Hmo Louisiana , Inc . v. Department of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued February 12, 2026 Decided June 26, 2026
No. 25-5269
HMO LOUISIANA , INC .,
APPELLANT
v.
DEPARTMENT OF H EALTH AND HUMAN S ERVICES , ET AL.,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 1:24-cv-02931)
Paul A. Werner III argued the cause for appellant. With
him on the briefs were Imad S. Matini, Hannah Wigger, and
Tifenn V. Drouaud.
Kenneth R. Whitley, Attorney, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, argued the cause for appellees. With him
on the brief were Jeanine Ferris Pirro, U.S. Attorney, and
Johnny H. Walker III and John Bardo, Assistant U.S.
Attorneys.

-- 1 of 17 --

2
Before: HENDERSON , C HILDS , and P AN , Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge P AN .
Circuit Judge HENDERSON concurs in the judgment.
P AN , Circuit Judge: The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) administers the Medicare program,
which provides government-sponsored healthcare coverage to
qualifying beneficiaries. As an alternative to traditional
Medicare, CMS allows Medicare beneficiaries to choose
coverage provided by private insurers through the Medicare
Advantage program. CMS publishes “star ratings” for the
private insurance plans that participate in Medicare Advantage,
evaluating the plans on a scale of one to five stars. The star
ratings are intended to help beneficiaries compare the quality
of available insurance plans.
HMO Louisiana, Inc. (HMOLA) is a private insurer that
participates in Medicare Advantage. In 2024, HMOLA
consolidated two of its Medicare Advantage contracts. When
CMS calculated the consolidated contract’s 2025 overall star
rating, the agency included certain data that pertained to one of
the pre-existing contracts before it was consolidated. HMOLA
contends that including that data in the new star-rating
calculation violated the governing statute, its implementing
regulations, and the agency’s Technical Guidance, and that
CMS failed to adequately explain a change in its position in
calculating the rating. We disagree on all counts and affirm the
district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of CMS.
I.
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act establishes
Medicare, a federally funded and administered program

-- 2 of 17 --

3
providing health insurance for those over the age of sixty-five
and certain disabled persons. 42 U.S.C. § 1395c. The
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
administers the Medicare program through CMS. The Social
Security Act also establishes the Medicare Advantage
program — an alternative to traditional, government-managed
Medicare. Id. § 1395w-21. 1 Under Medicare Advantage,
CMS contracts with private insurers to provide coverage to
beneficiaries who otherwise qualify for traditional Medicare.
Id. § 1395w-22. Beneficiaries may select private plans
available in their geographic areas through Medicare
Advantage. Id. § 1395w-21(b).
To assist beneficiaries with choosing insurance plans,
Congress has directed CMS to issue annual ratings under a
five-star rating system for each plan offered through Medicare
Advantage. 2 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(o)(4). The star-rating
system is designed to provide beneficiaries information that is
“a true reflection of [a] plan’s quality and encompasses
multiple dimensions of high quality care.” 83 Fed. Reg. 16440,
16520 (Apr. 16, 2018). In addition, star ratings have financial
1 The Medicare Advantage program replaced the
Medicare+Choice program in December 2003. Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003,
Pub. L. No. 108–173, § 201, 117 Stat. 2066, 2176.
2 Under the statute, the “contract” refers to the agreement
between CMS and a private insurer under which the insurer offers
healthcare plans to Medicare beneficiaries. A contract “may cover
more than 1 Medicare [Advantage] plan.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-27(a);
see also 42 C.F.R. § 422.503(a). Per the regulations, CMS calculates
the star rating for each contract and assigns that rating to every plan
offered under the contract. 42 C.F.R. § 422.162(b)(1)–(2).

