Patient Experience for Hispanic Older Adults Varies by Language Preference.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic people with Medicare report worse patient experiences than non-Hispanic White counterparts. However, little research examines how these disparities may vary by language preference (English/Spanish). OBJECTIVES: Using Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data, assess whether 2014-2018 disparities in patient experiences for Hispanic people with Medicare vary by language preference. RESEARCH DESIGN: We fit a series of linear, case-mix adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures by race/ethnicity/language preference (Hispanic Spanish-respondents; Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents; Hispanic English-preferring respondents; and non-Hispanic White English-respondents). SUBJECTS: A total of 1,006,543 Hispanic and non-Hispanic White respondents to the Medicare 2014-2018 CAHPS surveys. RESULTS: There were disparities for all Hispanic groups relative to non-Hispanic White English-respondents. Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents reported worse experience than Hispanic Spanish-respondents for getting care quickly (-8 points), getting needed care (-5 points), doctor communication (-2 points), and customer service (-1 point), but better experiences for flu immunization (+2 points). Similarly, Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents reported worse experience than Hispanic English-preferring respondents for getting care quickly (-4 points) and getting needed care (-2 points). Hispanic English-preferring respondents reported worse experience than Hispanic Spanish-respondents for getting care quickly (-4 points), getting needed care (-3 points), doctor communication and customer service (-2 points each), but better experience for flu immunization (+2 points). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of language preference, Hispanic people with Medicare experience disparities in patient care relative to non-Hispanic White English-preferring counterparts. Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents report the worse experiences, followed by Hispanic English-preferring respondents. Hispanic Spanish-respondents experienced the least disparities of the three Hispanic language subgroups.

Disparities in Care Experienced by Older Hispanic Medicare Beneficiaries in Urban and Rural Areas.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic older adults face substantial health disparities compared with non-Hispanic-White (hereafter "White") older adults. To the extent that these disparities stem from cultural and language barriers faced by Hispanic people, they may be compounded by residence in rural areas. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate possible interactions between Hispanic ethnicity and rural residence in predicting the health care experiences of older adults in the United States, and whether disparities in care for rural Hispanic older adults differ in Medicare Advantage versus Medicare Fee-for-Service. SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries age 65 years and older who responded to the 2017-2018 nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. METHODS: We fit a series of linear, case-mix-adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures of patient experience (rescaled to a 0-100 scale) from ethnicity, place of residence, and Medicare coverage type. RESULTS: In all residential areas, Hispanic beneficiaries reported worse experiences with getting needed care (-3 points), getting care quickly (-4 points), and care coordination (-1 point) than White beneficiaries (all P's<0.001). In rural areas only, Hispanic beneficiaries reported significantly worse experiences than White beneficiaries on doctor communication and customer services (-3 and -9 points, respectively, P<0.05). Tests of a 3-way interaction between ethnicity, rural residence, and coverage type were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve access to care and care coordination for Hispanic beneficiaries overall and doctor-patient communication and customer service for rural Hispanic beneficiaries. Strategies for addressing deficits faced by rural Hispanics may involve cultural competency training and provision of language-appropriate services for beneficiaries (perhaps as telehealth services).

The Contribution of First-name Information to the Accuracy of Racial-and-Ethnic Imputations Varies by Sex and Race-and-Ethnicity Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Data on race-and-ethnicity that are needed to measure health equity are often limited or missing. The importance of first name and sex in predicting race-and-ethnicity is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the contribution of first-name information to the accuracy of basic and more complex racial-and-ethnic imputations that incorporate surname information. RESEARCH DESIGN: We imputed race-and-ethnicity in a sample of Medicare beneficiaries under 2 scenarios: (1) with only sparse predictors (name, address, sex) and (2) with a rich set (adding limited administrative race-and-ethnicity, demographics, and insurance). SUBJECTS: A total of 284,627 Medicare beneficiaries who completed the 2014 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and reported race-and-ethnicity were included. RESULTS: Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, and non-Hispanic White racial-and-ethnic imputations are more accurate for males than females under both sparse-predictor and rich-predictor scenarios; adding first-name information increases accuracy more for females than males. In contrast, imputations of non-Hispanic Black race-and-ethnicity are similarly accurate for females and males, and first names increase accuracy equally for each sex in both sparse-predictor and rich-predictor scenarios. For all 4 racial-and-ethnic groups, incorporating first-name information improves prediction accuracy more under the sparse-predictor scenario than under the rich-predictor scenario. CONCLUSION: First-name information contributes more to the accuracy of racial-and-ethnic imputations in a sparse-predictor scenario than in a rich-predictor scenario and generally narrows sex gaps in accuracy of imputations.

