Epidemiology of Homebound Population Among Beneficiaries of a Large National Medicare Advantage Plan.

BACKGROUND: Interest in home-based care is increasing among Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The epidemiology of homebound MA beneficiaries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, predictors, health service use, and mortality outcomes of homebound beneficiaries of a large national MA plan. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: National MA plan. PARTICIPANTS: Humana MA beneficiaries in 2022 (n = 2 435 519). MEASUREMENTS: Homebound status was assessed via in-home assessment using previously defined categories: homebound (never or rarely left home in the past month), semihomebound (left home with assistance, had difficulty, or needed help leaving home), and not homebound. Demographic, clinical, health service use, and mortality outcomes were compared by homebound status. RESULTS: In 2022, the overall prevalence of homebound beneficiaries was 22.0% (8.4% of beneficiaries were homebound, and 13.6% were semihomebound). In adjusted models, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.36 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.37), low-income status or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid (OR, 1.56 [CI, 1.55 to 1.57]), dementia (OR, 2.36 [CI, 2.33 to 2.39]), and moderate to severe frailty (OR, 4.32 [CI, 4.19 to 4.45]) were predictive of homebound status. In multivariable logistic regression, homebound status was associated with increased odds of any emergency department visit (OR, 1.14 [ CI, 1.14 to 1.15]), any inpatient hospital admission (OR, 1.44 [CI, 1.42 to 1.46]), any skilled-nursing facility admission (OR, 2.18 [CI, 2.13 to 2.23]), and death (OR, 2.55 [CI, 2.52 to 2.58]). LIMITATION: The study period overlapped the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and data were derived from a single national MA plan, which limits generalizability. CONCLUSION: Overall homebound prevalence in a national MA plan was 22.0% and was independently associated with increased health service use and mortality. Study findings can inform strategic initiatives to identify and manage care for homebound beneficiaries. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Humana, under a collaborative research agreement with Johns Hopkins University.

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

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

An assessment of the association between patient characteristics and timely lung cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Prior data have demonstrated relationships between patient characteristics, the use of surgery to treat lung cancer, and the timeliness of treatment. Our study examines whether these relationships were observable in 2019 in patients with Medicare Advantage health plans being treated for lung cancer. METHODS: Claims data pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans who had received radiation therapy (RT) or surgery to treat lung cancer within 90 days of diagnostic imaging were extracted. Other databases were used to determine patients' demographics, comorbidities, the urbanicity of their ZIP code, the median income of their ZIP code, and whether their treatment was ordered by a physician at a hospital. Multivariable logistic and Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess the association between patient characteristics, receipt of surgery, and time to non-systemic treatment (surgery or RT), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2,682 patients were included in the analysis. In an adjusted analysis, patients were significantly less likely to receive surgery if their first ordering physician was based in a hospital, if they were older, if they had a history of congestive heart failure (CHF), if they had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or if they had stage III lung cancer. Likewise, having stage III cancer was associated with significantly shorter time to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within a Medicare Advantage population, patient demographics were found to be significantly associated with the decision to pursue surgery, but factors other than stage were not significantly associated with time to non-systemic treatment.

Medicare Advantage and Home Health Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Home health care serves millions of Americans who are "Aging in Place," including the rapidly growing population of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. This study systematically reviewed extant evidence illustrating home health care (HHC) services to MA enrollees. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 6 electronic databases to identify eligible studies, which resulted in 386 articles. Following 2 rounds of screening, 30 eligible articles were identified. Each study was also assessed independently for study quality using a validated quality assessment checklist. RESULTS: Of the 30 studies, nearly half (n=13) were recently published between January 1, 2017 - January 6, 2022. Among various issues related to HHC to MA enrollees examined, which were often compared with Traditional Medicare (TM) enrollees, the 2 most studied issues were HHC use rate (including access) and care dosage/intensity. Inconsistencies were common in findings across reviewed studies, with slight variations in the level of inconsistency by studied outcomes. Several critical issues, such as heterogeneity of MA plans, influence of MA-specific features, and program response to policy and quality improvement initiatives, were only examined by 1 or 2 studies. The depth and scope of scientific investigation were also limited by the scale and details available in MA data in addition to other methodological limits. CONCLUSIONS: Wild variations and conflicting findings on HHC to MA beneficiaries exist across studies. More research with rigorous designs and robust MA encounter data is warranted to determine home health care for MA enrollees and the relevant outcomes.

Association Between ICD-10 Codes for Social Needs and Subsequent Emergency and Inpatient Use.