-- 3 of 17 --

4
consequences for insurers: Plans with higher star ratings
receive higher “rebate” payments from CMS.3
The implementing regulations establish a methodology for
CMS to calculate a contract’s star rating and provide that CMS
may elaborate on that methodology in Technical Notes. 42
C.F.R. §§ 422.162(b), 422.164(a), 422.166. The agency’s
Technical Notes contain detailed instructions for calculating
ratings for approximately forty individual measures of care,
which are components of the overall star rating for each
contract. Id. § 422.164(a).
Each measure of care is assigned a “measure score,” which
is defined by regulation as a “numeric value of the measure or
an assigned ‘missing data’ message.” 42 C.F.R. § 422.162(a).
The Technical Notes, in turn, list ten possible missing-data
messages, including “Not Applicable” and “No data available.”
J.A. 335. Star ratings are calculated using data from two years
before the relevant year. Thus, the 2025 star ratings at issue
here are based primarily on 2023 measure scores.
As relevant here, a measure of care labeled “C05”
evaluates a contract’s “Special Needs Plan (SNP) Care
Management.” J.A. 194. SNPs provide benefits and care for
3 Each year, an insurer submits a bid to CMS representing the
payment it will accept to cover a beneficiary with an average risk
profile. 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(a)(1)(B); 42 C.F.R. § 422.254. If that
bid falls below a benchmark set by CMS, CMS returns part of the
difference to the insurer as a “rebate.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-
23(a)(1)(E), 1395w-24(b)(1)(C). A plan’s star rating determines the
size of that rebate — the higher the rating, the greater the share
returned. For example, plans with at least a 4.5-star rating receive
seventy percent of the difference between their bid and the
benchmark, while those with a 3.5- or 4-star rating receive sixty-five
percent of the difference. Id. § 1395w-24(b)(1)(C)(v).

-- 4 of 17 --

5
beneficiaries who are chronically ill, living in a facility such as
a nursing home, or dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
According to the Technical Notes, when scoring measure C05,
CMS must assign a “Not Applicable” score when the contract
at issue does not offer an SNP. J.A. 335. The Technical Notes
also direct CMS to assign a “No data available” score when the
contract has “an effective termination date on or before the
deadline to submit data validation results to CMS.” J.A. 194.
CMS’s regulations also govern the circumstances under
which contracts can be consolidated and how CMS calculates
a consolidated contract’s star rating during the first two years
of its existence. Under the applicable regulations,
consolidation occurs “when a [Medicare Advantage]
organization that has at least two contracts for health and/or
drug services of the same plan type under the same parent
organization in a year combines multiple contracts into a single
contract for the start of the subsequent contract year.” 42
C.F.R. § 422.162(a). During consolidation, all the
beneficiaries enrolled in any consumed contract, i.e., a contract
that will no longer exist after consolidation, are transferred to
the surviving contract, i.e., a contract that “will still exist under
a consolidation.” Id. The star rating for the new consolidated
contract is calculated by taking “the enrollment-weighted mean
of the measure scores of the surviving and consumed
contract(s).” Id. § 422.162(b)(3)(i).4
4 Specifically, for the first and second years after consolidation,
CMS calculates the “enrollment-weighted measure scores using the
July enrollment of the measurement period of the consumed and
surviving contracts for all measures.” 42 C.F.R.
§ 422.162(b)(3)(iv)(A)(1), (B)(1). The regulations do provide
exceptions to this method for certain measures, but none of those
exceptions applies to measure C05.

-- 5 of 17 --

6
As a Medicare Advantage organization, HMOLA serves
approximately 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Louisiana
through multiple contracts with CMS. In 2024, HMOLA’s
parent company consolidated two of its contracts, effective
January 1, 2024. In the year before consolidation (2023), the
consumed contract offered an SNP, which was rated under
measure C05. The surviving contract did not offer an SNP and
therefore had no data available for measure C05. After
consolidation, the new consolidated contract offered an SNP
for 2025.
In September 2024, CMS initially gave HMOLA’s
consolidated contract a 3.5 overall star rating for 2025. In that
calculation, CMS did not include a score for measure C05.
CMS categorized the consumed contract as having been
terminated and therefore interpreted the Technical Notes to
require exclusion of its C05 data. But HMOLA believed that
CMS erred by excluding the consumed contract’s C05 star
rating, and that including it would increase the consolidated
contract’s overall rating from 3.5 to 4 stars. Thus, HMOLA
notified CMS of the perceived error and requested that CMS
include the consumed contract’s C05 data in the overall star-
rating calculation. HMOLA also noted that it had been “unable
to submit relevant measurement information data” for measure
C05 through CMS’s data-submission portal. J.A. 364.
CMS initially denied HMOLA’s request to include the
consumed contract’s C05 score. HMOLA then made
additional arguments, explaining that excluding the consumed
contract’s C05 data conflicted with applicable regulations and
Technical Notes.
HMOLA’s lobbying was successful. CMS ultimately
decided to accept the consumed contract’s C05 data and to
include it in the consolidated contract’s star-rating calculation,