Patient-Reported Care Coordination is Associated with Better Performance on Clinical Care Measures.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies using aggregated data suggest that better care coordination is associated with higher performance on measures of clinical care process; it is unclear whether this relationship reflects care coordination activities of health plans or physician practices. OBJECTIVE: Estimate within-plan relationships between beneficiary-reported care coordination measures and HEDIS measures of clinical process for the same individuals. DESIGN: Mixed-effect regression models in cross-sectional data. PARTICIPANTS: 2013 Medicare Advantage CAHPS respondents (n=152,069) with care coordination items linked to independently collected HEDIS data on clinical processes. MAIN MEASURES: Care coordination measures assessed follow-up, whether doctors had medical records during visits, whether doctors discussed medicines being taken, how informed doctors seemed about specialist care, and help received with managing care among different providers. HEDIS measures included mammography, colorectal cancer screening, cardiovascular LDL-C screening, controlling blood pressure, 5 diabetes care measures (LDL-C screening, retinal eye exam, nephropathy, blood sugar/HbA1c <9%, LCL-C<100 mg/dL), glaucoma screening in older adults, BMI assessment, osteoporosis management for women with a fracture, and rheumatoid arthritis therapy. KEY RESULTS: For 9 of the 13 HEDIS measures, within health plans, beneficiaries who reported better care coordination also received better clinical care (p<0.05) and none of the associations went in the opposite direction; HEDIS differences between those with excellent and poor coordination exceeded 5 percentage points for 7 measures. Nine measures had positive associations (breast cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, cardiovascular care LDL-C screening, 4 of 5 diabetes care measures, osteoporosis management, and rheumatoid arthritis therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Within health plans, beneficiaries who report better care coordination also received higher-quality clinical care, particularly for care processes that entail organizing patient care activities and sharing information among different healthcare providers. These results extend prior research showing that health plans with better beneficiary-reported care coordination achieved higher HEDIS performance scores.

Disparities in Care Experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the health care experiences of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs) due to limited data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the health care experiences of AIAN Medicare beneficiaries relative to non-Hispanic Whites using national survey data pooled over 5 years. SUBJECTS: A total of 1,193,248 beneficiaries who responded to the nationally representative 2012-2016 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. METHODS: Linear regression models predicted CAHPS measures from race and ethnicity. Scores on the CAHPS measures were linearly transformed to a 0-100 range and case-mix adjusted. Three AIAN groups were compared with non-Hispanic Whites: single-race AIANs (n=2491; 0.4% of the total sample), multiple-race AIANs (n=15,502; 1.3%), and Hispanic AIANs (n=2264; 0.2%). RESULTS: Among AIAN groups, single-race AIANs were most likely to live in rural areas and areas served by the Indian Health Service; Hispanic AIANs were most likely to be Spanish-language-preferring (P's<0.05). Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, single-race AIANs reported worse experiences with getting needed care (adjusted disparity of -5 points; a "large" difference), getting care quickly (-4 points; a "medium" difference), doctor communication (-2 points; a "small" difference), care coordination (-2 points), and customer service (-7 points; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Disparities were similar for Hispanic AIANs but more limited for multiple-race AIANs. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement efforts are needed to reduce disparities faced by older AIANs. These findings may assist in developing targeted efforts to address cultural, communication, and health system factors presumed to underlie disparities in health care access and customer service.

