No Association Between Medicare Advantage Providers' Network Restrictiveness and Star Rating Between 2013 and 2017: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which employs a wide range of practices around restriction of the networks of providers that beneficiaries visit. Though Medicare beneficiaries highly value provider choice, it is unknown whether the MA contract quality metrics which beneficiaries use to inform their contract selection capture the restrictiveness of contracts' provider networks. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether there are meaningful associations between provider network restrictiveness (across primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology providers) and contracts' overall star quality rating, as well as between network restrictiveness and contracts' performance on access to care measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Advantage contracts with health maintenance organization (HMO), local preferred provider organization (PPO), and point of service (POS) plans with available data. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis using multivariable linear regressions to assess the relationship between provider network restrictiveness and contract quality scores in 2013 through 2017. MEASURES: Statistical significance in the relationship between network restrictiveness and contract performance on quality measures. RESULTS: Across all study years, we included 562 unique contracts and 2801 contract-years. We find no evidence of consistent relationships between MA physician network restrictiveness and contract star rating. For primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology, respectively, a 10 percentage point increase in restrictiveness was associated with a 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.01 to 0.04), 0.0008 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02), and -0.01 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.001) difference in star rating (p-value > 0.05 for all). Similarly, we find no evidence of consistent relationships between network restrictiveness and access to care measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that existing MA contract quality measures are not useful for indicating differences in network restrictiveness. Given the importance of provider choice to beneficiaries, more specific metrics may be needed to facilitate informed decisions about MA coverage.

Quality, Spending, Utilization, and Outcomes Among Dual-Eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries in Integrated Care Programs: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Most dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in bifurcated insurance programs that pay for different components of care. Therefore, policymakers are prioritizing expansion of integrated care plans (ICPs) that manage both Medicare and Medicaid benefits and spending. Objective: To review evidence of the association between ICPs and health care spending, quality, utilization, and patient outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries. Evidence Review: A search was conducted of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2010, through November 1, 2023) and Google Scholar (January 1, 2010, through October 1, 2023) and augmented with reports from US federal and state government websites. Three categories of ICPs were evaluated: Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicare-Medicaid Plans (MMPs), and Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (FIDE-SNPs) and related models aligning Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The review included studies that evaluated beneficiaries dually eligible for and enrolled in full Medicaid; compared an ICP to a nonintegrated arrangement; and evaluated utilization, spending, care coordination, patient experience, or health for 100 or more beneficiaries. Findings: In all, 26 ICP evaluations met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 5 of PACE, 13 of MMPs, and 8 of FIDE-SNPs and other aligned models. Evidence generally showed associated reductions in long-term nursing home stays in PACE (3 of 4 studies) and FIDE-SNPs and related aligned models (3 of 5 studies) but was mixed in evaluations of MMPs. Four of 9 studies of MMPs and 2 of 3 studies of FIDE-SNPs found higher outpatient use, although other studies showed no difference. Evidence on Medicaid spending was limited, whereas 8 of 10 studies of MMPs showed an association between these plans and higher Medicare spending. Evidence was mixed or inconclusive regarding care coordination and hospitalizations, and it was insufficient to evaluate patient satisfaction, health, and outcomes in beneficiary subgroups (eg, those with serious mental illness). Furthermore, studies had limited ability to control for bias from unmeasured differences between enrollees of ICPs compared with nonintegrated models. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found variability and gaps in evidence regarding ICPs and spending, quality, utilization, and outcomes. Studies found some ICPs were associated with reductions in long-term nursing home admissions, and several identified increases in outpatient care. However, MMPs were primarily associated with higher Medicare spending. Evidence for other outcomes was limited or inconclusive. Research addressing these evidence gaps is needed to guide ongoing efforts to integrate coverage and care for dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Coverage and Access Changes During Medicaid Unwinding.