-- 6 of 17 --

7
noting that it did so “[a]t [HMOLA]’s request and after further
consideration.” J.A. 375. The agency reprogrammed its data-
submission portal to conform to this change and to allow
HMOLA to submit the consumed contract’s C05 data.
When CMS recalculated the consolidated contract’s
overall star rating, it included measure C05. For that measure,
it used “the enrollment-weighted mean of the measure scores
of the surviving and consumed contract(s).” 42 C.F.R.
§ 422.162(b)(3)(i). The two scores it averaged were: (1) a “Not
Applicable” C05 score for HMOLA’s surviving contract,
which did not offer an SNP in 2023, and (2) the C05 score for
the consumed contract for 2023, which was seventy percent, or
3 stars. CMS determined that the enrollment-weighted mean
of those values was seventy percent, or 3 stars. When the C05
score was considered in calculating the overall rating for the
consolidated contract, the overall rating was unchanged — it
was still 3.5 stars.
Disappointed with those results, HMOLA sued CMS
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging
the recalculation method that it had urged CMS to adopt. Due
to other changes that CMS had implemented in the
recalculation, HMOLA believed that excluding the C05 data
would now result in a higher overall star rating for the
consolidated contract, even though the original calculation that
had excluded measure C05 had yielded the same rating of 3.5
stars. 5 Before the district court, HMOLA claimed that the
5 HMOLA initially asked CMS to include data from both measure
C05 and another measure, D11, from the consumed contract. CMS
granted both requests during its recalculation. While the consumed
contract’s data improved the consolidated contract’s D11 score, the
C05 data proved lower than HMOLA had anticipated.
Consequently, the overall rating remained 3.5 stars — the same
rating the original calculation produced when CMS excluded both

-- 7 of 17 --

8
agency’s methodology for recalculating the consolidated
contract’s star rating was arbitrary and capricious, in violation
of the APA. HMOLA took a position that was the opposite of
what it had previously argued, asserting that the inclusion of
the consumed contract’s C05 rating in calculating the
consolidated contract’s 2025 star rating contravened the
regulations, the governing statute, and the Technical Notes.
After the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, the district court ruled in favor of CMS. The district
court concluded that the plain language of the governing
statute, regulations, and Technical Notes supported CMS’s
inclusion of the consumed and surviving contracts’ 2023 C05
scores in the consolidated contract’s star-rating calculation. It
also concluded that CMS’s decision to recalculate the overall
rating to include the consumed contract’s C05 score did not
constitute a change in policy that required further explanation.
Alternatively, it held that even if an explanation were required,
the circumstances made clear that CMS had adopted
HMOLA’s reasoning for including the consumed contract’s
C05 data.
HMOLA appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.
II.
The APA requires a reviewing court to set aside agency
action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
Whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious is a legal
question “generally made on the administrative record and
datasets. It appears that HMOLA can achieve a higher overall rating
only if CMS retains the favorable D11 data while omitting the
unfavorable C05 data.

-- 8 of 17 --

9
resolved on summary judgment.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity
v. Zeldin, 171 F.4th 356, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2026). We review such
a determination de novo. Id.
An agency action that violates the agency’s own
regulations or a statute may be set aside as arbitrary and
capricious. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 171 F.4th at 376; see
also Nat’l Env’t Dev. Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752
F.3d 999, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2014). An agency action is likewise
arbitrary and capricious when the agency departs from prior
policy without a reasoned explanation. Encino Motorcars,
LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 222 (2016).
III.
HMOLA mounts three challenges to CMS’s recalculation
of the consolidated contract’s 2025 overall star rating. First,
HMOLA contends that the agency’s calculation methodology
conflicts with CMS’s regulations and Technical Notes.
Second, it argues that CMS violated its statutory mandate to
provide beneficiaries with useful information about a Medicare
Advantage plan’s quality. Third, it claims that CMS failed to
adequately explain its change in position when it recalculated
the 2025 star rating. We find those arguments unpersuasive.
A.
CMS properly applied the plain text of the applicable
regulation when it calculated the star rating of the consolidated
contract at issue. The regulation provides that for the first two
years following consolidation, a consolidated contract’s star
rating is “the enrollment-weighted mean of the measure scores
of the surviving and consumed contract(s).” 42 C.F.R.
§ 422.162(b)(3)(i); see also id. § 422.162(b)(3)(iv)(A)(1),
(B)(1). Consistent with that regulation, “[i]f neither the
consumed nor the surviving contract offered a[n] [SNP] in the