Medicare Beneficiaries With a Specialist as Their Personal Doctor Report Better Experiences With Care.

BACKGROUND: Health plans often require that patients have a personal doctor. Older adults rely on specialists for much of their care and may use a specialist in this role, but little is known about how many or which Medicare beneficiaries use specialists as their personal doctor and how their care experiences differ from others'. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries with a specialist as a personal doctor and compare their patient experiences and immunization to other beneficiaries'. RESEARCH DESIGN: Logistic regression predicted having a specialist as a personal doctor from beneficiary characteristics. Doubly-robust models compared 7 patient experience and 2 immunization measures for beneficiaries with and without a specialist as their personal doctor. Interactions of a specialist indicator and beneficiary characteristics tested for moderators. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 227,642 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ who reported having a personal doctor on the 2014 Medicare CAHPS survey. RESULTS: In total, 20% of beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor was a specialist, fewer than previously reported for the most frequently visited physician (43%); beneficiaries who were older, less healthy, less educated, racial/ethnic minorities, had fee-for-service coverage, or had lower income were more likely to do so. They also reported better patient experiences than those with nonspecialist personal physicians on 6 of 7 measures and more immunizations; the largest difference was for care coordination. Having a specialist personal doctor was associated with particularly positive patient experience for low income, Black, Hispanic, and less healthy beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Future research should investigate whether specialists as personal doctors may reduce patient-experience disparities for vulnerable patients.

Differences in Hospitalizations Between Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies found lower hospitalization rates for enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans than for beneficiaries with fee-for-service (FFS) coverage. MA enrollment is increasing, especially for those newly eligible for Medicare, but little is known about how service use in FFS or MA differs for new beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in rates of hospitalization between MA and FFS. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective study of hospitalization among FFS and MA respondents to the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) survey. Differences in hospitalization rates were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models that controlled for patient sociodemographic and health characteristics. Models included an interaction between age and coverage type to determine whether patterns of care were distinct for enrollees recently eligible for Medicare. STUDY POPULATION: In total, 259,335 respondents to the 2013 MCAHPS survey. RESULTS: In total, 14% of FFS and 12% of MA enrollees had ≥1 hospitalization in the 6 months before survey administration. Models adjusted for enrollee demographics found that MA enrollees had 0.81 the odds of being hospitalized relative to those with FFS coverage (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.84). Differences between groups were substantially reduced and no longer statistically significant when they were fully adjusted (adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.08). Models with interactions indicated no significant age differences in the MA/FFS hospitalization gap. CONCLUSION: Differences in hospital admissions between those with MA and FFS coverage appear to be primarily related to differences in health status.

A Comparison of Methods for Classifying and Modeling Respondents Who Endorse Multiple Racial/Ethnic Categories: A Health Care Experience Application.

BACKGROUND: Race/ethnicity information is vital for measuring disparities across groups, and self-report is the gold standard. Many surveys assign simplified race/ethnicity based on responses to separate questions about Hispanic ethnicity and race and instruct respondents to "check all that apply." When multiple races are endorsed, standard classification methods either create a single heterogenous multiracial group, or attempt to impute the single choice that would have been selected had only one choice been allowed. OBJECTIVES: To compare 3 options for classifying race/ethnicity: (a) hierarchical, classifying Hispanics as such regardless of racial identification, and grouping together all non-Hispanic multiracial individuals; (b) a newly proposed additive model, retaining all original endorsements plus a multiracial indicator; (c) an all-combinations approach, separately categorizing every observed combination of endorsements. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison of racial/ethnic distributions of patient experience scores; using weighted linear regression, we model patient experience by race/ethnicity using 3 classification systems. SUBJECTS: In total, 259,763 Medicare beneficiaries age 65+ who responded to the 2017 Medicare Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey and reported race/ethnicity. MEASURES: Self-reported race/ethnicity, 4 patient experience measures. RESULTS: Additive and hierarchical models produce similar classifications for non-Hispanic single-race respondents, but differ for Hispanic and multiracial respondents. Relative to the gold standard of the all-combinations model, the additive model better captures ratings of health care experiences and response tendencies that differ by race/ethnicity than does the hierarchical model. Differences between models are smaller with more specific measures. CONCLUSIONS: Additive models of race/ethnicity may afford more useful measures of disparities in health care and other domains. Our results have particular relevance for populations with a higher prevalence of multiracial identification.

