Why This Landed on My Radar
The HHS Office of Inspector General just dropped audit results showing Humana and UnitedHealthcare generated $180 million in overpayments over two years through “exaggerated health needs” of MA members. This isn’t a slap on the wrist for the payers-it’s a warning shot across the bow for every practice submitting diagnoses that feed the risk-adjustment machine. When the feds start throwing around words like “upcoding” and citing nine-figure overpayments, the scrutiny rolls downhill fast, and we’re the ones signing the encounter forms.
Here’s What’s Going On
The OIG audited HumanaChoice and UnitedHealthcare of Wisconsin and found both plans systematically inflated member risk scores by submitting diagnosis codes that weren’t adequately supported by medical records. We’re talking about nearly $180 million in improper payments across just two plans over a two-year period.
The audits focused on how these MA plans documented chronic conditions to maximize their capitated payments from CMS. Under risk adjustment, sicking patients on paper means higher revenue-plans get paid more for members with multiple HCCs (Hierarchical Condition Categories). The OIG is alleging these plans coded conditions that either weren’t treated, weren’t clinically significant during the encounter, or weren’t supported by documentation. This follows a pattern we’ve seen in previous audits, but the dollar amounts keep getting bigger and the language keeps getting sharper.
Here’s what makes this different: the OIG isn’t just identifying overpayments and moving on. They’re building a case that this is a systemic problem in MA risk adjustment, and they’re putting plans-and by extension, the providers whose documentation feeds these codes-on notice.
What This Means for Your Practice
Let’s be clear about the dynamic here: the payers are under the microscope, but our documentation is the evidence. Every diagnosis code we submit for an MA patient feeds directly into risk-adjustment calculations. With V28 changes already tightening HCC capture requirements, and now federal auditors picking apart documentation from major plans, the margin for error is shrinking fast.
In Texas, this hits differently. United and BCBS Texas dominate our commercial MA market. If you’ve got a patient panel that’s 30-40% Medicare Advantage-which plenty of us do-you’re playing in the same sandbox that just got audited. The financial pressure on practices hasn’t changed: we need accurate HCC capture to maintain MA contract performance and we need those risk-adjusted payments to make the economics work. But the compliance risk just went up considerably.
Here’s the trap: payers have been encouraging aggressive HCC capture for years. They’ve sent us lists of “suspected conditions,” offered bonus payments for closing gaps in care, and trained us to think comprehensively about chronic disease documentation. That’s not inherently wrong-good medicine means documenting what you’re managing. But when federal auditors start looking at that same documentation, they’re asking a different question: did you actually evaluate and treat this condition during this encounter, or did you just carry forward a diagnosis from last year’s problem list?
The practical reality is that most of us don’t have the bandwidth to audit our own charts the way OIG does. We’re seeing patients, managing panels, fighting prior auths, and trying to keep staff from burning out. But if your EHR is auto-populating chronic conditions you didn’t actually address, or if your MA-affiliated medical group is pressuring you to “capture all HCCs” without clear documentation standards, you’re exposed. And unlike the payers who can negotiate their way out of these audits, individual physicians don’t have that leverage.
This is where better systems actually matter. Chart-prep tools that surface which conditions you genuinely need to evaluate, AI coding assistance that flags unsupported diagnoses before they’re submitted, and documentation workflows that create audit-defensible evidence-these aren’t luxuries anymore. They’re risk mitigation.
Key Takeaways
- The feds are auditing MA risk adjustment aggressively-$180M in findings across two plans signals this isn’t going away
- Your documentation is the evidence in these audits-what you write (or don’t write) determines whether codes stick or get clawed back
- V28 + increased scrutiny = higher compliance bar-the old “document it once, carry it forward forever” approach is increasingly risky
- Payers want comprehensive HCC capture; auditors want encounter-specific justification-you’re caught between competing incentives
- Practices that can’t demonstrate condition-specific evaluation and management are vulnerable when audits trace back to provider documentation
What Smart Practices Are Doing
The practices getting ahead of this are implementing documentation review processes before claims go out-either spot-checking high-risk HCCs internally or using coding review technology that flags diagnoses lacking encounter-specific support. They’re training physicians on what “addressed and treated” actually means in audit-defensible terms, and they’re pushing back on payer “gap closure” programs that prioritize coding volume over clinical accuracy.
Source
Federal watchdog accuses Humana, UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plans of upcoding, Healthcare Dive
Primary Care Perspective delivers curated intelligence from trusted healthcare sources.
© 2026 Primary Care Perspective | Texas Edition