Based on findings of the Payment Accuracy Report recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), six Democratic United States Senators questioned the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) oversight and enforcement of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. In a letter dated September 13, 2019, the Senators highlighted their belief that MA plans have been overbilling the federal government for years, specifically in excess of $30 billion dollars over the last three years.

The Senators requested that CMS provide a response on how the Agency intends to hold MA plans responsible for failing to meet purported contractual obligations, including the accuracy of risk adjustment submissions.

This letter comes on the heels of several setbacks that may affect the Agency’s ability to police Medicare Advantage plans. The Supreme Court ruling in Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17–1484 (U.S. June 3, 2019) may restrict CMS’s ability to rely on interpretive publications and sub-regulatory guidance in lieu of formal rulemaking. Additionally, CMS’s Medicare Part C and D overpayment regulation was struck down in United Healthcare Ins. Co. v. Azar, 330 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2018). Finally, the health plan industry comments to CMS’s proposed Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) rule have heavily criticized the Agency’s proposed handling of RADV, CMS’s primary risk adjustment enforcement tool.

Although payment integrity and risk adjustment were at the forefront of their concerns, the Senators flagged other issues regarding CMS’s oversight of MA operations that they believe could create access to care barriers for MA plan members. The Senators asserted that MA plans fail to provide members with complete and accurate provider directories to make informed decisions when choosing a plan and that CMS has failed to ensure these MA networks even comply with network adequacy requirements. The Senators further noted that the MA plans have not been forthright in providing comprehensive encounter data that reflects the actual services provided to its members, encouraging a reduction in bonus payments for failure to disclose this information. Finally, the Senators called for more transparency with encounter data, denial information, Star ratings and potential out-of-pocket expenses, encouraging CMS to make this information publicly available.

CMS has mechanisms to police most of the concerns raised by the Senators through its MA Program Audits, Civil Monetary Penalties and contract sanctions, which can include termination. However, as noted in CMS’ 2018 Program Audit report, the plans audited by the Agency in 2018 covered only 2% of the MA enrollee population, though the Agency levied 10 civil monetary penalties and 3 intermediate sanctions on audited plans for issues of non-compliance.

The letter from this group of Senators follows previous concerns expressed by Senator Chuck Grassley in 2017 and several high profile settlements related to the MA Program, all of which suggest that MA plans, downstream providers and vendors should increase their efforts to comply with rules and be prepared for increased government scrutiny.

Ashley Creech, a Law Clerk (not admitted to the practice of law) in the firm’s Washington, DC office, contributed significantly to the preparation of this post.

Back to Health Law Advisor Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Health Law Advisor posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.