Financial burden of care greatest among rural beneficiaries in Medicare advantage.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in access to care and financial burden between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries in rural and urban areas and then explore whether there were potential differences in MA benefits between urban and rural areas. STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTICAL SAMPLE: Data from three distinct sources for 2017-2021: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, the MA landscape data, and the Plan Benefit Package data. Our sample comprised 43,343 Medicare beneficiary-years, including TM and MA beneficiaries in urban and rural areas. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our adjusted analysis showed that rural MA beneficiaries experienced higher rates of delayed care due to costs (10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1]) compared with rural TM (9.5% [8.8-10.2]), urban MA (7.9% [7.4-8.4]), and urban TM (7.9% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. Similarly, rural MA beneficiaries (11.4% [95% CI: 10.3-12.5]) reported more difficulty paying medical bills compared with rural TM (9.4% [8.7-10.1]), urban MA (8.1% [7.7-8.6]), and urban TM (7.8% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. This disparity was associated with less generous financial structures in rural MA plans. Compared to urban MA plans, rural MA plans offered lower out-of-pocket maximums for in-network care ($5918 vs. $5439), but required higher copayments ($1686 vs. $1724 for a 5-day hospitalization, $37 vs. $41 for a specialist visit, and $35 vs. $38 for a mental health visit). However, differences in quality of care and provision of supplemental benefits were small. CONCLUSION: Rural Medicare beneficiaries reported a greater financial burden of care than urban Medicare beneficiaries, but the most significant burden was observed among MA beneficiaries in rural areas. One possible mechanism could be the less generous financial structures offered by rural MA plans. These findings suggest the need for policies addressing the affordability of care for rural MA beneficiaries.

Spending by the Veterans Health Administration for Medicare Advantage Dual Enrollees, 2011-2020.

This study assesses veterans' dual enrollment in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare Advantage and VHA spending from 2011 through 2020.

Nationwide Availability of and Enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans With Exclusively Aligned Enrollment.

Importance: In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services designated a new category of dual-eligible special needs plans (D-SNPs) with exclusively aligned enrollment (receive Medicare and Medicaid benefits through the same plan or affiliated plans within the same organization). Objective: To assess the availability of and enrollment in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment and to compare the characteristics of beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment available vs beneficiaries without such enrollment available. Design, Setting, and Participants: Full-benefit beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs for 6 months or longer in 2021 or 2022. Availability of and beneficiary enrollment in D-SNPs were assessed by year and county for D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment available vs D-SNPs without exclusively aligned enrollment available. The D-SNP enrollees residing in counties with aligned plans available were compared based on demographic, social, health, and area characteristics vs D-SNP enrollees in counties without such plans available. Comparisons were also made based on beneficiaries who enrolled in the aligned D-SNPs vs those who did not enroll (were enrolled in unaligned D-SNPs). The data analyses were conducted from October 1, 2023, to August 2, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability of aligned D-SNPs and beneficiary residence by county; enrollment in exclusively aligned D-SNPs vs unaligned D-SNPs; and beneficiary demographic, social, health, and area characteristics. Results: Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. Of 2 689 045 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2022, 1 047 223 (38.9%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 318 906 (11.9%) enrolled. Beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs residing in counties without aligned enrollment available were more likely to live in rural or micropolitan areas (21.9%) vs beneficiaries in counties with aligned enrollment available (8.1%) (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.38-0.38]), be entitled to disability (44.4% vs 27.3%, respectively; SMD, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.36-0.36]), or be Black individuals (27.4% vs 21.4%; SMD, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.14-0.14]); were less likely to be Hispanic individuals (15.4% vs 33.7%; SMD, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.45-0.45]) or Asian or Pacific Islander individuals (6.1% vs 12.2%; SMD, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.22-0.22]); and lived in zip codes with a higher area deprivation index (mean, 66.8 [SD, 26.4] vs mean, 43.2 [SD, 29.0]; SMD, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.86-0.86]). Beneficiaries enrolled in aligned D-SNPs were more likely to be receiving long-term institutionalized care vs beneficiaries in nonaligned D-SNPs (4.3% vs 1.0%, respectively; SMD, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.24-0.25]) or have dementia or Alzheimer disease (9.2% vs 5.9%; SMD, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.13-0.13]). Conclusions: This study found that availability of and enrollment in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment are increasing, but the overall proportion enrolled remains low. Further reforms are needed to promote aligned enrollment.