-- 9 of 17 --

10
measurement year, CMS does not include measure C05 in a
contract’s overall score.” Gov’t Br. 24; see also id. at 23–24
(citing 42 C.F.R. § 422.162(b)(3)(i), (iv)). But if either of the
pre-existing contracts received a C05 score, and the
consolidated contract continues to offer an SNP, CMS uses the
enrollment-weighted average of the previous scores to
calculate the consolidated contract’s rating. 42 C.F.R.
§ 422.162(b)(1).
Here, CMS followed that methodology when it
recalculated the consolidated contract’s 2025 star rating at
HMOLA’s request. The agency included as inputs the
consumed contract’s 3-star rating for measure C05 in 2023, and
the surviving contract’s “Not Applicable” rating for that year.
CMS calculated the enrollment-weighted mean of those values
to be 3 stars. And that measure score for C05 was considered
in calculating the consolidated contract’s overall rating of 3.5
stars.
Although HMOLA previously endorsed the above-
described plain-text application of the relevant provisions, it
now takes a contrary position. Its new theory is that a
consumed contract “no longer exist[s]” upon consolidation,
and therefore is effectively “terminated.” HMOLA Br. 27
(quoting 42 C.F.R. § 422.162(a)). HMOLA claims that the
consumed contract’s C05 score should thus be excluded as
“terminated,” based on a provision in CMS’s Technical Notes,
which states that a terminated contract’s data should be
“excluded and listed as ‘No data available’” for the C05
measure. J.A. 194 (“Contracts . . . with an effective
termination date on or before the deadline to submit data
validation results to CMS (June 15, 2024) are excluded and
listed as ‘No data available.’”). Excluding the consumed
contract’s C05 data under this theory would result in no data at
all for measure C05, and that would require measure C05 to be

-- 10 of 17 --

11
omitted from the consolidated contract’s star-rating
calculation.
We discern at least two problems with HMOLA’s analysis.
First, contrary to HMOLA’s assertion, a “consolidation” does
not result in the “termination” of a “consumed” contract under
the regulations and Technical Notes. The applicable regulation
provides that “consolidation” occurs “when [a Medicare
Advantage] organization . . . combines multiple contracts into
a single contract for the start of the subsequent contract year.”
42 C.F.R. § 422.162(a). Furthermore, the regulation defines a
“consumed contract” as “a contract that will no longer exist
after a contract year’s end as a result of a consolidation.” Id.
Although a consumed contract ultimately is absorbed into the
consolidated contract, it is not considered “terminated.”
“Termination” under the regulations addresses the ability
of CMS and a Medicare Advantage organization to end their
contractual relationship. A Medicare Advantage contract may
be “terminated” only (1) “by mutual consent” of the parties, 42
C.F.R. § 422.508; (2) by CMS if the agency “determines that
the [Medicare Advantage] organization” has neglected its
duties under the contract or has committed fraud, id. § 422.510;
or (3) by the Medicare Advantage organization “if CMS fails
to substantially carry out the terms of the contract,” id.
§ 422.512.6 The regulations do not include “consolidation”
within their discussion of “termination.”
The Technical Notes reinforce the distinction between
consolidated and terminated contracts. While the Technical
Notes establish that CMS’s rating calculation should exclude
6 HMOLA insists that the list of circumstances triggering a
“terminated” contract is non-exhaustive. Its reasoning, however, is
circular: HMOLA claims the list must be non-exhaustive because it
does not include “consolidation” as a method for termination.

