When it comes to Medicare Advantage, healthcare providers face a critical challenge: tackling the systems that directly impact their reimbursement and compliance.
The two main methods of delivering risk-adjusting data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are the Risk Adjustment Processing System (RAPS) and the Encounter Data Processing System (EDPS).
For healthcare providers, understanding these frameworks, their data submission processes, and their implications is crucial to compliance and seamless reimbursement.
EDPS and RAPS: An Outline
EDPS and RAPS are CMS-administered frameworks used to assess the health status and risk scores of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.
Risk Adjustment Processing System (RAPS)
Introduced in the early 2000s, RAPS was CMS's first method of gathering diagnostic data from Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs).
With RAPS, MAOs provide necessary diagnosis codes associated with Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs), which CMS utilizes to make plan payment adjustments.
Risk-adjusted conditions are emphasized over detailed claims data, resulting in a less detailed but streamlined submission process.
Encounter Data Processing System (EDPS)
To enhance the transparency and accuracy of risk adjustment, CMS introduced EDPS in 2012 as a more comprehensive alternative to RAPS.
Unlike RAPS, EDPS requires MAOs to submit complete encounter-level data, including procedure codes, provider information, and details of patient interactions.
This aligns more closely with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) claims data, providing CMS with a granular view of care delivery.
Key Differences Between EDPS and RAPS
Why EDPS and RAPS Matter for Healthcare Providers
As CMS transitions toward a model with 100% EDPS-based risk adjustment by 2025, MAOs and healthcare providers must prioritize accurate, complete, and timely encounter data submissions.
Let’s explore the key reasons why they matter to healthcare providers:
1. Impact on Reimbursement
Accurate risk adjustment is the foundation of fair reimbursement in Medicare Advantage.
Risk scores reflect the health complexity of patients—higher scores for sicker patients mean higher payments to cover their care.
If risk scores are off due to faulty data, providers may not be adequately compensated for treating complex cases, threatening their financial stability.
2. Data Submission and Compliance
CMS currently requires providers to submit data to both RAPS and EDPS as part of a gradual transition to EDPS. This dual-submission system introduces complexity:
- RAPS uses a simpler format but lacks the depth of encounter data.
- EDPS requires all elements of the ANSI 837 claim format and passes stricter edits (similar to fee-for-service claims). Providers must ensure their coding and documentation meet these high standards to avoid rejections.
Submitting encounter data through EDPS is mandatory for MA beneficiaries. Non-compliance can lead to penalties or payment reductions.
3. The Transition from RAPS to EDPS
As we noted, CMS is shifting from RAPS to EDPS to calculate risk scores, a process that has been gradual due to data quality challenges and submission complexities.
Currently, CMS blends risk scores from both systems, but the goal is to rely fully on EDPS in the future.
However, EDPS’s detailed requirements mean providers must adapt to stricter coding, documentation, and submission processes. Delays or errors during this transition can disrupt revenue.
So, providers need to stay informed about CMS updates and deadlines.
4. Operational and Financial Implications
Managing EDPS and RAPS affects both operations and finances:
- Revenue Risks: Rejected encounters due to submission errors can lead to revenue leakage. Providers must actively manage exceptions and reconcile data from both systems.
- Administrative Burden: The dual-submission model often requires separate platforms or workflows, increasing workload and the need for staff training.
To handle EDPS’s complexity, providers may need to invest in technology (e.g., consolidated submission platforms) and train staff on best practices.
Challenges in EDPS and RAPS Implementation
While CMS aims for a seamless transition from RAPS to EDPS, healthcare providers and payers face several challenges, such as:
1. Data Accuracy and Completeness
EDPS and RAPS both demand precise data inputs to function properly.
- EDPS requires complete encounter details, including diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and service dates
- RAPS needs accurate diagnosis codes to calculate patient risk scores
However, errors can lead to rejected claims, payment delays, and improper reimbursements. Healthcare organizations with outdated systems often struggle most with this requirement.
2. Technical Submission Requirements
Beyond data quality, the technical aspects of submission create another layer of complexity. The strict specifications often require specialized knowledge and systems.
