Access to insurance navigation support through the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP).

Medicare enrollment is complex, particularly for low-income individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and the wrong plan choice can adversely impact beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs and access to providers and medications. The State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) is a federal program that provides counseling on Medicare coverage, but the degree to which SHIP services are accessible to low-income beneficiaries is unknown. We interviewed SHIP counselors and coordinators to characterize factors affecting access to and quality of SHIP services for low-income beneficiaries. Availability of volunteers was cited as the primary barrier to SHIP services. Topics related to dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid were frequently covered in counseling sessions, and staff expressed a desire for more training related to Medicaid and integrated-care programs. Our results suggest that additional counselors and increased training on topics relevant to dually eligible individuals may improve SHIP's ability to provide health insurance-related information to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

The role of Medicaid home- and community-based services in use of Medicare post-acute care.

OBJECTIVE: Medicaid-funded long-term services and supports are increasingly provided through home- and community-based services (HCBS) to promote continued community living. While an emerging body of evidence examines the direct benefits and costs of HCBS, there may also be unexplored synergies with Medicare-funded post-acute care (PAC). This study aimed to provide empirical evidence on how the use of Medicaid HCBS influences Medicare PAC utilization among the dually enrolled. DATA SOURCES: National Medicare claims, Medicaid claims, nursing home assessment data, and home health assessment data from 2016 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the relationship between prior Medicaid HCBS use and PAC (skilled nursing facilities [SNF] or home health) utilization in a national sample of duals with qualifying index hospitalizations. We used inverse probability weights to create balanced samples on observed characteristics and estimated multivariable regression with hospital fixed effects and extensive controls. We also conducted stratified analyses for key subgroups. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: The primary sample included 887,598 hospital discharges from community-dwelling duals who had an eligible index hospitalization between April 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found HCBS use was associated with a 9 percentage-point increase in the use of home health relative to SNF, conditional on using PAC, and a meaningful reduction in length of stay for those using SNF. In addition, in our primary sample, we found HCBS use to be associated with an overall increase in PAC use, given that the absolute increase in home health use was larger than the absolute decrease in SNF use. In other words, the use of Medicaid-funded HCBS was associated with a shift in Medicare-funded PAC use toward home-based settings. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate potential synergies between Medicaid-funded HCBS and increased use of home-based PAC, suggesting policymakers should cautiously consider these dynamics in HCBS expansion efforts.

Comparing HEDIS performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans with other coverage types for dually eligible people.

People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage ("dually eligible individuals") have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their 3 most common Medicare coverage options are Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these 3 coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on 6 HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files). D-SNPs and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all 6 measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for 2 measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other 4 measures. For the 4 measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNPs than in non-D-SNP MA plans.

"It shouldn't be like this": Family caregivers navigating insurance for family members with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Almost 11.3 million family caregivers of people with dementia must navigate the health insurance landscape to meet the complex medical and long-term care needs of their family members. This study explores factors that influence family caregivers' decisions about insurance and how these choices affect the care and support people with dementia receive. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from June 2022 to January 2023 with 15 family caregivers of people with dementia dual eligible for Medicaid and Medicare and enrolled in home-based primary care in New York City. A set of open-ended questions were asked exploring caregivers' perspectives on navigating insurance plans. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis with both deductive and inductive coding. RESULTS: Analysis revealed three major themes: (1) challenges of Medicaid enrollment, (2) making do with existing insurance, and (3) mistrust of the insurance system. Initial enrollment in Medicaid compounded the stress of adjusting to caregiving. The enrollment process was impacted by clinical factors, financial factors, and input from providers and social workers; however, caregivers could not identify a centralized system for obtaining insurance information and support. Once Medicaid was in place, participants described advocating on behalf of their family member within the constraints of their current insurance plans (Medicare and Medicaid) and ensuring they had the necessary knowledge to understand their family member's coverage. Participants voiced a need for ongoing vigilance to ensure their family members received needed care and support. CONCLUSION: The challenges family caregivers experience when navigating insurance for their family members with dementia contribute to caregiver burden. Robust and centralized professional support for family members both immediately after a family member's dementia diagnosis and as the disease progresses could increase caregivers' capacity to make insurance decisions that best support their family members with dementia.