Importance: States resumed Medicaid eligibility redeterminations, which had been paused during the COVID-19 public health emergency, in 2023. This unwinding of the pandemic continuous coverage provision raised concerns about the extent to which beneficiaries would lose Medicaid coverage and how that would affect access to care. Objective: To assess early changes in insurance and access to care during Medicaid unwinding among individuals with low incomes in 4 Southern states. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal survey was conducted in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas from September to November 2023, used random-digit dialing and probabilistic address-based sampling, and included US citizens aged 19 to 64 years reporting 2022 incomes at or less than 138% of the federal poverty level. Exposure: Medicaid enrollment at any point since March 2020, when continuous coverage began. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported disenrollment from Medicaid, insurance at the time of interview, and self-reported access to care. Using multivariate logistic regression, factors associated with Medicaid loss were evaluated. Access and affordability of care among respondents who exited Medicaid vs those who remained enrolled were compared, after multivariate adjustment. Results: The sample contained 2210 adults (1282 women [58.0%]; 505 Black non-Hispanic individuals [22.9%], 393 Hispanic individuals [17.8%], and 1133 White non-Hispanic individuals [51.3%]) with 2022 household incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty line. On a survey-weighted basis, 1564 (70.8%) reported that they and/or a dependent child of theirs had Medicaid at some point since March 2020. Among adult respondents who had Medicaid, 179 (12.5%) were no longer enrolled in Medicaid at the time of the survey, with state estimates ranging from 7.0% (n = 19) in Kentucky to 16.2% (n = 82) in Arkansas. Fewer children who had Medicaid lost coverage (42 [5.4%]). Among adult respondents who left Medicaid since 2020 and reported coverage status at time of interview, 47.8% (n = 80) were uninsured, 27.0% (n = 45) had employer-sponsored insurance, and the remainder had other coverage as of fall 2023. Disenrollment was higher among younger adults, employed individuals, and rural residents but lower among non-Hispanic Black respondents (compared with non-Hispanic White respondents) and among those receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Losing Medicaid was significantly associated with delaying care due to cost and worsening affordability of care. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study indicated that 6 months into unwinding, 1 in 8 Medicaid beneficiaries reported exiting the program, with wide state variation. Roughly half who lost Medicaid coverage became uninsured. Among those moving to new coverage, many experienced coverage gaps. Adults exiting Medicaid reported more challenges accessing care than respondents who remained enrolled.

Antiretroviral Therapy Use and Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all people with HIV. Understanding ART use among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV is therefore critically important for improving quality and equity of care among the growing population of older adults with HIV. However, a comprehensive national evaluation of filled ART prescriptions among Medicare beneficiaries is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in ART use among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV from 2013 to 2019 and to evaluate whether racial and ethnic disparities in ART use are narrowing over time. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SUBJECTS: Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with Part D living with HIV in 2013-2019. MAIN MEASURES: Months of filled ART prescriptions each year. KEY RESULTS: Compared with beneficiaries not on ART, beneficiaries on ART were younger, less likely to be Black (41.6% vs. 47.0%), and more likely to be Hispanic (13.1% vs. 9.7%). While the share of beneficiaries who filled ART prescriptions for 10 + months/year improved (+ 0.48 percentage points/year [p.p.y.], 95% CI 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), 25.8% of beneficiaries did not fill ART for 10 + months in 2019. Between 2013 and 2019, the proportion of beneficiaries who filled ART for 10 + months improved for Black beneficiaries (65.8 to 70.3%, + 0.66 p.p.y., 95% CI 0.43-0.89, p < 0.001) and White beneficiaries (74.8 to 77.4%, + 0.38 p.p.y.; 95% CI 0.19-0.58, p < 0.001), while remaining stable for Hispanic beneficiaries (74.5 to 75.0%, + 0.12 p.p.y., 95% CI - 0.24-0.49, p = 0.51). Although Black-White disparities in ART use narrowed over time, the share of beneficiaries who filled ART prescriptions for 10 + months/year was significantly lower among Black beneficiaries relative to White beneficiaries each year. CONCLUSIONS: ART use improved from 2013 to 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries with HIV. However, about 25% of beneficiaries did not consistently fill ART prescriptions within a given year. Despite declining differences between Black and White beneficiaries, concerning disparities in ART use persist.

Prevalence of Gender-Affirming Surgical Procedures Among Minors and Adults in the US.

This cross-sectional study uses a national dataset to examine the prevalence of gender-affirming surgical procedures among minors and adults in the US.

Medicaid Eligibility Loss Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries Before and During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

Importance: Medicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known. Objective: To assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023. Exposure: Onset of PHE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Loss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year. Results: Sample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: During the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE.