Cost-Associated Unmet Dental, Vision, And Hearing Needs Among Low-Income Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Medicare Advantage (MA) supplemental benefits offered at no or low premiums are a key value proposition for low-income beneficiaries. Despite nearly $20 billion in rebate payments to MA plans for funding supplemental benefits, their quality or enrollee access is not monitored. Using 2018-19 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked to MA plan data, we found that regardless of plan benefit generosity, low-income beneficiaries were more likely to report dental, vision, and hearing unmet needs because of cost. Enrollment in plans with higher corresponding-year (that is, the same year as unmet need measurement) star ratings was associated with lower dental unmet need. Income-related disparities in dental unmet needs were lower in the highest-rated plans. However, prior-year star ratings that determined plan payments were not associated with unmet needs or disparities in those needs. Policy makers should consider monitoring supplemental benefits for equity and access, and they should assess the value added by quality bonus payments to high-rated plans for beneficiaries' access.

Vertical Integration and Care Experiences Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in integrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated plans share unique features that may differ from newer integrated MA plans. It is unclear whether integrated and legacy-integrated MA plans are associated with a better beneficiary care experience compared with non-legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. Objective: To assess whether enrollment in integrated, legacy-integrated, non-legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated MA plans is associated with better beneficiary care experiences. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included MA beneficiaries who responded to Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys conducted annually between 2015 and 2019. Data analysis was performed between October 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024. Exposure: Medicare Advantage plan integration status, categorized as integrated, legacy-integrated, non-legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The CAHPS surveys assessed 9 care experience measures. To assess differences in care experience measures, mixed linear regression analyses were performed, adjusting for demographic characteristics, plan random effects, and state fixed effects. Results: The sample consisted of 857 695 respondents. Their mean (SD) age was 72.6 (10.3) years, and 58.1% were women. A total of 12.7% of respondents were Black, 10.7% were Hispanic, and 71.0% were White. Compared with respondents in nonintegrated MA plans, respondents in integrated MA plans were younger (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [10.3] vs 72.2 [10.3] years, respectively) and were less likely to be Black (13.1% vs 11.2%, respectively), female (58.4% vs 57.2%, respectively), and partially dual eligible (8.7% vs 6.2%, respectively). Integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings only of customer service (1.6 points [95% CI, 1.1-2.1]) and health plan (1.0 points [95% CI, 0.6-1.5]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings of drug plan (3.7 points [95% CI, 2.4-5.0]), health plan (3.1 points [95% CI, 1.7-4.5]), customer service (2.8 points [95% CI, 1.3-4.4]), getting appointments and care quickly (2.6 points [95% CI, 1.2-4.0]), health care quality (1.9 points [95% CI, 1.0-2.7]), physicians who communicate well (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.8]), and care coordination (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, integrated MA plans were not associated with better beneficiary care experiences compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with higher ratings on all care experience measures compared with both non-legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. Monitoring of integrated MA plans is needed to assess whether they are adding meaningful value to MA beneficiaries and to determine their effects on the health care system.

Medicare Advantage Enrollment Following the 21st Century Cures Act in Adults With End-Stage Renal Disease.

