US · guidance
CMS Pub. 100-16, ch. 7, § 50
History of Risk Adjustment
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) mandated that a risk adjustment payment
methodology, incorporating information on beneficiaries’ health status, be implemented in the
Medicare+Choice (M+C) program (now the Medicare Advantage program) no later than January
2000. Under the BBA, risk adjustment of M+C payments was initially to be based only on data
from enrollees’ inpatient hospital stays, with later implementation of risk adjustment based on
data from additional sites of care. CMS selected the Principal Inpatient Diagnostic Cost Group
(PIP-DCG) model as the risk adjustment method to be implemented in 2000. This model
recognizes diagnoses for which inpatient care is most frequently appropriate and which are
predictive of higher future costs.
To assist managed care organizations, CMS provided for a gradual phase-in of risk adjusted
payment, initially adjusting only a portion of the total payment based on the PIP-DCG
methodology - and later the CMS Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) methodology - with
the remainder still adjusted under the pre-BBA method based only on demographic information.
This phase in was intended to provide more stable payments to M+C organizations.
The phase in schedule was as follows:
Payment
year
MA plans Evercare* SHMO* PACE and dual
demonstrations*
2000-2003 10% risk/90%
demographic
100%
demographic
100%
demographic
100%
demographic
2004 30% risk/70% demographic
10% risk/90%
demographic
2005 50% risk/50% demographic 30% risk/70% demographic
2006 75% risk/25% demographic 50% risk/50% demographic
2007 100% risk/0% demographic 75% risk/25% demographic
2008 and
later
100% risk/0% demographic
*Note: For MA plans (formerly M+C plans), the demographic-only portion of the payment was
adjusted for age, gender, Medicaid eligibility, institutional status, and working aged status. For
certain demonstrations, the non-risk portion of the payment may have involved a demonstration-specific payment methodology.
ESRD risk adjustment was implemented at 100% in 2005. Part D risk adjustment was
implemented at 100% in 2006.
The Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) required the implementation of a
risk adjustment model using not only diagnoses from inpatient hospital stays, but also from
ambulatory settings beginning in 2004. The draft CMS-HCC risk adjustment payment model
was released on March 29, 2002. The CMS-HCC risk adjustment payment model incorporates
disease groups that have a significant impact on Part C expenditures. Submission of ambulatory
risk adjustment data (physician and hospital outpatient) began on October 1, 2002 for dates of
service beginning July 1, 2002. On March 28, 2003, CMS announced the proposed final version
of the CMS-HCC risk adjustment model for use in payment beginning in January 2004.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) was
enacted in December 2003, extending prescription drug coverage to Medicare enrollees. With
the passage of the MMA, "Medicare+Choice" plans became known as Medicare Advantage
(MA) plans. In 2006, the MMA made it possible for Medicare Advantage plans to offer Part D
coverage to beneficiaries in addition to coverage comparable to Part A and Part B. The MMA
also established a bidding methodology for MA organizations and drug plans in 2006. With the
enactment of the MMA, risk adjustment was also established for the Part D program.
History
(Rev. 114, Issued; 06-07-13, Effective: 06- 07-13, Implementation: 06-07-13)
Provenance
- Source
- cms.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-25
- Edition
- iom-2026-08-25
- Content hash
e01ecd561b2af07cc410197a8102a2e6efa17c84034db5facb710b596b5e750e
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.