Profile of Older Dual-Enrollees Living in Areas with Managed Long-Term Services and Supports.

OBJECTIVES: Nearly half of all state Medicaid agencies in the United States have implemented managed long-term services and supports (MLTSS). Data gaps have inhibited our understanding of MLTSS experiences to date. We draw on a national survey with novel data linkages to develop a profile of older dual-enrollees with significant LTSS needs by MLTSS program presence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study using the 2015 round of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample comprised 275 participants who self-reported Medicaid enrollment and met our definition of significant LTSS need as defined by receiving help with 2 or more self-care or mobility activities (eating, bathing, toileting, dressing, bed transfer, indoor mobility). METHODS: Bivariate analyses were used to comparatively examine differences in demographic, health, and care circumstances by MLTSS, as defined by living in a county with MLTSS program presence. RESULTS: Among approximately 1 million (weighted sample) older dual-enrollees with significant LTSS needs, 56.2% (weighted percentage) lived in counties with MLTSS and 43.7% lived in counties with mandatory MLTSS enrollment in 2015. Those living in areas with MLTSS were much more likely to be of Hispanic or other race and ethnicity (50.5% vs 15.1%, P < .001) yet less likely to live in a rural location (8.7% vs 31.4%, P < .05) or in a residential care facility or nursing home (18.4% vs 34.7%, P < .05). The majority (78.5%) received assistance from 2 or more helpers and received more than 70 hours of care per week. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings reinforce the growing reach of MLTSS programs and importance of filling evidence gaps about who these programs are serving.

The Effect of COVID-19 on Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of COVID-19 on clinical health outcomes and health-related social needs among Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiaries. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Dual eligibles during COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive scoping review including observational studies, clinical trials, and original empirical research studies of PubMed and CINAHL. We generated a list of terms related to programs that both serve dual eligibles and address our desired outcomes. With the assistance of a medical librarian, we identified relevant abstracts published during COVID-19 meeting our inclusion criteria. We performed full-text reviews of relevant abstracts and selected the final studies. We extracted the study population, design, and major findings, then conducted thematic analysis. RESULTS: 1100 articles were identified, with 439 deemed relevant. On full text-review, 15 articles met inclusion criteria representing more than 86 million Medicare beneficiaries. No studies were specific only to dual eligibles. Topic areas included in this review include COVID-19 case counts (2 articles), mortality (8 articles), hospitalizations (7 articles), food insecurity (1 article), self-reported mental health (1 article), and social connectedness (2 articles). Dual eligibles had disparate COVID-19-related outcomes from Medicare-only enrollees in 12 of 15 studies. Studies show higher mortality for dual eligibles overall, but this was not true for dual eligibles in nursing homes and assisted living communities. Dual eligibles were more likely to experience food insecurity. More favorably, dual eligibles reported greater social connectedness. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Dual eligibles had different outcomes from Medicare-only recipients in multiple health outcomes and health-related social needs during COVID-19, but studies are limited, particularly in terms of health-related social needs. Future work focusing on outcomes only among dual-eligible beneficiaries, integrated care programs, and fiscal alignment between Medicare and Medicaid plans may help stakeholders address health needs specific to dual eligibles.

Publicly Reported Quality Performance for Dual-eligible Special Needs Plans, 2010-2019.

As enrollment increases in Dual-eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) that exclusively enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries with Medicaid coverage, better evidence is needed about quality of care in these managed care plans. Using 2010-2019 publicly reported Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures, we found that median HEDIS performance scores were usually slightly worse for D-SNPs than the overall MA program with some reductions in quality performance gaps between 2010 and 2019. D-SNPs had more incomplete performance reporting than MA contracts, especially for measures focused on clinical conditions. Medicare Advantage reporting requirements should require greater transparency about performance in D-SNPs.

