Gaps In Quality Of Care Not Consistent Between Traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage For Racial And Ethnic Groups.

The quality of care experienced by members of racial and ethnic minority groups in Medicare Advantage, which is an increasingly important source of Medicare coverage for these groups, has critical implications for health equity. Comparing gaps in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare for three quality-of-care outcomes, measured by adverse health events, between minority and non-Hispanic White populations, we found that the relative magnitude of the gaps varied both by racial and ethnic minority group and by quality measure. Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White gaps were smaller in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare for all outcomes: avoidable emergency department use, preventable hospitalizations, and thirty-day hospital readmissions. The gap between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White populations was larger in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare for avoidable emergency department use but was no different for hospital readmissions and was smaller for preventable hospitalizations. The Asian versus non-Hispanic White gap was similar in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare for avoidable emergency department use and preventable hospitalizations but was larger in Medicare Advantage for hospital readmissions. As Medicare Advantage enrollment expands, monitoring the quality of care for enrollees who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups will remain important.

The mechanics of risk adjustment and incentives for coding intensity in Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: To study diagnosis coding intensity across Medicare programs, and to examine the impacts of changes in the risk model adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for 2024. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Claims and encounter data from the CMS data warehouse for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: We created cohorts of MA enrollees, TM beneficiaries attributed to Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and TM non-ACO beneficiaries. Using the 2019 Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) software from CMS, we computed HCC prevalence and scores from base records, then computed incremental prevalence and scores from health risk assessments (HRA) and chart review (CR) records. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We used CMS's 2019 random 20% sample of individuals and their 2018 diagnosis history, retaining those with 12 months of Parts A/B/D coverage in 2018. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Measured health risks for MA and TM ACO individuals were comparable in base records for propensity-score matched cohorts, while TM non-ACO beneficiaries had lower risk. Incremental health risk due to diagnoses in HRA records increased across coverage cohorts in line with incentives to maximize risk scores: +0.9% for TM non-ACO, +1.2% for TM ACO, and + 3.6% for MA. Including HRA and CR records, the MA risk scores increased by 9.8% in the matched cohort. We identify the HCC groups with the greatest sensitivity to these sources of coding intensity among MA enrollees, comparing those groups to the new model's areas of targeted change. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous literature, we find increased health risk in MA associated with HRA and CR records. We also demonstrate the meaningful impacts of HRAs on health risk measurement for TM coverage cohorts. CMS's model changes have the potential to reduce coding intensity, but they do not target the full scope of hierarchies sensitive to coding intensity.

Using 15-Minute Serial Blood Pressures as an Alternative to Measuring a Single Blood Pressure.

Thirty-minute office blood pressure (OBP-30) is an alternative to ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurement, yet is impractical to implement. This study aimed to determine whether unattended BP readings over 15 minutes would result in a similar probability of obtaining a BP of <140/90. Sixty-seven adults self-described as having high BP were analyzed. BP was measured at baseline and every 5 minutes for 15 minutes with the initial reading compared to the average of the last three readings (OBP-15). Compared to baseline, there was a decline in both average systolic (4.2 points) and diastolic (2.8 points) BP. The probability of BP control predicted by multivariate model was 71.6% at baseline and 78.0% using OBP-15 (p=0.011). The increase in BP control from initial to OBP-15 measurement was significant for indigenous or persons of color compared to whites, and men compared to women. OBP-15 is convenient and results in lower BP readings and higher probability of BP control compared to the initial reading.