BACKGROUND: International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision Z codes capture social needs related to health care encounters and may identify elevated risk of acute care use. OBJECTIVES: To examine associations between Z code assignment and subsequent acute care use and explore associations between social need category and acute care use. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Adults continuously enrolled in a commercial or Medicare Advantage plan for ≥15 months (12-month baseline, 3-48 month follow-up). OUTCOMES: All-cause emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient admissions during study follow-up. RESULTS: There were 352,280 patients with any assigned Z codes and 704,560 sampled controls with no Z codes. Among patients with commercial plans, Z code assignment was associated with a 26% higher rate of ED visits [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 1.26, 95% CI: 1.25-1.27] and 42% higher rate of inpatient admissions (aIRR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.39-1.44) during follow-up. Among patients with Medicare Advantage plans, Z code assignment was associated with 42% (aIRR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.40-1.43) and 28% (aIRR 1.28, 95% CI: 1.26-1.30) higher rates of ED visits and inpatient admissions, respectively. Within the Z code group, relative to community/social codes, socioeconomic Z codes were associated with higher rates of inpatient admissions (commercial: aIRR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14; Medicare Advantage: aIRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.20-1.27), and environmental Z codes were associated with lower rates of both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Z code assignment was independently associated with higher subsequent emergency and inpatient utilization. Findings suggest Z codes' potential utility for risk prediction and efforts targeting avoidable utilization.

Medicare Advantage Under Fire: Public Criticism and Implications.

Congressional hearings and public reports have drawn attention to problems afflicting Medicare Advantage (MA), the privatized version of Medicare. Private plans became a staple of Medicare through the passage of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Congress passed this law during a furor of privatization, when think tanks and powerful financial interests emphasized the power of corporations' profit incentive to improve the efficiency and quality of social enterprise. Yet the surging criticism of MA suggests a misalignment between the financial interest of some MA plans and the well-being of their patient populations. The criticisms range from deceptive marketing, ghost networks, and patient cherry-picking to unethical prior authorization denials and defrauding the government. In total, MA plans cost the federal government 22% more per patient than if these patients in question were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it is not clear that this additional funding is producing proportional benefits. These developments raise questions about the presence of a profit incentive in Medicare, and perhaps health care more broadly.

Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With and Without Food Insecurity.

BACKGROUND: Compared to traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans impose out-of-pocket cost limits and offer extra benefits, potentially providing financial relief for MA enrollees, especially for those with food insecurity. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the prevalence of food insecurity differs between TM and MA enrollees at baseline and then examine whether MA enrollment in a baseline year is associated with less financial hardships in the following year, relative to TM enrollment, especially for those experiencing food insecurity. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Our analysis included 2807 Medicare beneficiaries (weighted sample size, 23,963,947) who maintained continuous enrollment in either TM or MA in both 2020 and 2021 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed outcomes related to financial hardships in health care and non-health care domains (measured in 2021). Our primary independent variables were food insecurity and MA enrollment (measured in 2020). RESULTS: The point estimate of food insecurity prevalence was greater among MA enrollees than TM enrollees, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.1 percentage points [95% CI, - 1.0, 3.4]). Furthermore, there is evidence that compared to TM enrollment, MA enrollment did not mitigate the risk of financial hardship, particularly for food-insecure enrollees. Rather, food-secure MA enrollees faced greater financial hardship in the following year than food-secure TM enrollees (11.2% [8.9-13.6] and 7.6% [6.9-8.3] for problems paying medical bills and 5.5% [4.6-6.4] and 2.8% [2.1-3.6] for paying medical bills over time). Moreover, the point estimate of financial hardship was higher among food-insecure MA enrollees than food-insecure TM enrollees (21.5% [5.4-37.5] and 11.2% [4.1-18.4] and 23.7% [9.6-37.9] and 6.9% [0.5-13.3]) despite the lack of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the promise of financial protection offered by MA plans has not been fully realized, particularly for those with food insecurity.

Health Care Spending, Use, and Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With Mental Health Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the differences in health care spending and utilization, and financial hardship between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees with mental health symptoms. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries with mental health symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Kessler-6 Psychological Distress Scale in the 2015-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included health care spending and utilization (both general and mental health services), and financial hardship. The primary independent variable was MA enrollment. RESULTS: MA enrollees with mental health symptoms were 2.3 percentage points (95% CI: -3.4, -1.2; relative difference: 16.1%) less likely to have specialty mental health visits than TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. There were no significant differences in total health care spending, but annual out-of-pocket spending was $292 (95% CI: 152-432; 18.2%) higher among MA enrollees with mental health symptoms than TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. Additionally, MA enrollees with mental health symptoms were 5.0 (95% CI: 2.9-7.2; 22.3%) and 2.5 percentage points (95% CI: 0.8-4.2; 20.9%) more likely to have difficulty paying medical bills over time and to experience high financial burden than TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that MA enrollees with mental health symptoms were more likely to experience limited access to mental health services and high financial hardship compared to TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. There is a need to develop policies aimed at improving access to mental health services while reducing financial burden for MA enrollees.