Dual-eligible, dual-risk? A brief review on the impact of dual-eligible status on health disparities and peripheral artery disease.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) has been associated with poorer outcomes based on particular social determinants of health, including insurance status. A unique population to study treatment outcomes related to PAD is those with dual-eligible status-those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid-comprising more than 12 million people. We performed a systematic review of the literature surrounding dual-eligible patients and impact on PAD, with final inclusion of six articles. Dual eligibility has been associated with higher rates of comorbidities; more severe symptoms at initial presentation for PAD; and poorer treatment outcomes, including mortality. Further studies are needed to specifically look at the association between PAD and dual-eligible status, but what is clear is that patients in this population would benefit from early identification to prevent disease progression and improve equity.

Psychiatrist and Nonpsychiatrist Physician Network Breadth in Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans.

OBJECTIVE: Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) are a type of Medicare Advantage (MA) plan for individuals who have both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The authors compared the breadths of psychiatrist and nonpsychiatrist provider networks in D-SNPs and other MA plans. METHODS: MA plan provider network data were merged with plan service areas and a nationwide provider database to form a data set with 843 observations on networks subclassified by state and network type (D-SNP or other MA) covering 42 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. Network breadth measured the in-network fraction of clinically active Medicare-accepting psychiatrists and other physician providers in the plans' service areas in each state. Regression analyses were used to compare psychiatrist and nonpsychiatrist network breadth and psychiatrist-nonpsychiatrist breadth differences between D-SNPs and other MA plans, after adjustment for state-level differences. RESULTS: Mean psychiatrist network breadth was 0.319 in D-SNPs and 0.299 in other MA plans, and nonpsychiatrist network breadth was 0.346 in D-SNPs and 0.358 in other MA plans. Psychiatrist networks were narrower than nonpsychiatrist networks (0.303 vs. 0.355, p<0.001), but mean psychiatrist network breadth did not differ between D-SNPs and other MA plans. In regression analyses, the psychiatrist-nonpsychiatrist breadth difference was smaller in D-SNPs (-0.031) than in other MA plans (-0.060) (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrist provider networks in a nationwide sample of D-SNPs had similar breadth as psychiatrist networks used in other MA plans. Special provider network adequacy requirements for psychiatrists in D-SNP networks may be worthy of further consideration given D-SNPs' disproportionate enrollment of adults with serious mental illness who have dual Medicare-Medicaid insurance coverage.

Evaluating a Care Management Program for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries: Evidence from Rhode Island.

As health systems attempt to contain utilization and costs, care management programs are proliferating. However, there are mixed findings on their impact. In 2018, Rhode Island initiated a care management program for dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries at high risk of hospitalization or institutionalization. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between health care utilization and costs and care management for dual-eligible participants (n = 169). The authors employed an interrupted time series analysis of administrative claims data using the Rhode Island All Payer Claims Database, which includes data from all major payers in the state, for 11 quarters (January 1, 2017 until September 1, 2019). On average, participants were younger (46.2% were 19-64 years of age vs. 41.9% of non-participants), female (71% vs. 62.6% of non-participants), and had a higher comorbidity burden (more commonly had anemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, diabetes, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and stroke). Participation was associated with significantly fewer hospital admissions (118 fewer admissions per 1000 admissions per quarter; 95% confidence interval [CI] -11 to -22), and a reduction in Medicaid ($1841 less spent per quarter, 95% CI -2407 to -1275) and total ($2570 less spent per quarter; 95% CI -$4645 to -$495) costs. Participation was not significantly associated with a change in Emergency Department (ED) visits, preventable ED visits, Skilled Nursing Facility stays, or Medicare costs. These results suggest that targeted care management programs may provide dual-eligible beneficiaries with needed services while diverting inefficient health care utilization.