Importance: In January 2021, under the 21st Century Cures Act, Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were permitted to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans for the first time. In the first year of the Cures Act, there was a 51% increase in MA enrollment among beneficiaries with ESRD. Objective: To examine changes in MA enrollment among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD in the first 2 years of the Cures Act and, among beneficiaries newly enrolled in MA in 2021, to assess the proportion of beneficiaries who switched MA contracts and how the characteristics of contracts changed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based time-trend study was conducted from January 2020 to December 2022. Eligible participants included Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD. Data analysis was conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Enrollment in Medicare during the first 2 years of the 21st Century Cures Act. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were enrollment in MA, switching between traditional Medicare (TM) and MA, and switching between MA contracts from 2021 to 2022. Results: There were 718 252 unique Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD between 2020 and 2022 (1 659 652 beneficiary-years). In 2022, there were 583 203 beneficiaries with ESRD (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [14.1] years, 245 153 female (42.0%); 197 988 Black [34.0%]; 47 912 Hispanic [8.2%]). The proportion of beneficiaries with ESRD who were enrolled in MA increased from 25.1% (118 601 of 472 234 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 43.1% (211 896 of 491 611 beneficiaries) in December 2022. Increases in MA enrollment were larger in the first year of the Cures Act (12.6 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI 12.3-12.8 pp) compared with the second year (5.7 pp; 95% CI, 5.5-5.9 pp). Changes between December 2020 and December 2022 ranged between 49.3% for Asian or Pacific Islander beneficiaries (difference = 13.0 pp; 95% CI, 12.2-13.8 pp) and 207.2% for American Indian or Alaska Native beneficiaries (difference = 17.0 pp; 95% CI, 15.3-18.7 pp). Changes were high among partial dual-eligible (difference = 35.5 pp; 95% CI, 34.9-36.1 pp; 134.7% increase) and fully dual-eligible beneficiaries (difference = 22.8 pp, 95% CI, 22.5-23.1 pp; 98.0% increase). Among 53 366 beneficiaries enrolled in MA in 2021, 37 439 (70.2%) remained in their contract, 11 730 (22.0%) switched contracts, and 4197 (7.9%) switched to TM in 2022. Compared with the characteristics of MA enrollees with ESRD in 2021, those in 2022 were more likely to be in contracts with lower premiums and with a rating of 4.5 stars or higher. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional time-trend study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD, MA enrollment continued to increase in the second year of the Cures Act, particularly among racially or ethnically minoritized individuals and dual eligible populations. These findings suggest need to monitor the equity of care for beneficiaries with ESRD as they enroll in managed care plans.

Contract Termination and Insurance Enrollment Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Approximately one-fifth of Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts terminated their participation in the MA program between 2011 and 2020. Little is known about subsequent insurance choices following a termination. Objective: To examine the insurance destinations of MA enrollees and the characteristics of enrollees who switch into traditional Medicare (TM) after a contract termination. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study examined MA program data of MA beneficiaries in the Medicare Master Beneficiary File from 2016 to 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Exposures: Beneficiary characteristics, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual eligibility; hospital, nursing home, and home health utilization; and contract characteristics, including plan type, vertical integration, premium, and MA star rating. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was switching to TM in the year immediately after termination. We also evaluated the characteristics of contracts among those who remained in MA. Results: A total of 117 681 beneficiaries were included in this analysis (64 654 [54.9%] female; 409 [0.4%] American Indian or Alaska Native; 2817 [2.4%] Asian; 76 725 [16.8%] Black; 11 131 [9.5%] Hispanic; 81 226 [69.0%] White; and 2373 [2.0%] other race or ethnicity; 27 078 [23.0%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age, 71.2 [10.4] years). Following a contract termination, 20.1% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%) of enrollees switched to TM, including 32.7% (95% CI, 32.4%-33.1%) of dual-eligible beneficiaries and 16.4% (95% CI, 16.2%-16.5%) of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In nonterminated contracts, the concurrent switch rate was 6.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-6.2%) for all, 10.4% (95% CI, 10.4%-10.4%) for dual-eligible beneficiaries and 5.1% (95% CI, 5.1%-5.1%) for non-dual-eligible enrollees. The highest switch rates to TM were among Black enrollees (32.3% [95% CI, 31.7%-32.8%]) and those with prior use of hospital (31.3% [95% CI, 30.7%-31.9%], nursing home, 41.4% [95% CI, 40.4%-42.4%], or home health care (28.3% [95% CI, 27.4%-29.2%]). Beneficiaries who stayed in MA selected higher-rated star plans (mean posttermination contract star rating of 3.8 [95% CI, 3.8-3.8] stars compared with 3.3 [95% CI, 3.3-3.3] stars in the terminated year), but did not pay more in monthly premiums with 66.5% (95% CI, 66.2%-66.8%) paying the same or lower premiums. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 MA beneficiaries switched to TM after a contract termination, with Black beneficiaries and those with more intensive health needs having the highest switch rates. These findings highlight the need to examine consequences of contract terminations and subsequent insurance destinations on access to care and health outcomes, especially among those with marginalized race and ethnicity, those who are dual-eligible, and beneficiaries with higher health care needs.