-- 11 of 17 --

12
the C05 data of a “terminated” contract, the Notes specifically
mandate different treatment for “consolidated” contracts.
Consistent with the regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 422.162(b)(3)(i),
the Technical Notes provide that “the measure values for the
surviving contract of a consolidation are calculated as the
enrollment-weighted mean of all contracts in the consolidation.”
J.A. 271.7
HMOLA relies on a dictionary definition of uncertain
provenance to assert that “terminated” simply means “having
come or been brought to an end or conclusion.” HMOLA Br.
27 n.7.8 But even if a dictionary definition illuminates the
ordinary meaning of a term, such a definition cannot override
the regulatory text or structure. Cf. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.
FERC, 113 F.4th 943, 948 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (“We assume that
‘statutory terms bear their ordinary meaning’ unless evidence
suggests otherwise.” (quoting Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S.
155, 163 (2021))). Where, as here, the regulations distinguish
between “consolidation” and “termination,” a dictionary
definition cannot supplant the regulatory framework.
7 The parties dispute whether the Technical Notes carry the same
binding authority as that of the governing regulations, and whether
the Technical Notes’ provision regarding exclusion of data for
terminated contracts supersedes the general rule requiring that a
consolidated contract’s rating be determined by calculating the
weighted average of the consumed and surviving contracts’ scores.
We need not reach that question because the regulations and the
Technical Notes are not in conflict. Rather, they point in the same
direction: Both require CMS to include the consumed contract’s C05
data in its calculation of HMOLA’s consolidated-contract rating.
8 HMOLA cites the “Oxford Mod. Dictionary (2025)” for this
definition. HMOLA Br. 27 n.7. Although dictionaries with similar
titles exist, we have been unable to locate an edition matching that
citation or to confirm the quoted definition in Oxford’s available
sources.

-- 12 of 17 --

13
In sum, we reject HMOLA’s argument that a “consumed”
contract should be treated as a “terminated” contract for
purposes of calculating the consolidated contract’s star rating.
CMS’s inclusion of the C05 data in its rating calculation was
consistent with the applicable regulations and Technical
Notes.9
B.
HMOLA next argues that CMS’s calculation fails to assist
beneficiaries in making informed selections of Medicare
Advantage plans because the agency’s 2025 rating for the
consolidated contract is somehow inaccurate. According to
HMOLA, the disputed calculation does not “provide
information to the beneficiary that is a true reflection of the
plan’s quality,” as required by the statute, because it does not
9 We note that HMOLA has not challenged the math that CMS
used to calculate the weighted average of the two relevant data
points, i.e., the 2023 C05 rating of 3 stars for the consumed contract
and “Not Applicable” for the surviving contract. CMS determined
that the weighted average of those values was 3 stars. After oral
argument, we ordered the parties to address in supplemental briefing
whether CMS correctly applied the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-
23(o)(4)(D)(i), and implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R.
§ 422.162(b)(3)(i), when it determined that the enrollment-weighted
mean of the C05 score for the consumed contract (3 stars) and the
surviving contract (Not Applicable) was 3 stars. HMOLA, however,
failed to answer the question that we posed. Instead, in its
supplemental briefing, HMOLA rehashed its argument that its
consumed contract should have been deemed “terminated,” and its
corresponding C05 data excluded. Because HMOLA’s opening and
reply briefs challenge only the inclusion of the C05 data in the star-
rating calculation, and because HMOLA declined our invitation to
argue in a supplemental brief that the mathematical calculation of the
weighted average was incorrect, it has doubly forfeited any challenge
to CMS’s math.

-- 13 of 17 --

14
properly account for the fact that one of the pre-existing
contracts did not offer an SNP. 83 Fed. Reg. at 16520. We
disagree.
As discussed, the consolidated contract comprises a
“consumed” contract and a “surviving” contract. Here, the
“consumed” contract offered an SNP and was rated on measure
C05, but the “surviving” contract did not offer an SNP.
Because the new consolidated contract does offer an SNP, the
quality of the consumed contract’s SNP services is relevant to
the consolidated contract’s star-rating calculation. That the
surviving contract did not offer an SNP was properly
considered: As required by the applicable regulation, CMS
averaged the consumed and surviving contracts’ scores in
calculating the consolidated contract’s rating. 42 C.F.R.
§ 422.162(b)(3)(iv)(A)(1), (B)(1). CMS thus provided
beneficiaries with accurate information regarding the quality of
HMOLA’s consolidated contract.10
C.
HMOLA’s final argument is that CMS changed its policy
by including the C05 data in its recalculation of the 2025 rating,
and that CMS failed to adequately explain its reason for
adopting a new approach. When CMS announced that it would
accept the C05 data, it stated only that it was doing so “at
[HMOLA]’s request and after further consideration.” J.A. 375.
Although CMS did not offer a detailed explanation of why it
recalculated the 2025 rating for the consolidated contract, the
10 HMOLA suggests that CMS waived any argument that using
the consumed contract’s C05 data provides a more accurate
reflection of the consolidated contract’s quality. Not so. CMS raised
this argument below in its summary-judgment briefing. See J.A. 77.