Traditional Medicare Episode-Related Spending on Postacute Care for Dual-Eligible and Medicare-Only Beneficiaries, 2009-2017.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries with Medicare and Medicaid coverage generally have greater utilization and spending levels than Medicare-only beneficiaries on postacute services, raising questions about how strategies to curb postacute spending will affect dual-eligible beneficiaries. We compared trends in postacute spending and use related to inpatient episodes at a population and episode level for dual-eligible and Medicare-only beneficiaries over the years 2009-2017. Although dual-eligible beneficiaries had consistently higher inpatient and postacute service use and spending than Medicare-only populations, both populations experienced similar declines in inpatient and postacute measures over time. Conditional on having an inpatient stay, most types of postacute service use increased regardless of dual-eligible status. These consistent patterns in episode-related postacute spending for Medicare-only and dual-eligible beneficiaries-decreased episode-related spending and use on a per beneficiary basis and increased use and spending on a per episode basis-suggest that changing patterns of care affect both populations.

Use of long-term services and supports among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

BACKGROUND: To respect people's preference for aging in place and control costs, many state Medicaid programs have enacted policies to expand home and community-based services as an alternative to nursing facility care. However, little is known about the use of Medicaid long-term services and supports (LTSS) at a national level, particularly among dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). METHODS: Using Medicare and Medicaid claims of 30 states from 2016, we focused on dual-eligible beneficiaries 65 years or older with ADRD and described their use of any form of LTSS and sub-types of LTSS (home-based, community-based, and nursing facility services) across states. RESULTS: We found that 80.5% of dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD received some form of Medicaid LTSS in 2016. The most common LTSS setting was nursing facility (46.7%), followed by home (31.5%) and community (12.2%). There was sizeable state variation in the percentage of dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD who used any form of LTSS (ranging from 61% in Maine to 96% in Montana). The type of LTSS used also varied widely across states. For example, home-based service use ranged from 9% in Maine, Arizona, and South Dakota to 62% in Oregon. Nursing facility services were the most common type of LTSS in most states. However, home-based service use exceeded nursing facility use in Oregon, Alaska, and California. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest substantially different use of LTSS across states among dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD. Given the importance of LTSS for this population and their families, a deeper understanding of state LTSS policies and other factors that contribute to wide state variation in LTSS use will be necessary to improve access to LTSS across states.

Did the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Reduce Readmissions without Hurting Patient Outcomes at High Dual-Proportion Hospitals Prior to Stratification?

Since the implementation of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), safety-net hospitals have received a disproportionate share of financial penalties for excess readmissions, raising concerns about the fairness of the policy. In response, the HRRP now stratifies hospitals into five quintiles by low-income Medicare (dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible) stay proportion and compares readmission rates within quintiles. To better understand the potential effects of the revised policy, we used difference-in-differences models to compare changes in 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90th-day community-dwelling rates after discharge of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia during 2007-2014, for hospitals in the highest (N = 677) and lowest (N = 678) dual-proportion quintiles before and after the original HRRP implementation in fiscal year 2013. We find that high dual-proportion hospitals lowered readmissions for all three conditions, while their patients' health outcomes remained largely stable. We also find that for heart failure, high dual-proportion hospitals reduced readmissions more than low dual-proportion hospitals, albeit with a relative increase in mortality. Contrary to concerns about fairness, our findings imply that, under the original HRRP, high dual-proportion hospitals improved readmissions performance generally without adverse effects on patients' health. Whether these gains could be retained under the new policy should be closely monitored.

