated minimum bid discounts and discussed strategies that would be needed to offset potential costs from plan risk score and star rating growth effects. Methods Using VBID evaluation data, we quantified the challenge CMS faces related to risk score and star ratings growth by calculating simulated payments to plans and bid discounts needed to achieve target savings. Results Had CMS imposed minimum bid discounts (holding model participation constant), we estimated that an average 7% bid discount for VBID plans could have achieved budget neutrality. Alternatively, to achieve 2% CMS savings, VBID would have required 14.5% lower plan bids. Conclusion Small risk score and star rating growth can jeopardize the sustainability and value of MA innovation models, and only a small share of bid discounts pass through to Medicare under MA payment policies. To achieve savings in future MA innovation models, we propose a combination of design features like minimum bid discounts, alternate risk score and star rating methodologies, stop-gap measures, and budget neutrality constraints.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7172030906
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Brett Lissenden, Allison Dorneo, John Robst, Peter F. Lyu |
| Journal | Health Affairs Scholar |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/haschl/qxag199
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.