Disparities in Access to Outpatient Surgery Related to Removal of Procedures from Medicare's Inpatient Only List.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care related to changes to the Inpatient Only List in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The extent to which procedures shift from the inpatient to outpatient setting following removal from Medicare's Inpatient Only List is unknown. Many health systems also encouraged a shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the relative change in outpatient surgical utilization for procedures removed from the Inpatient Only List during COVID-19 would provide empirical data on whether reimbursement policy changes or inpatient capacity needs during the pandemic were more likely to shift care from the inpatient to outpatient setting. METHODS: We used administrative data from the PINC AI Healthcare Database across 723 hospitals to determine the within-facility relative change in outpatient vs inpatient procedural volume in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 using a multivariable conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression model. We also assessed whether outpatient surgical utilization varied by race and ethnicity. Using a multivariable linear probability model, we assessed the absolute change in risk-adjusted 30-day complication, readmission, and mortality rates for inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 respectively, there was a 5.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.5%) and 41.3% (95% CI 33.1% to 50.0%) relative increase in outpatient elective procedural volume. Outpatient procedural volume increased most significantly for hip replacement which was removed from the Inpatient Only List in 2020 (increase in outpatient surgical utilization of 589.3% (95% CI, 524.9% to 660.3%)). The shift to outpatient hip replacement procedures was concentrated among White patients; in 2021, hip replacement procedural volume increased by 271.1% (95% CI, 241.2% and 303.7%) for White patients and 29.5% (95% CI, 24.4% and 34.9%) for Black patients compared to 2019 levels. There were no consistent or large changes in 30-day complication, readmission, or mortality risk in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. CONCLUSION: There was a modest increase in elective outpatient surgeries and a pronounced increase in outpatient orthopedic surgeries which were removed from the Inpatient Only List during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilization of outpatient surgical procedures was concentrated among White patients.

Trends in observation stays for Medicare beneficiaries with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

BACKGROUND: There has been a marked rise in the use of observation care for Medicare beneficiaries visiting the emergency department (ED) in recent years. Whether trends in observation use differ for people with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is unknown. METHODS: Using a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68+ from 2012 to 2018, we compared trends in ED visits and observation stays by AD/ADRD status for beneficiaries visiting the ED. We then examined the degree to which trends differed by nursing home (NH) residency status, assigning beneficiaries to four groups: AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH+), AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH-), no AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH+), and no AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH-). RESULTS: Of 7,489,780 unique beneficiaries, 18.6% had an AD/ADRD diagnosis. Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had more than double the number of ED visits per 1000 in all years compared to those without AD/ADRD and saw a faster adjusted increase over time (+26.7 vs. +8.2 visits/year; p < 0.001 for interaction). The annual increase in the adjusted proportion of ED visits ending in observation was also greater among people with AD/ADRD (+0.78%/year, 95% CI 0.77-0.80%) compared to those without AD/ADRD (+0.63%/year, 95% CI 0.59-0.66%; p < 0.001 for interaction). Observation utilization was greatest for the AD/ADRD+ NH+ population and lowest for the AD/ADRD- NH- population, but the AD/ADRD+ NH- group saw the greatest increase in observation stays over time (+15.4 stays per 1000 people per year, 95% CI 15.0-15.7). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with AD/ADRD have seen a disproportionate increase in observation utilization in recent years, driven by both an increase in ED visits and an increase in the proportion of ED visits ending in observation.

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage "Affinity Plans".

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.

Institutional Efforts to Address Legacies of Slavery-Implications for the Health Care System.

This JAMA Forum discusses the legacies of slavery, efforts underway at colleges and universities to explore and address the legacies of slavery, and health care system actions to address structural racism.

Improving health equity through health care systems research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government. STUDY DESIGN: Expert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Priority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines. CONCLUSIONS: As the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

High-performing primary care clinics across high-need, high-cost Medicare populations.