The Insurance Coverage Paradox - Characterizing Outcomes among Dual-Eligible Hemorrhagic Stroke Patients.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic factors, such as insurance status, have been shown to affect outcomes for patients following emergency injuries. Dual-eligible beneficiaries, receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, constitute an especially vulnerable population. There is limited data addressing whether dual-eligible beneficiaries with hemorrhagic stroke display unique characteristics and outcomes compared to patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10-years of National Inpatient Sample data. Using ICD-9-CM codes, we identified adult patients with known insurance status who were emergently hospitalized for intracranial hemorrhage; epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, and intracerebral hemorrhages were included. Patient characteristics including whether they underwent surgical intervention were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Primary clinical outcomes of interest included mortality (in-hospital), complications (any), and favorable discharge (home/home with services). RESULTS: Among 410,621 patients, dual-eligible (6.8%) patients were on average older (mean age = 73yrs) compared to Medicaid (46yrs), private insurance (67yrs), or no-charge (47yrs) patients. Caucasian race was highest among Medicare patients (83%) while African-American race was highest among Medicaid (22%). Among all patients, 5.3% underwent operative intervention. Dual-eligibles had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared to no-charge (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.61, 95% CI = [1.04 - 2.49]), but no significant difference between Medicare and Medicaid although dual-eligibles. Dual-eligibles had significantly increased odds of complications compared to Medicaid (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI = [1.11 - 1.37]) and privately insured patients (aOR = 1.19, 95% CI = [1.11 - 1.28]), both p < 0.001, and lower odds of favorable discharge compared to all other groups, all p < 0.001. Dual-eligibles underwent a shorter length of stay, an 18% decrease, compared to Medicaid patients (ß-Coefficient = 0.82, 95% CI = [0.78 - 0.86], p < 0.001), and inflation adjusted admission costs that were 24% lower compared to Medicaid patients (ß-Coefficient = 0.76, 95% CI = [0.73 - 0.80], p < 0.001), amounting to a $3,684 decrease in cost. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-eligible beneficiaries experience unique health disparities from lower odds of favorable discharge to increased odds of complications and in-hospital mortality compared to other insured and uninsured groups. Adverse outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries highlight the need to uncover and address unknown sources of disparities to improve emergency treatment of hemorrhagic stroke in this population.

Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). METHODS: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described. RESULTS: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). CONCLUSIONS: An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. LAY SUMMARY: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Significance and Factors Associated with Antipsychotic Polypharmacy Utilization Among Publicly Insured US Adults.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) lacks evidence of effectiveness in the care of schizophrenia or other disorders for which antipsychotic drugs are indicated, also exposing patients to more risks. Authors assessed APP prevalence and APP association with beneficiary race/ethnicity and payer among publicly-insured adults regardless of diagnosis. Retrospective repeated panel study of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, Medicaid, and dually-eligible white, black, and Latino adults residing in California, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, or West Virginia, filling antipsychotic prescriptions between July 2008 and June 2013. Primary outcome was any monthly APP utilization. Across states and payers, 11% to 21% of 397,533 antipsychotic users and 12% to 19% of 9,396,741 person-months had some APP utilization. Less than 50% of person-months had a schizophrenia diagnosis and up to 19% had no diagnosed mental illness. Payer modified race/ethnicity effects on APP utilization only in CA; however, the odds of APP utilization remained lower for minorities than for whites. Elsewhere, the odds varied by race/ethnicity only in OK, with Latinos having lower odds than whites (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.96). The odds of APP utilization varied by payer in several study states, with odds generally higher for Dual eligibles, although the differences were generally small; the odds also varied by year (lower at study end). APP was frequently utilized but mostly declined over time. APP utilization patterns varied across states, with no consistent association with race/ethnicity and small payer effects. Greater use of APP-reducing strategies are needed, particularly among non-schizophrenia populations.