Medicare Advantage Plan and Health System Vertical Integration, 2011-2020.

This cross-sectional study compares the beneficiary and plan characteristics and trends in enrollment, premiums, star ratings, and benefits of nonintegrated, non­legacy-integrated, and legacy-integrated Medicare Advantage plans between 2011 and 2020.

Factors influencing disparities in epilepsy surgery: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample and Kids' Inpatient Database.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the proven efficacy of surgical intervention for achieving seizure freedom and improved quality of life for many epilepsy patients, this treatment remains underutilized. In this study, the authors assessed sociodemographic trends in epilepsy surgery in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) and sought to determine whether disparities in surgical intervention for epilepsy may be attributed to insurance and comorbidity status. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized data from the NIS database and KID from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project between the years 2012 and 2018. Outcomes of interest were rates of neurosurgical intervention, including resection, neuromodulation, or laser ablation. The authors utilized logit regression models to test the association between rates of neurosurgical intervention and the variables of interest and calculated the adjusted mean proportion of patients who received surgery using marginal effects. RESULTS: Of 336,015 admissions with intractable epilepsy in the NIS, 6.1% were patients who underwent neurosurgical treatment. Of 39,655 admissions from KID, 5.0% received surgical treatment. Private insurance was associated with a greater odds of surgical intervention compared with Medicaid (NIS: OR 1.63, KID: OR 1.62; p < 0.001). Patients assigned White race had an increased odds ratio of undergoing surgery when compared with those assigned Black race, adjusted for comorbidity burden (NIS: OR 1.59, p < 0.001; KID: OR 1.44, p = 0.027). Patients with an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score of 0 or 1 were associated with a lower likelihood of surgery when compared to their higher scoring counterparts who had 4 or more comorbidities (NIS: OR 0.74, KID: OR 0.62; both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that marginalized patients and those with Medicaid had decreased odds of neurosurgical intervention for epilepsy. Results of this research support the need for increased attention toward epilepsy patients from marginalized groups. Further investigation into the root cause of socioeconomic inequities in epilepsy surgery is necessary.

The impacts of supplemental benefits on Medicare Advantage plan composition.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019 and 2020, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans received historic flexibility to begin to address members' nonmedical and social needs through a set of primarily health-related benefits (PHRBs) and Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCIs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of adoption on the number and composition of new MA plan enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: A difference-in-differences design of retrospective Medicare enrollment data linked to publicly available plan and county-level data. METHODS: We linked individual-level Medicare enrollment data to publicly available, plan-level MA benefit, crosswalk, and penetration files from 2016 to 2020. We compared the number of new enrollees and the proportion of new enrollees who were Black, Hispanic, younger than 65 years, partially and fully Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible, and disabled in plans that adopted a PHRB or SSBCI vs a set of matched control plans that did not. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, PHRB adoption was associated with a 2.2% decrease in the proportion of fully dual-eligible new members (95% CI, -4.0% to -0.5%). SSBCI adoption was associated with a 2.3% decrease in the proportion of new members younger than 65 years (95% CI, -3.6% to -0.9%). After accounting for multiple comparisons, these results were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We determined that supplemental benefit adoption was not associated with demographic shifts in MA plan enrollment.

Medicare Advantage Plan Star Ratings and County Social Vulnerability.