Association of patient characteristics and insurance type with anti-obesity medications prescribing and fills.

AIM: To characterize factors associated with the receipt of anti-obesity medication (AOM) prescription and fill. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2023, in a large health system in Ohio and Florida. Adults with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 who attended ≥1 weight-management programme or had an initial AOM prescription between 1 July 2015 and 31 December 2022, were included. The main measures were a prescription for an AOM (naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg) and an AOM fill during the study follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 50 678 adults, with a mean body mass index of 38 ± 8 kg/m2 and follow-up of 4.7 ± 2.4 years. Only 8.0% of the cohort had AOM prescriptions and 4.4% had filled prescriptions. In the multivariable analyses, being a man, Black, Hispanic and other race/ethnicity (vs. White), Medicaid, traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage, self-pay and other insurance types (vs. private insurance) and fourth quartile of the area deprivation index (vs. first quartile) were associated with lower odds of a new prescription. Hispanic ethnicity, being a man, Medicaid, traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurance types, liraglutide and orlistat (vs. naltrexone-buproprion) were associated with lower odds of AOM fill, while phentermine-topiramate was associated with higher odds. Among privately insured individuals, the insurance carrier was associated with both the odds of AOM prescription and fill. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities exist in access to AOM both at the prescribing stage and getting the prescription filled based on patient characteristics and insurance type.

Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: an observational study of medicare advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in medicare advantage (MA) plans has been steadily increasing. Prior research has shown differences in healthcare access and outcomes based on Medicare enrollment status. This study sought to compare utilization of minimally invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and postoperative outcomes between MA and Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of beneficiaries ≥ 65.5 years of age enrolled in FFS and MA plans was performed of patients undergoing a CRC resection from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was operative approach, defined as minimally invasive (laparoscopic) or open. Secondary outcomes included robotic assistance, hospital length-of-stay, mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission. Using balancing weights, we performed a tapered analysis to examine outcomes with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: MA beneficiaries were less likely to have lymph node (12.9 vs 14.4%, p < 0.001) or distant metastases (15.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to receive chemotherapy (6.2% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001), compared to FFS beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries had a higher risk-adjusted likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic CRC resection (OR 1.12 (1.10-1.15), p < 0.001), and similar rates of robotic assistance (OR 1.00 (0.97-1.03), p = 0.912), compared to FFS beneficiaries. There were no differences in risk-adjusted length-of-stay (ß coefficient 0.03 (- 0.05-0.10), p = 0.461) or mortality at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.99 (0.95-1.04), p = 0.787; OR 1.00 (0.96-1.04), p = 0.815; OR 0.98 (0.95-1.02), p = 0.380). MA beneficiaries had a lower likelihood of non-routine disposition (OR 0.77 (0.75-0.78), p < 0.001) and readmission at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.76 (0.73-0.80), p < 0.001; OR 0.78 (0.75-0.81), p < 0.001; OR 0.79 (0.76-0.81), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MA beneficiaries had less advanced disease at the time of CRC resection and a greater likelihood of undergoing a laparoscopic procedure. MA enrollment is associated with improved health outcomes for elderly beneficiaries undergoing operative treatment for CRC.

Breast cancer screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia.

BACKGROUND: The decision to screen for breast cancer among older adults with dementia is complex and must often be individualized, as these individuals have an elevated risk of harm from over-screening. Medicare beneficiaries with dementia are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans, which typically promote receipt of preventive cancer screening among their enrollees. This study examined the utilization of breast cancer screening among Medicare enrollees with dementia, in Medicare Advantage and in fee-for-service Medicare. METHODS: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study of women with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment who were eligible for mammogram screening. We used Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data to identify utilization of biennial mammogram screening between 2012 and 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate prevalence ratios of mammogram utilization and to calculate adjusted mammogram rates for Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees with dementia, and further stratified by rurality and by dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. RESULTS: Mammogram utilization was 16% higher (Prevalence Ratio [PR] 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29) among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia, compared to their counterparts in fee-for-service Medicare. Rural enrollees experienced no significant difference (PR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.37) in mammogram use between Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. Among urban enrollees, Medicare Advantage enrollment was associated with a 21% higher mammogram rate (PR 1.21; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.35). Dual-eligible Medicare Advantage enrollees had a 34% higher mammogram rate (PR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.63) than dual-eligible fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. Among non-dual-eligible enrollees, adjusted mammogram rates were not significantly different (PR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.24) between Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries age 65-74 with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment had a higher mammogram use rate when they were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans compared to fee-for-service Medicare, especially when they were dual-eligible or lived in urban areas. However, some Medicare Advantage enrollees with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment may have experienced over-screening for breast cancer.

Effect of Medicare Advantage on Hospital Readmission and Mortality Rankings.