Indirect Estimation of Race/Ethnicity for Survey Respondents Who Do Not Report Race/Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly interested in measuring race/ethnicity, but some survey respondents skip race/ethnicity items. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this study were to investigate the extent to which racial/ethnic groups differ in skipping race/ethnicity survey items, the degree to which this reflects reluctance to disclose race/ethnicity, and the utility of imputing missing race/ethnicity. RESEARCH DESIGN: We applied a previously developed method for imputing race/ethnicity from administrative data (Medicare Bayesian Improved Surname and Geocoding 2.0) to data from a national survey where race/ethnicity was usually self-reported, but was sometimes missing. A linear mixed-effects regression model predicted the probability of self-reporting race/ethnicity from imputed racial/ethnic probabilities. SUBJECTS: In total, 508,497 Medicare beneficiaries responding to the 2013-2014 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys were included in this study. MEASURES: Self-reported race/ethnicity and estimated racial/ethnic probabilities. RESULTS: Black beneficiaries were most likely to not self-report their race/ethnicity (6.6%), followed by Hispanic (4.7%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (4.7%) beneficiaries. Non-Hispanic whites were the least likely to skip these items (3.2%). The 3.7% overall rate of missingness is similar to adjacent demographic items. General patterns of item missingness rather than a specific reluctance to disclose race/ethnicity appears to explain the elevated rate of missing race/ethnicity among Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic beneficiaries and most but not all among Black beneficiaries. Adding imputed cases to the data set did not substantially alter the estimated overall racial/ethnic distribution, but it did modestly increase sample size and statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: It may be worthwhile to impute race/ethnicity when this information is unavailable in survey data sets due to item nonresponse, especially when missingness is high.

Care Experiences Among Medicare Beneficiaries With and Without a Personal Physician.

BACKGROUND: Having a "personal" physician is a critical element to care continuity. Little is known about which older adults are more likely to lack personal physicians and if their care experiences differ from those with a personal physician. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe care experiences and characteristics associated with not having a personal physician. RESEARCH DESIGN: We compare rates of lacking a personal physician across subgroups. Using doubly robust propensity-score-weighted regression, we compare patient experience among beneficiaries with and without a personal physician. SUBJECTS: A total of 272,463 nationally representative beneficiaries age 65+ responding to the 2012 Medicare CAHPS survey. MEASURES: Beneficiary characteristics, having a personal physician, 4 patient experience measures. RESULTS: Five percent of respondents reported no personal physician. Lacking a personal physician was more common for men, racial/ethnic minorities (eg, 16% of American Indian/Alaska Natives), and the younger and less educated. Those without a personal physician reported substantially poorer experiences on 4 measures (P<0.001); these differences are larger than those observed by key demographic characteristics. Beneficiaries without a personal physician were more than 3 times as likely to have not seen any health care provider in the last 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Even with the access provided by Medicare, a small but nontrivial proportion of seniors report having no personal physician. Those without a personal physician report substantially worse patient experiences and lacking a personal physician is more common for some vulnerable groups. This may underlie some previously observed disparities. Efforts should be made to encourage and help seniors without personal physicians to select one.