Importance: The star rating of a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan is meant to represent plan performance, and it determines the size of quality bonuses. Consumer access to MA plans with a high star rating may vary by the extent of social vulnerability in geographic regions. Objective: To examine the association between a county's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the star rating of a county's MA plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2023 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data for all MA plans linked to 2020 county-level SVI data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data were analyzed from March to October 2023. Exposure: Quintile rank of county based on composite and theme-specific SVI scores, with quartile 1 (Q1) representing the least vulnerable counties and Q5, the most vulnerable counties. The SVI is a multidimensional measure of a county's social vulnerability across 4 themes: socioeconomic status, household characteristics (such as disability, age, and language), racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation. Main Outcomes and Measures: County-level mean star rating and the number of MA plans with low-rated (<3.5 stars), high-rated (3.5 or 4.0 stars), and highest-rated (≥4.5 stars) plans. Results: Across 3075 counties, the median county-level star rating was 4.1 (IQR, 3.9-4.3) in Q1 counties and 3.8 (IQR, 3.6-4.0) in Q5 counties (P < .001). The mean star rating of MA plans was lower (difference, -0.24 points; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.21 points; P < .001), the number of low-rated plans was higher (incidence rate ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06; P < .001), and the number of highest-rated plans was lower (incidence rate ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81; P < .001) in Q5 counties compared with Q1 counties. Similar patterns were found across theme-specific SVI score quintiles and for 2022 star ratings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the most socially vulnerable counties were found to have the fewest highest-rated plans for MA beneficiaries. As MA enrollment grows in socially vulnerable regions, this may exacerbate regional differences in health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries.

Medicare Advantage enrollment and outcomes of post-acute nursing home care among patients with dementia.

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been rapidly growing. We examined whether MA enrollment affects the outcomes of post-acute nursing home care among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). We exploited year-to-year changes in MA penetration rates within counties from 2012 through 2019. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics and county fixed effects, we found that MA enrollment was not associated with days spent at home, nursing home days, likelihood of becoming a long-stay resident, hospital days, hospital readmission, or 1-year mortality. There was a modest increase in successful discharge to the community by 0.73 percentage points (relative increase of 2.4%) associated with a 10-percentage-point increase in MA enrollment. The results are consistent among racial/ethnic subgroups and dual-eligible patients. These findings suggest an imperative need to monitor and improve quality of managed care among enrollees with ADRD.

Association of Medicare Advantage Enrollment With Financial Burden of Care : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans typically offer supplemental benefits and lower copayments for in-network services and must include an out-of-pocket spending limit. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the financial burden of care decreased for persons switching from TM to MA (TM-to-MA switchers) relative to those remaining in TM (TM stayers). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study comparing changes in financial outcomes between TM-to-MA switchers and TM stayers. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2014 to 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Individual health care costs (out-of-pocket spending and cost sharing), financial burden (high and catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills, paying medical bills over time, and inability to pay medical bills). RESULTS: Compared with TM stayers, TM-to-MA switchers had small differences in out-of-pocket spending ($168 [95% CI, -$133 to $469]) and proportions of total health expenses paid out of pocket (cost sharing) (0.2 percentage point [CI, -1.3 to 1.7 percentage points]), families with out-of-pocket spending greater than 20% of their income (high financial burden) (0.3 percentage point [CI, -2.5 to 3.0 percentage points]), families reporting out-of-pocket spending greater than 40% of their income (catastrophic financial burden) (0.7 percentage point [CI, -0.1 to 1.6 percentage points]), families reporting paying medical bills over time (-0.2 percentage point [CI, -1.7 to 1.4 percentage points]), families having problems paying medical bills (-0.4 percentage point [CI, -2.7 to 1.8 percentage points]), and families reporting being unable to pay medical bills (0.4 percentage point [CI, -1.3 to 2.0 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Inability to account for all medical care and cost needs and variations across MA plans, small baseline differences in out-of-pocket spending, and potential residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Differences in financial outcomes between beneficiaries who switched from TM to MA and those who stayed with TM were small. Differences in financial burden ranged across outcomes and did not have a consistent pattern. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Research Foundation of Korea.