BACKGROUND: To reduce spending and improve quality, some primary care clinics in the USA have focused on high-need, high-cost (HNHC) Medicare beneficiaries, which include clinically distinct subpopulations: older adults with frailty, adults under 65 years with disability and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions. Nationally, the extent to which primary care clinics are high-performing 'Bright Spots'-clinics that achieve favourable outcomes at lower costs across HNHC beneficiary subpopulations-is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of primary care clinics that perform highly on commonly used cost or quality measures for HNHC subpopulations. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study using Medicare claims data from 2014 to 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Annual spending, avoidable hospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, treat-and-release emergency department visits, all-cause 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rates and healthy days at home. Clinics were high performing when they ranked in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures for an HNHC subpopulation. 'Bright Spot' clinics were in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures across all the HNHC subpopulations. KEY RESULTS: A total of 2770 primary care clinics cared for at least 10 beneficiaries from each of the three HNHC subpopulations (adults under 65 with disability, older adults with frailty and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions). Less than 4% of clinics were high performing for each HNHC subpopulation; <0.5% of clinics were in the top quartile for all five measures for a given subpopulation. No clinics met the definition of a primary care 'Bright Spot'. CONCLUSIONS: High-performing primary care clinics that achieved favourable health outcomes or lower costs across subpopulations of HNHC beneficiaries in the Medicare programme in 2015 were rare. Efforts are needed to support primary care clinics in providing optimal care to HNHC subpopulations.

Rapid Enrollment Growth In 'Look-Alike' Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans: A Threat To Integrated Care.

Policy makers are increasingly investing in efforts to better integrate Medicare and Medicaid services for people who are eligible for both programs, including expanding Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs). In recent years, however, a potential threat to integration has emerged in the form of D-SNP "look-alike" plans, which are conventional Medicare Advantage plans that are marketed toward and primarily enroll dual eligibles but are not subject to federal regulations requiring integrated Medicaid services. To date, limited evidence exists documenting national enrollment trends in look-alike plans or the characteristics of dual eligibles in these plans. We found that look-alike plans experienced rapid enrollment growth among dual eligibles during the period 2013-20, increasing from 20,900 dual eligibles across four states to 220,860 dual eligibles across seventeen states, for an elevenfold increase. Nearly one-third of dual eligibles in look-alike plans were previously in integrated care programs. Compared with D-SNPs, look-alike plans were more likely to enroll dual eligibles who were older, Hispanic, and from disadvantaged communities. Our findings suggest that look-alike plans have the potential to compromise national efforts to integrate care delivery for dual eligibles, including vulnerable subgroups who may benefit the most from integrated coverage.

Comparison of Claims-Based Frailty Indices in U.S. Veterans 65 and Older for Prediction of Long-Term Institutionalization and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is increasingly recognized as a useful measure of vulnerability in older adults. Multiple claims-based frailty indices (CFIs) can readily identify individuals with frailty, but whether 1 CFI improves prediction over another is unknown. We sought to assess the ability of 5 distinct CFIs to predict long-term institutionalization (LTI) and mortality in older Veterans. METHODS: Retrospective study conducted in U.S. Veterans ≥65 years without prior LTI or hospice use in 2014. Five CFIs were compared: Kim, Orkaby (Veteran Affairs Frailty Index [VAFI]), Segal, Figueroa, and the JEN-FI, grounded in different theories of frailty: Rockwood cumulative deficit (Kim and VAFI), Fried physical phenotype (Segal), or expert opinion (Figueroa and JFI). The prevalence of frailty according to each CFI was compared. CFI performance for the coprimary outcomes of any LTI or mortality from 2015 to 2017 was examined. Because Segal and Kim include age, sex, or prior utilization, these variables were added to regression models to compare all 5 CFIs. Logistic regression was used to calculate model discrimination and calibration for both outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3 million Veterans were included (mean age 75, 98% male participants, 80% White, and 9% Black). Frailty was identified for between 6.8% and 25.7% of the cohort with 2.6% identified as frail by all 5 CFIs. There was no meaningful difference between CFIs in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for LTI (0.78-0.80) or mortality (0.77-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Based on different frailty constructs, and identifying different subsets of the population, all 5 CFIs similarly predicted LTI or death, suggesting each could be used for prediction or analytics.

Integrating Medicare and Medicaid Coverage for Dual Eligibles-Recommendations for Reform.

This Viewpoint highlights costly inefficiencies in delivery of care to patients who qualify to receive both Medicare and Medicaid and proposes more effective care models.