Request A Personalized Demo
Let us show you how HealthWorksAI can optimize your Medicare Advantage product design efforts at every stage through actionable insights by leveraging public and private healthcare data.
Why Medicare Advantage plans keep investing in the wrong places — and what the data says actually moves the needle
Medicare Advantage Star Ratings have never been more consequential — or more volatile. After years of consistent decline, 2026 ratings stabilized at an average of 3.66. But stabilization isn't recovery. And the 2027 methodology reset is about to compress margins further for plans that aren't prepared.
The math is straightforward but brutal. Plans at 4 stars or above receive Quality Bonus Payments that flow directly into richer benefits, lower premiums, and stronger enrollment trajectories. Plans below 4 stars lose that funding — and enter a downward spiral where thinner benefits lead to member attrition, which further pressures ratings. In 2025, the QBP program distributed over $13 billion. Every half-star movement reshuffles millions across the industry.
What makes 2027 different is the convergence of multiple headwinds. CMS has proposed removing 12 measures focused on administrative processes, which sounds like simplification — but the net effect is that remaining measures carry more weight, and most of those remaining measures are clinical outcomes and patient experience. Simultaneously, the EHO4All (Health Equity Index) reward has been reversed, removing a tailwind that many plans had factored into their projections. Rates are effectively flat. Risk adjustment changes are projected to reduce payments by $15.2 billion. The margin for error on Stars has never been thinner.
Ask any MA executive what they’re doing about Stars, and you’ll hear a familiar list: CAHPS improvement programs, medication adherence outreach, gap closure campaigns, care management expansion, better call center training. These are all reasonable investments. They’re also where every competitor is investing. And they address — at best — 30 to 40 percent of what actually drives Star Ratings.
Access, quality, preventive care, clinical outcomes, member experience — the provider network touches nearly every measure category. Yet most plans treat their network as a fixed operational asset, not a Stars lever.
Consider what a provider network actually determines in the context of Stars. The physicians in your network decide which preventive screenings happen and which don’t. They determine how chronic conditions are managed — whether a diabetic patient hits their HbA1c target, whether a cardiac patient gets their beta-blocker. They shape the member experience at every touchpoint. They influence whether claims are coded accurately, whether care transitions happen smoothly, whether referrals go to high-quality specialists or whoever happens to be available.
When CMS shifts the methodology toward outcomes — which is exactly what the 2027 changes do — the network’s influence on Stars doesn’t decrease. It intensifies. An outcomes-focused Stars methodology is, by definition, a provider-performance-focused methodology. Yet the industry’s Stars improvement playbook remains overwhelmingly oriented toward plan-level clinical programs and member outreach rather than network composition strategy.
The connection between network quality and Star Ratings isn’t theoretical. It shows up in the data consistently — once you know where to look.
| Devoted | Humana | |
|---|---|---|
| Geography | OH: Cuyahoga | OH: Cuyahoga |
| Plan Name | DEVOTED CHOICE 003 OH (PPO) | Humana USAA Honor Giveback with Rx (PPO) |
| BID ID | H2526_003_0 | H5216_307_0 |
| Parent Organization | Devoted Health, Inc. | Humana Inc. |
| Feb 2026 Enrollment | 1493 | 986 |
| Overall Star Rating | 4 | 3.5 |
| AEP Enrollment Growth | 792 | -400 |
| Monthly Premium | $0 | $0 |
| Health Deductible | $0 | $100 |
| MOOP | $5300 | $7900 |
| Part B Giveback | $0 | $79 |
| Network | ||
| Network Name | DEVOTED HEALTH - OH PPO | HUMANA - MEDICARE PPO |
| PCP | 1199 | 1188 |
| Specialists | 3482 | 3154 |
| Hospitals | 15 | 14 |
| Provider Score | 63 | 52 |
| Network Category | Multi-state | National |
Illustrative comparison based on observed market patterns. Network size alone does not predict Star performance — composition, specialization, and provider MA activity matter more.