- EDPS requires specific formats like ANSI 837 and strict validation rules
- RAPS has somewhat simpler requirements, but still demands standardized formatting
Many providers lack the necessary IT capabilities to meet these technical demands. Plus, Submission errors often require extensive troubleshooting and correction.
3. Submission Deadlines and Timelines
Even with perfect data and technical capacity, the fixed timelines add another dimension to the challenge. CMS enforces strict deadlines that add pressure to already complex processes.
- EDPS timelines are typically more rigid than RAPS
- Rejected submissions require quick correction and resubmission
- Late submissions can trigger penalties or reduced payments
4. Integration Challenges
The compatibility with these systems is also a major pain point. Connecting EDPS and RAPS with existing systems creates significant implementation barriers.
- Many organizations struggle to connect EHR systems with CMS platforms
- Billing systems may not easily align with the required submission formats
- System upgrades or middleware solutions often require substantial investment
5. Keeping Up with Regulatory Changes
CMS frequently updates requirements for both systems, creating a moving compliance target. So, organizations must constantly monitor for guideline and specification changes.
8 Best Practices for Optimizing EDPS and RAPS Submissions
Healthcare providers need effective strategies to manage EDPS and RAPS submissions. Here are key practices that can improve accuracy and efficiency:
1. Standardize Provider Data Collection
With your internal systems optimized, focus on standardizing how providers submit data to you.
Create clear documentation guidelines for your provider network and offer training to ensure consistency across all data sources.
2. Focus on Data Accuracy
Start with clean data at the source. Verify that all diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and service dates are correct before submission.
Regular chart reviews and coding audits help catch errors early and build a foundation for successful submissions.
3. Streamline Submission Processes
Once data accuracy is established, submission should be as automated as possible.
Use specialized software that formats data correctly for both EDPS (ANSI 837) and RAPS requirements. This reduces manual errors and saves valuable staff time while improving consistency.
4. Meet Submission Deadlines
With proper systems in place, meeting deadlines becomes easier. Create internal timelines that build in buffer periods before CMS deadlines.
This extra time allows for error correction and resubmission if needed.
5. Implement Strong Validation Processes
After submission, don't just wait for CMS responses. Proactively compare submitted data against CMS reports to identify discrepancies.
Establish a dedicated team to quickly address rejected encounters and resubmit them to minimize revenue impact.
6. Prepare for CMS Audits
Building on your validation processes, maintain organized documentation that supports all submitted diagnoses.
Regular internal audits that mirror CMS review protocols help identify potential issues beforehand.
7. Stay Current with CMS Updates
As regulations evolve, so must your processes. Assign specific team members to monitor CMS communications and translate requirement changes into updated workflows. This prevents compliance gaps.
8. Leverage Expert-Led Risk Adjustment Solutions
Beyond internal improvements, consider partnering with specialized revenue cycle management (RCM) experts.
These partnerships provide access to predictive analytics, audit-ready documentation, and compliance-driven reporting that might be difficult to develop in-house.
Such solutions offer more meaningful insights into claims performance and help providers stay ahead of changing regulations.
Final Note
CMS continues to increase the weight of EDPS-based risk adjustment in Medicare Advantage calculations, with plans to phase out RAPS entirely in the future.
Throughout this transition, healthcare providers must implement robust encounter reporting processes to avoid claim rejections.
Organizations that invest in the right expertise, technology, and strategic planning will be better positioned to navigate these complexities successfully as the industry moves toward an EDPS-only submission model.
HOM specializes in revenue cycle management, offering end-to-end risk adjustment solutions that ensure accurate data submission, compliance with CMS regulations, and maximized reimbursements.
If you are a healthcare provider and need expert assistance in navigating EDPS and risk adjustment, feel free to write to us at partnerships@homrcm.com.
Bring a change to your Healthcare Operations
A partnership with HOM gives you an inherent:
Adherence towards federal, state, and organizational compliances, as well as safeguarding patient data.
Sense of ownership and commitment towards providing value.
Focus on speed, accuracy, efficiency, and optimal outcomes.
Sense of security and transparency through periodic reporting and actionable insights.
Connect with our experts for a quick analysis and possibilities.