Associations of CAHPS Composites With Global Ratings of the Doctor Vary by Medicare Beneficiaries' Health Status.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Care coordination among health care providers is essential for high-quality care and it is strongly associated with overall ratings of doctors. Care coordination may be especially important for sicker and chronically ill patients because of the multiple providers involved in their care. This study examines whether the association of care coordination with global ratings of one's personal doctor varies by number of chronic conditions and self-rated health. STUDY DESIGN: We used nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data to evaluate care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, getting care quickly, count of 6 chronic conditions (angina, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart attack, stroke), self-rated general health (5-point scale, poor to excellent, scored linearly), and interactions among them as predictors of the CAHPS global rating of personal doctor (scored 0-100 with 100 being best possible personal doctor) using linear regression models. The analytic sample included 242,871 Medicare fee-for-service and managed care beneficiaries in 2013: 56% female; 14% 18-64, 47% 65-74, 27% 75-84, and 11% 85 and older; and 48% high school education or less. RESULTS: The CAHPS composites (of care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly) and number of chronic conditions were significantly positively associated with ratings of personal doctor (P<0.05). Care coordination and doctor communication had a stronger association with positive ratings of the personal doctor among those with worse self-rated health (P<0.001). DISCUSSION: Results were consistent with the hypothesis that patients in worse health weigh care coordination more heavily in global physician assessments than patients in better health. Emphasis on improving care coordination, especially for patients in poorer health, may improve patients' overall assessments of their providers. The study provides further evidence for the importance of care coordination experiences in the era of patient-centered care.

Speaking Up and Walking Out: Are Vulnerable Patients Less Likely to Disagree With or Change Doctors?

BACKGROUND: Disparities in clinical process-of-care and patient experiences are well documented for Medicare beneficiaries with ≥1 social risk factors. If such patients are less willing to express disagreement with their doctors or change doctors when dissatisfied, these behaviors may play a role in observed disparities. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between social risk factors and self-reported likelihood of disagreeing with or changing doctors if dissatisfied among the Medicare fee-for-service population. SUBJECTS: Fee-for-service beneficiaries (N=96,317) who responded to the 2014 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. Subgroups were defined based on age, education, income, and race/ethnicity. METHODS: Respondents reported how likely they would be to express disagreement with their doctors and change doctors if dissatisfied (1=very unlikely to 4=very likely; rescaled to 0-100 points). We fit mixed-effect linear regression models predicting these outcomes from social risk factors, controlling for health status and geographic location. RESULTS: Beneficiaries who were older, less educated, and had lower incomes were least inclined to express disagreement or change doctors (P<0.001). Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Asian/Pacific Islander (-9.5) and Hispanic (-3.6) beneficiaries said they would be less likely, and black (+2.8) beneficiaries more likely, to express disagreement. Asian/Pacific Islander (-8.7), Hispanic (-5.9), and American Indian/Alaska Native (-3.8) beneficiaries were less inclined than non-Hispanic whites to change doctors (P<0.01). DISCUSSION: Reduction in health care disparities may be achieved if doctors and advocates encourage vulnerable patients to express their concerns and perspectives and if communities and caregivers provide support for changing providers when care is poor.

How Do Gender Differences in Quality of Care Vary Across Medicare Advantage Plans?

BACKGROUND: Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures have long been used to compare care across health plans and to study racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. However, possible gender differences in seniors' quality of care have received less attention. OBJECTIVE: To test for the presence and nature of any gender differences in quality of care across MA Plans, overall and by domain; to identify those most at risk of poor care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of individual-level HEDIS measure scores from 23.8 million records using binomial mixed-effect models to estimate the effect of gender on performance. For each measure, we assess variation in gender gaps and their correlation with plan performance. PARTICIPANTS: Beneficiaries from 456 MA plans in 2011-2012 HEDIS data. MAIN MEASURES: Performance on 32 of 34 HEDIS measures which were available in both measurement years. The two excluded measures had mean performance scores below 10%. KEY RESULTS: Women experienced better quality of care than men for 22/32 measures, with most pertaining to screening or treatment. Men experienced better quality on nine measures, including four related to cardiovascular disease and three to potentially harmful drug-disease interactions. Plans varied substantially in the magnitude of gender gaps for 21/32 measures; in general, the gender gap in quality of care was least favorable to men in low-performing plans. CONCLUSIONS: Women generally experienced better quality of care than men. However, women experienced poorer care for cardiovascular disease-related intermediate outcomes and potentially harmful drug-disease interactions. Quality improvement may be especially important for men in low-performing plans and for cardiovascular-related care and drug-disease interactions for women. Gender-stratified reporting could reveal gender gaps, identify plans for which care varies by gender, and motivate efforts to address faults and close the gaps in the delivery system.