New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

Importance: In 2018, the US Congress gave Medicare Advantage (MA) historic flexibility to address members' social needs with a set of Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCIs). In response, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded the definition of primarily health-related benefits (PHRBs) to include nonmedical services in 2019. Uptake has been modest; MA plans cited a lack of evidence as a limiting factor. Objective: To evaluate the association between adopting the expanded supplemental benefits designed to address MA enrollees' nonmedical and social needs and enrollees' plan ratings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared the plan ratings of MA enrollees in plans that adopted an expanded PHRB, SSBCI, or both using difference-in-differences estimators with MA Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems survey data from March to June 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021 linked to Medicare administrative claims and publicly available benefits and enrollment data. Data analysis was performed between April 2023 and March 2024. Exposure: Enrollees in MA plans that adopted a PHRB and/or SSBCI in 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollee plan rating on a 0- to 10-point scale, with 0 indicating the worst health plan possible and 10 indicating the best health plan possible. Results: The study sample included 388 356 responses representing 467 MA contracts and 2558 plans in 2021. Within the weighted population of responders, the mean (SD) age was 74.6 (8.7) years, 57.2% were female, 8.9% were fully Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible, 74.6% had at least 1 chronic medical condition, 13.7% had not graduated high school, 9.7% were helped by a proxy, 45.1% reported fair or poor physical health, and 15.6% were entitled to Medicare due to disability. Adopting both a new PHRB and SSBCI benefit in 2021 was associated with an increase of 0.22 out of 10 points (95% CI, 0.4-4.0 points) in mean enrollee plan ratings. There was no association between adoption of only a PHRB (adjusted difference, -0.12 points; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.02 points) or SSBCI (adjusted difference, 0.09 points; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21 points) and plan rating. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare Advantage plans that adopted both benefits saw modest increases in mean enrollee plan ratings. This evidence suggests that more investments in supplemental benefits were associated with improved plan experiences, which could contribute to improved plan quality ratings.

Pay-for-Performance Incentives for Home Dialysis Use and Kidney Transplant.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' mandatory End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model, launched on January 1, 2021, randomly assigned approximately 30% of US dialysis facilities and managing clinicians to financial incentives to increase the use of home dialysis and kidney transplant. Objective: To assess the ETC's association with use of home dialysis and kidney transplant during the model's first 2 years and examine changes in these outcomes by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study used claims and enrollment data for traditional Medicare beneficiaries with kidney failure from 2017 to 2022 linked to same-period transplant data from the United Network for Organ Sharing. The study data span 4 years (2017-2020) before the implementation of the ETC model on January 1, 2021, and 2 years (2021-2022) following the model's implementation. Exposure: Receiving dialysis treatment in a region randomly assigned to the ETC model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were use of home dialysis and kidney transplant. A difference-in-differences (DiD) approach was used to estimate changes in outcomes among patients treated in regions randomly selected for ETC participation compared with concurrent changes among patients treated in control regions. Results: The study population included 724 406 persons with kidney failure (mean [IQR] age, 62.2 [53-72] years; 42.5% female). The proportion of patients receiving home dialysis increased from 12.1% to 14.3% in ETC regions and from 12.9% to 15.1% in control regions, yielding an adjusted DiD estimate of -0.2 percentage points (pp; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.3 pp). Similar analysis for transplant yielded an adjusted DiD estimate of 0.02 pp (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04 pp). When further stratified by sociodemographic measures, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollment, and poverty quartile, there was not a statistically significant difference in home dialysis use across joint strata of characteristics and ETC participation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first 2 years of the ETC model were not associated with increased use of home dialysis or kidney transplant, nor changes in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in these outcomes.

Safeguarding Research Using Federal Health Insurance Data.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of researcher access to federal health care data following a CMS decision to limit the use of physical data and proposes solutions to maintain access and security.

Medicare Advantage Health Risk Assessments Contribute Up To $12 Billion Per Year To Risk-Adjusted Payments.

With Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment surpassing 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, accurate risk-adjusted plan payment rates are essential. However, artificially exaggerated coding intensity, where plans seek to enhance measured health risk through the addition or inflation of diagnoses, may threaten payment rate integrity. One factor that may play a role in escalating coding intensity is health risk assessments (HRAs)-typically in-home reviews of enrollees' health status-that enable plans to capture information about their enrollees. In this study, we evaluated the impact of HRAs on Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk scores, variation in this impact across contracts, and the aggregate payment impact of HRAs, using 2019 MA encounter data. We found that 44.4 percent of MA beneficiaries had at least one HRA. Among those with at least one HRA, HCC scores increased by 12.8 percent, on average, as a result of HRAs. More than one in five enrollees had at least one additional HRA-captured diagnosis, which raised their HCC score. Potential scenarios restricting the risk-score impact of HRAs correspond with $4.5-$12.3 billion in reduced Medicare spending in 2020. Addressing increased coding intensity due to HRAs will improve the value of Medicare spending and ensure appropriate payment in the MA program.