This pattern repeats across markets. Plans that inherited their MA network from a legacy commercial panel — common among Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates entering Medicare Advantage — often have larger networks that score lower on quality-adjusted metrics. The providers are credentialed and adequate in volume. But they may not be actively managing Medicare-age populations, may not prioritize preventive screenings for the 65+ demographic, and may not be experienced with the complexity of multiple comorbidities that define the MA population.
Conversely, plans with tighter, more curated networks — where providers are selected and retained specifically for their effectiveness with Medicare populations — consistently outperform on Stars even with smaller provider counts. The 2026 data reinforces this: several plans achieved 4+ stars with networks that are notably smaller than their local competitors.
This isn’t just about having “good doctors.” It’s about whether your network is structurally aligned with what Stars actually measures. A provider who is excellent for a healthy 35-year-old commercial member may be mediocre for a 72-year-old with diabetes, CHF, and depression. The MA fitness of a provider — their activity level in Medicare, their panel composition, their preventive care patterns, their cost and utilization profile — is a fundamentally different evaluation than commercial credentialing. Plans that can assess this at an individual provider level have a structural advantage on Stars. Plans that can’t are hoping their clinical programs compensate for a network that may be working against them.
A growing number of MA organizations are now pairing their Stars performance data with competitive network intelligence — viewing star distribution trends, county-level benchmark variation, and plan-level rebate impact alongside provider-level quality scoring in a single analytic layer. The shift is subtle but significant: Stars is no longer evaluated as an annual report card. It's monitored as a real-time financial position — contract by contract, county by county, provider by provider.
One health plan executive described the shift simply: "We stopped asking why our Stars dropped. We started asking which 200 providers in our network were pulling them down — and which 150 providers in our competitors' networks could pull them up. That changed the entire conversation with our board."
Paraphrased from client conversations. Details generalized for confidentiality.
Network optimization for Stars isn’t a concept. It’s a practice that the most sophisticated MA plans have been executing for years — often quietly, and with significant financial results.
The approach is a two-part exercise that repeats annually. First, identify the low-performing providers in your own network — those with poor MA fitness scores, low preventive care activity, high cost patterns, or limited engagement with the 65+ population. These are the providers who are structurally dragging your Stars down regardless of what your clinical programs do. Second, identify high-performing providers in competitor networks that you don’t currently have — providers who are demonstrably effective with Medicare populations, who are available for contracting, and who would lift your network’s quality profile.
Some organizations have reported first-year savings in the tens of millions from this exercise alone, with ongoing annual savings in the low millions. But the financial impact goes beyond direct savings. A higher-quality network produces better clinical outcomes, which lifts Stars, which unlocks QBP, which funds richer benefits, which drives enrollment. The compounding effect is the real prize.
The plans operating in Row 2 aren’t doing this manually. They’re working with analytics partners who maintain harmonized provider network data across the MA market — scored, benchmarked, and updated at the NPI level. For these organizations, network optimization isn’t a project that happens once before bid season. It’s a continuous discipline with direct line of sight to Stars performance, rebate revenue, and benefit competitiveness. The rest of the market is still in Row 1 — reacting to October’s Star Ratings release instead of engineering next year’s.
The critical nuance is that this exercise requires competitive network intelligence — not just internal data. You need to see what’s in competitor networks to know what you’re missing. You need provider-level scoring that goes beyond claims volume to assess true MA fitness. And you need to verify that every trim decision doesn’t create an adequacy gap that triggers CMS compliance issues. Plans that have this intelligence treat network sculpting as a routine annual exercise. Plans that don’t are left with generic “improve your Stars” advice that doesn’t translate into specific action.
The next 12 months represent a narrow window for MA plans to reposition their Stars trajectory before the 2027 methodology changes take full effect. Three dynamics are converging simultaneously:
The plans that move first don’t just improve their own Stars — they also make it harder for competitors to catch up, by contracting the same high-performing providers out of availability. In a market where network adequacy constraints limit how many plans can contract with the same provider, timing matters as much as strategy.
Book a complimentary Star Rating + Network Review with our team.
Trusted by 25+ Medicare Advantage payers
Request Your Review →