Performance of the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Physical Functioning Items.

BACKGROUND: Physical functioning is an important health domain for adults. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate physical functioning items in Medicare beneficiaries. RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey data from the 2010 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Medicare survey. SUBJECTS: The 366,701 respondents were 58% female; 38% were 75 or older; 57% had high school education or less. MEASURES: Walking, getting in or out of chairs, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating assessed with 3 response choices: unable to do, have difficulty, do not have difficulty. RESULTS: Pearson correlations among the 6 items ranged from 0.515 to 0.835 (coefficient α=0.92). A single factor categorical factor analytic model fit the data well (comparative fit index=0.998; root mean square error of approximation=0.083). The item with the highest percentage of respondents reporting no difficulty was eating, followed by toileting, dressing, bathing, getting in and out of a chair, and walking. Threshold parameters from an item response theory-graded response model ranged from -1.983 (between unable to do and have difficulty eating) to -0.551 (between have difficulty and no difficulty walking). Item discrimination parameters ranged from 4.632 (walking) to 8.228 (dressing). IRT-scored physical functioning scores correlated with self-rated general health (r=0.389, n=344,843, P<0.0001) mental health (r=0.296, n=351,254, P<0.0001) and number of chronic conditions (r=-0.229, n=284,507, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The physical functioning items target relatively easy activities, providing information for a minority of people in the sample with the lowest levels of physical functioning. Items representing higher levels of physical functioning are needed for the majority of the Medicare beneficiaries.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Medicare Beneficiaries' Care Coordination Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about racial/ethnic differences in the experience of care coordination. To the extent that they exist, such differences may exacerbate health disparities given the higher prevalence of some chronic conditions among minorities. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities exist in the receipt of coordinated care by Medicare beneficiaries. SUBJECTS: A total of 260,974 beneficiaries who responded to the 2013 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. METHODS: We fit a series of linear, case-mix adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures of care coordination from race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Hispanic, black, and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor had medical records and other relevant information about their care significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 points for Hispanics, -1 point for blacks, and -4 points for APIs on a 100-point scale). These 3 groups also reported significantly greater difficulty getting timely follow-up on test results than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-9 points for Hispanics, -1 point for blacks, -5 points for APIs). Hispanic and black beneficiaries reported that help was provided in managing their care significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 points for Hispanics, -3 points for blacks). API beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor discussed their medications and had up-to-date information on care from specialists significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 and -4 points, respectively). DISCUSSION: These results suggest a need for efforts to address racial/ethnic disparities in care coordination to help ensure high-quality care for all patients. Public reporting of plan-level performance data by race/ethnicity may also be helpful to Medicare beneficiaries and their advocates.

Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research.

BACKGROUND: Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data. DESIGN: This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort. MAIN MEASURES: The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys. KEY RESULTS: Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage. CONCLUSIONS: SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

Which medicare advantage enrollees are at highest one-year mortality risk?

BACKGROUND: While a number of tools exist to predict mortality among older adults, less research has described the characteristics of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees at higher risk for 1 year mortality. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of MA enrollees at higher mortality risk using patient survey data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SUBJECTS: MA enrollees completing the 2019 MA Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey. MEASURES: Linked demographic, health, and mortality data from a sample of MA enrollees were used to predict 1-year mortality risk and describe enrollee characteristics across levels of predicted mortality risk. RESULTS: The mortality model had a 0.80 c-statistic. Mortality risks were skewed: 6 % of enrollees had a ≥ 10 % 1-year mortality risk, while 45 % of enrollees had 1 % to < 5 % 1-year mortality risk. Among the high-risk (≥10 %) group, 47 % were age 85+ versus 12 % among those with mortality risk <5 %. 79 % were in fair or poor self-rated health versus 29 % among those with mortality risk of <5 %. 71 % reported needing urgent care in the prior 6 months versus 40 % among those with a mortality risk of 1 to<5 %. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few older adults enrolled in MA are at high 1-year mortality risk. Nonetheless, MA enrollees over age 85, in fair or poor health, or with recent urgent care needs are far more likely to be in a high mortality risk group.

