Overview
Massachusetts has initiated legal action against a unit of UnitedHealth, accusing the insurer of manipulating diagnostic coding for older MassHealth enrollees to receive larger payments. The complaint, filed on Friday by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, targets UnitedHealthcare Insurance as it operates under UnitedHealthcare Community Plans of Massachusetts and focuses on members of the Senior Care Options (SCO) plan.
Allegations in the complaint
The Attorney General's Office asserts that, between 2015 and 2025, UnitedHealthcare submitted inaccurate or inflated diagnoses for MassHealth members aged 65 and older in order to obtain higher reimbursement rates from the state's Medicaid program. The suit says these actions led to more than $100 million in alleged improper payments.
Specifically, the complaint alleges two patterns of misclassification:
- Members were reported as Level 2 - the tier the state designates for behavioral health or substance use disorders - by citing conditions such as depression or anxiety even when the members did not have those diagnoses or were not receiving treatment for them.
- Members were classified as Level 3 - the highest severity tier - despite not meeting eligibility criteria for that designation.
The AGO further alleges that internal reviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 identified these classification errors. According to the complaint, UnitedHealthcare did not report the overpayments to MassHealth or repay the funds before downgrading the affected members' recorded health statuses.
Company response and market reaction
UnitedHealth has characterized the complaint as "meritless." In afternoon trading on the day the lawsuit was filed, the company's shares slipped 1.4% to $377.34.
Context and implications
The lawsuit centers on coding and payment practices within a Medicaid managed-care arrangement for seniors. The Attorney General's filing ties the alleged misreporting of member health status directly to higher payments from MassHealth and to the insurer's growth strategy for its SCO population.
This article presents the facts asserted in the Massachusetts Attorney General's complaint and the company's public response. It does not draw conclusions beyond those claims.