For over a decade, Medicare Advantage insurers have been adding diagnoses to patient charts—conditions patients never asked for treatment for—simply to trigger higher government payments. A Kaiser Permanente settlement this month put a number on the scale of the problem: the company added roughly 500,000 diagnoses between 2009 and 2018, generating about $1 billion in improper payments alone.
Now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is proposing to restrict this practice, known as "chart reviews." The move would essentially freeze Medicare Advantage payment rates in 2027 and require plans to justify any new diagnoses they add to patient records. CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz framed it plainly: the goal is to stop "unnecessary spending that is not oriented towards addressing real health needs."
The practice has been flagged by government auditors for years. Whistleblowers have filed dozens of lawsuits. Investigations keep surfacing the same pattern: health plans systematically exaggerate how sick their customers are to pocket payments they haven't earned. It's called upcoding, and it's cost taxpayers billions.
We're a new kind of news feed.
Regular news is designed to drain you. We're a non-profit built to restore you. Every story we publish is scored for impact, progress, and hope.
Start Your News DetoxWhy This Matters Now
The proposal rattled Wall Street. Stock prices for major insurers dropped sharply when CMS announced the plan. Industry groups quickly warned that 35 million seniors and people with disabilities enrolled in Medicare Advantage could face benefit cuts and higher costs.
But here's where the story gets interesting: experts say these warnings are often theater. Health plans have a long history of claiming they'll slash benefits whenever CMS tightens payment rules—and then they don't. The plans can still turn a profit under stricter rules; they just won't see the outsized returns shareholders have grown accustomed to.
This isn't CMS's first attempt to rein in chart reviews. Past efforts have faced intense industry pushback and been partially rolled back. That's the real uncertainty hanging over this proposal. Will the administration hold firm when the pressure comes, or will this become another policy that gets watered down behind closed doors.
The fact that it's being proposed at all reflects something real: the scale of the problem has become too visible to ignore. A $556 million Kaiser settlement doesn't happen quietly. Whistleblowers keep talking. Auditors keep finding the same patterns. At some point, even an industry with significant political power has to reckon with the gap between what it's claiming and what the evidence shows.