Medicare Advantage enrollees' reports of unfair treatment during health care encounters.

We investigated unfair treatment among 1863 Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees from 21 MA plans using 2022 survey data (40% response rate) in which respondents indicated whether they were treated unfairly in a health care setting based on any of 10 personal characteristics. We calculated reported unfair treatment rates overall and by enrollee characteristics. Nine percent of respondents reported any unfair treatment, most often based on health condition (6%), disability (3%), or age (2%). Approximately 40% of those reporting any unfair treatment endorsed multiple categories. People who qualified for Medicare via disability reported unfair treatment by disability, age, income, race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender/gender identity more often than those who qualified via age. Enrollees dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid or eligible for a Low-Income Subsidy (DE/LIS) reported unfair treatment by disability, income, language/accent, race and ethnicity, culture/religion, and sex more often than non-DE/LIS enrollees. Compared with White respondents, racial and ethnic minority respondents more often reported unfair treatment by race and ethnicity, language/accent, culture/religion, and income. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report unfair treatment based on age and sex.

Income-related disparities in Medicare advantage behavioral health care quality.

OBJECTIVE: To inform efforts to improve equity in the quality of behavioral health care by examining income-related differences in performance on HEDIS behavioral health measures in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Reporting Year 2019 MA HEDIS data were obtained and analyzed. STUDY DESIGN: Logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in performance related to enrollee income, adjusting for sex, age, and race-and-ethnicity. Low-income enrollees were identified by Dual Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid or receipt of the Low-Income Subsidy (DE/LIS). Models without and with random effects for plans were used to estimate overall and within-plan differences in measure performance. Heterogeneity by race-and-ethnicity in the associations of low-income with behavioral health quality were examined using models with interaction terms. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data were included for all MA contracts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that collect HEDIS data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For six of the eight measures, enrollees with DE/LIS coverage were more likely to have behavioral health conditions that qualify for HEDIS measures than higher income enrollees. In mixed-effects logistic regression models, DE/LIS coverage was associated with statistically significantly worse overall performance on five measures, with four large (>5 percentage point) differences (-7.5 to -11.1 percentage points) related to follow-up after hospitalization and avoidance of drug-disease interactions. Where the differences were large, they were primarily within-plan rather than between-plan. Interactions between DE/LIS and race-and-ethnicity were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all measures; income-based quality gaps were larger for White enrollees than for Black or Hispanic enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Low income is associated with lower performance on behavioral health HEDIS measures in MA, but these associations differ across racial-and-ethnic groups. Improving care integration and addressing barriers to care for low-income enrollees may improve equity across income levels in behavioral health care.

Rural disparities in the quality of clinical care are notable and larger for males.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether rural-urban differences in quality of care for Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees vary between females and males. METHODS: Data for this study came from the 2019 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set. Linear regression was used to investigate urban-rural differences in individual MA enrollee scores on 34 clinical care measures grouped into 7 categories, and how those differences varied by sex (through evaluation of statistical interactions). FINDINGS: Across all 7 categories of measures, scores for rural residents were worse than scores for urban residents. For 4 categories-care for patients with (suspected) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, avoiding prescription misuse, behavioral health, and diabetes care-the average difference across measures in the category was greater than 3 percentage points. Across all 34 measures, there were 15 statistically significant rural-by-sex interactions that exceeded 1 percentage point. In 11 of those cases, the deficit associated with living in a rural area was greater for males than for females. In 3 cases, the deficit associated with living in a rural area was larger for females than for males. In 1 case involving Follow-up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness, rural residents had an advantage, and it was larger for males than for females. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions may help address patient- (eg, health literacy and patient activation), provider- (eg, workforce recruitment and retention), and structural-level issues contributing to these disparities, especially for rural males.