Characterizing Disparities in the HIV Care Continuum among Transgender and Cisgender Medicare Beneficiaries.

Background: In the US, transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals, particularly trans feminine individuals, experience a disproportionately high burden of HIV relative to their cisgender counterparts. While engagement in the HIV Care Continuum (e.g., HIV care visits, antiretroviral (ART) prescribed, ART adherence) is essential to reduce viral load, HIV transmission, and related morbidity, the extent to which TGD people engage in one or more steps of the HIV Care Continuum at similar levels as cisgender people is understudied on a national level and by gendered subgroups. Methods and Findings: We used Medicare Fee-for-Service claims data from 2009 to 2017 to identify TGD (trans feminine and non-binary (TFN), trans masculine and non-binary (TMN), unclassified gender) and cisgender (male, female) beneficiaries with HIV. Using a retrospective cross-sectional design, we explored within- and between-gender group differences in the predicted probability (PP) of engaging in one or more steps of the HIV Care Continuum. TGD individuals had a higher predicted probability of every HIV Care Continuum outcome compared to cisgender individuals [HIV Care Visits: TGD PP=0.22, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI)=0.22-0.24; cisgender PP=0.21, 95% CI=0.21-0.22); Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Screening (TGD PP=0.12, 95% CI=0.11-0.12; cisgender PP=0.09, 95% CI=0.09-0.10); ART Prescribed (TGD PP=0.61, 95% CI=0.59-0.63; cisgender PP=0.52, 95% CI=0.52-0.54); and ART Persistence or adherence (90% persistence: TGD PP=0.27, 95% CI=0.25-0.28; 95% persistence: TGD PP=0.13, 95% CI=0.12-0.14; 90% persistence: cisgender PP=0.23, 95% CI=0.22-0.23; 95% persistence: cisgender PP=0.11, 95% CI=0.11-0.12)]. Notably, TFN individuals had the highest probability of every outcome (HIV Care Visits PP =0.25, 95% CI=0.24-0.27; STI Screening PP =0.22, 95% CI=0.21-0.24; ART Prescribed PP=0.71, 95% CI=0.69-0.74; 90% ART Persistence PP=0.30, 95% CI=0.28-0.32; 95% ART Persistence PP=0.15, 95% CI=0.14-0.16) and TMN people or cisgender females had the lowest probability of every outcome (HIV Care Visits: TMN PP =0.18, 95% CI=0.14-0.22; STI Screening: Cisgender Female PP =0.11, 95% CI=0.11-0.12; ART Receipt: Cisgender Female PP=0.40, 95% CI=0.39-0.42; 90% ART Persistence: TMN PP=0.15, 95% CI=0.11-0.20; 95% ART Persistence: TMN PP=0.07, 95% CI=0.04-0.10). The main limitation of this research is that TGD and cisgender beneficiaries were included based on their observed care, whereas individuals who did not access relevant care through Fee-for-Service Medicare at any point during the study period were not included. Thus, our findings may not be generalizable to all TGD and cisgender individuals with HIV, including those with Medicare Advantage or other types of insurance. Conclusions: Although TGD beneficiaries living with HIV had superior engagement in the HIV Care Continuum than cisgender individuals, findings highlight notable disparities in engagement for TMN individuals and cisgender females, and engagement was still low for all Medicare beneficiaries, independent of gender. Interventions are needed to reduce barriers to HIV care engagement for all Medicare beneficiaries to improve treatment outcomes and reduce HIV-related morbidity and mortality in the US.

Emergency Department Use Disparities Among Transgender and Cisgender Medicare Beneficiaries, 2011-2020.

This cross-sectional study compares emergency department use among transgender and gender-diverse as well as cisgender Medicare beneficiaries.