Aligning Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Managed Care Plans for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

To coordinate Medicare and Medicaid benefits, multiple states are creating opportunities for dual-eligible beneficiaries to join Medicare Advantage Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) and Medicaid plans operated by the same insurer. Tennessee implemented this approach by requiring insurers who offered Medicaid plans to also offer a D-SNP by 2015. Tennessee's aligned D-SNP participation increased from 7% to 24% of dual-eligible beneficiaries aged 65 years and above between 2011 and 2017. Within a county, a 10-percentage-point increase in aligned D-SNP participation was associated with 0.3 fewer inpatient admissions (p = .048), 13.9 fewer prescription drugs per month (p = .048), and 0.3 fewer nursing home users (p = .06) per 100 dual-eligible beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Increased aligned plan participation was associated with 0.2 more inpatient admissions (p = .004) per 100 dual-eligible beneficiaries younger than 65 years. For some dual-eligible beneficiaries, increasing Medicare and Medicaid managed plan alignment has the potential to promote more efficient service use.

Intensity of end-of-life care for dual-eligible beneficiaries with cancer and the impact of delivery system affiliation.

BACKGROUND: Dual-eligible beneficiaries, who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, are a vulnerable population with much to gain from efforts to improve quality. Integrated delivery networks and cancer centers, with their emphasis on care coordination and communication, may improve quality of care for dual-eligible patients with cancer at the end of life. METHODS: This study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate quality for beneficiaries who died of cancer and were diagnosed from 2009 to 2014. High-intensity care was evaluated with 7 end-of-life quality measures according to dual-eligible status with multivariable logistic regression models. Regression-based techniques were used to assess the effect of delivery system affiliation (ie, cancer center or integrated delivery network vs no affiliation). RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died during the study interval, 22% were dually eligible. Inferior outcomes were identified for dual-eligible beneficiaries in comparison with nondual beneficiaries across nearly every quality measure assessed, including >1 hospitalization in the last 30 days (12.6% vs 11.3%; P < .001) and a greater proportion of deaths occurring in a hospital setting (30.2% vs 26.2%; P < .001). Receipt of care in an affiliated delivery system was associated with reduced deaths in a hospital setting and increased hospice utilization for dual-eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-eligible status is associated with higher intensity care at the end of life. Delivery system affiliation has a modest impact on quality at the end of life, and this suggests that targeted efforts may be needed to optimize quality for this group of vulnerable patients.

The impact of Dual Eligible Special Need Plan regulations on healthcare utilization.

BACKGROUND: To determine if requiring Dual Eligible Special Need Plans (D-SNPs) to receive approval from the National Committee of Quality Assurance and contract with state Medicaid agencies impacts healthcare utilization. METHODS: We use a Multiple Interrupted Time Series to examine the association of D-SNP regulations with dichotomized measures of emergency room (ER) and hospital utilization. Our treatment group is elderly D-SNP enrollees. Our comparison group is near-elderly (ages 60-64) beneficiaries enrolled in Medicaid Managed Care plans (N = 360,405). We use segmented regression models to estimate changes in the time-trend and slope of the outcomes associated with D-SNP regulations, during the post-implementation (2012-2015) period, relative to the pre-implementation (2010-2011) period. Models include a treatment-status indicator, a monthly time-trend, indicators and splines for the post-period and the interactions between these variables. We conduct the following sensitivity analyses: (1) Re-estimating models stratified by state (2) Estimating models including interactions of D-SNP implementation variables with comorbidity count to assess for differential D-SNP regulation effects across comorbidity level. (3) Re-estimating the models stratifying by race/ethnicity and (4) Including a transition period (2012-2013) in the model. RESULTS: We do not find any statistically significant changes in ER or hospital utilization associated with D-SNP regulation implementation in the broad D-SNP population or among specific racial/ethnic groups; however, we do find a reduction in hospitalizations associated with D-SNP regulations in New Jersey (DD level = - 3.37%; p = 0.02)/(DD slope = - 0.23%; p = 0.01) and among individuals with higher, relative to lower levels of co-morbidity (DDD slope = - 0.06%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the impact of D-SNP regulations varies by state. Additionally, D-SNP regulations may be particularly effective in reducing hospital utilization among beneficiaries with high levels of co-morbidity.