-- 14 of 17 --

15
recalculation did not reflect a change in policy that required
explanation.
The change-in-position doctrine requires that an agency
“provide a reasoned explanation” when it changes an existing
policy. FDA v. Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, 604 U.S. 542,
568 (2025) (cleaned up). An agency changes an existing policy
when, for example, it “acts inconsistently with an earlier
position,” “disavows prior inconsistent agency action as no
longer good law,” or abandons a “decades-old practice.” Id. at
569–70 (cleaned up). The doctrine serves to ensure that, before
reversing course, an agency remains “cognizant that [its]
longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance
interests.” Id. at 570 (cleaned up).11 We have accordingly
required an agency to provide a reasoned explanation when it
departs from a settled practice or publicly articulated policy.
See Am. Wild Horse Pres. Campaign v. Perdue, 873 F.3d 914,
927 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (holding that an agency cannot depart
from its “established pattern of agency conduct and formalized
positions” without a reasoned explanation); see also Commc’ns
& Control, Inc. v. FCC, 374 F.3d 1329, 1335 n.8 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (noting that an agency’s unexplained departure from its
longstanding practice is arbitrary and capricious).
CMS’s recalculation of the consolidated contract’s star
rating does not amount to a change in “policy” that requires
“reasoned explanation.” Although CMS did change its
methodology in response to HMOLA’s objection, the record
does not reflect that the original calculation implemented a pre-
11 The Supreme Court has “traditionally applied the change-in-
position doctrine when an agency shifts from a position expressed in
a more formal setting,” and it has “assume[d], without deciding, that
the change-in-position doctrine applies to an agency’s divergence
from a position articulated in nonbinding guidance documents.”
Wages & White Lion, 604 U.S. at 569 n.5.

-- 15 of 17 --

16
existing “policy.” To the contrary, CMS explained that the
agency had never before considered whether to include a
consumed contract’s C05 data in a post-consolidation rating.
See J.A. 138 (CMS’s counsel explaining to the district court
that “[t]here are not that many contract consolidations that
involve special needs plans, and, of course, it’s even less likely
that there’s a consumed contract that offers special needs plans,
and a surviving contract [that] does not”). Thus, a more
detailed explanation of the agency’s action in this instance was
not required.
Notably, the revised calculation did not upset any “serious
reliance interests.” Wages & White Lion, 604 U.S. at 570.
Instead, the recalculation occurred during a preliminary review
process, in which CMS allowed HMOLA to provide feedback
before CMS finalized the consolidated contract’s star rating.
See 42 C.F.R. § 422.166(h)(2) (establishing that Medicare
Advantage providers “can preview their preliminary Star
Ratings data . . . prior to display on the [public] Medicare Plan
Finder”); see also J.A. 364 (HMOLA’s email to CMS during
the review process: “Thank you for allowing [us] the
opportunity to provide feedback on the Star Rating calculation
prior to finalization.”). During that preliminary process, it was
HMOLA that persuaded CMS to adjust its methodology to
include the consumed contract’s C05 data. Having received
exactly what it requested, HMOLA can hardly claim that it was
surprised by the outcome or that the agency upset its reliance
on CMS’s initial calculation. Under these circumstances,
CMS’s recalculation plainly is not a change in policy that
required reasoned explanation, and we therefore need not
decide whether CMS adequately explained its decision to
include the C05 data.12
12 HMOLA also points to the fact that CMS had to reprogram its
data-submission portal to accept the consumed contract’s C05 data,

-- 16 of 17 --

17
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
entry of summary judgment in favor of CMS.
So ordered.
suggesting that the portal’s original configuration reflected a past
practice of exclusion. But HMOLA cites no authority to support the
novel proposition that CMS announced a binding policy solely by
configuring its data-submission platform in a certain way.

-- 17 of 17 --