BACKGROUND: Medicare links hospital performance on readmissions and mortality to payment solely on the basis of outcomes among fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Whether including Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, who account for nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, in the evaluation of hospital performance affects rankings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the inclusion of MA beneficiaries in readmission and mortality measures reclassifies hospital performance rankings compared with current measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitals participating in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program or Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. MEASUREMENTS: Using the 100% Medicare files for FFS and MA claims, the authors calculated 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia on the basis of only FFS beneficiaries and then both FFS and MA beneficiaries. Hospitals were divided into quintiles of performance based on FFS beneficiaries only, and the proportion of hospitals that were reclassified to a different performance group with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries was calculated. RESULTS: Of the hospitals in the top-performing quintile for readmissions and mortality based on FFS beneficiaries, between 21.6% and 30.2% were reclassified to a lower-performing quintile with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries. Similar proportions of hospitals were reclassified from the bottom performance quintile to a higher one across all measures and conditions. Hospitals with a higher proportion of MA beneficiaries were more likely to improve in performance rankings. LIMITATION: Hospital performance measurement and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by Medicare. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 4 top-performing hospitals is reclassified to a lower performance group when MA beneficiaries are included in the evaluation of hospital readmissions and mortality. These findings suggest that Medicare's current value-based programs provide an incomplete picture of hospital performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Pen needle use patterns in an insured population with diabetes: U.S. retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes who inject insulin with pen devices may reuse the pen needles (PNs), a practice that can cause PN tip deformity, breakage, and contamination, and that is associated with lipohypertrophy and injection-related pain. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to estimate the extent of PN reuse among people with diabetes in 2 insured populations in the United States. METHODS: Using claims data for Commercial Fully Insured (CFI) and Medicare Advantage (MA) populations from 1-Oct-2018 to 31-Dec-2022, we identified adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D/T2D) who had ≥ 1 claim for PNs and ≥ 2 claims for insulin from 1-Jan-2019 to 31-Dec-2021, with continuous medical/pharmacy eligibility for 3 months before first claim and 1 year after (follow-up). Those receiving hospice or palliative care or using mail order prescriptions were excluded. We compared actual annual fill rate of PNs with expected fill rate (assuming single use) according to prescribed insulin regimen. Whether the annual actual-to-expected ratio for PN numbers equaled 1 was evaluated using sign tests with 2-sided P values. RESULTS: Median annual actual-to-expected ratios ranged from 0.41 (T1D basal+prandial cohort) to 0.82 (T2D basal cohort; all P < 0.001) in the CFI population (N = 10,854), and from 0.55 (TID basal + prandial) to 1.10 (T2D basal and basal + prandial; P = 0.382-< 0.001) in the MA population (N = 32,495); medians were 0.34 and 0.55 for 4 expected T2D basal + prandial injections/day in CFI and MA populations, respectively (P < 0.001). Annual actual-to-expected ratios were < 1 for 62% and 47% of CFI and MA populations, respectively. An estimated 2%-27% and 0%-17%, respectively, depending on insulin regimen, had inadequate supplies of PNs suggesting that PNs could have been used ≥ 5 times. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need for educating people with diabetes about reasons for avoiding PN reuse and the key role that pharmacists can play in providing this information and adequate supplies of PNs.

Lower Revenue Surplus in Medicare Advantage Versus Private Commercial Insurance for Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of a Single Payor Source at One Institution.

BACKGROUND: Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, reductions in Medicare reimbursement have led to larger discrepancies between the relative cost of Medicare patients and privately insured patients. The purpose of this study was to compare reimbursement between Medicare Advantage and other insurance plans in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Patients of a single commercial payor source who underwent primary unilateral TKA or THA at 1 institution between the dates of January 4 and June 30, 2021, were included (n = 833). Variables included insurance type, medical comorbidities, total costs, and surplus amounts. The primary outcome measure was revenue surplus between Medicare Advantage and Private Commercial plans. t-tests, Analyses of Variance, and Chi-Squared tests were used for analysis. A THA represented 47% of cases and a TKA 53%. Of these patients, 31.5% had Medicare Advantage and 68.5% had Private Commercial insurance. Medicare Advantage patients were older and had higher medical comorbidity risk for both TKA and THA. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in medical costs between Medicare Advantage and Private Commercial insurance for THA ($17,148 versus $31,260, P < .001) and TKA ($16,723 versus $33,593, P < .001). Additionally, differences were seen in surplus amounts between Medicare Advantage and Private Commercial insurance for THA ($3,504 versus $7,128, P < .001) and TKA ($5,581 versus $10,477, P < .001). Deficits were higher in Private Commercial patients undergoing TKA (15.2 versus 6%, P = .001). CONCLUSION: The lower average surplus associated with Medicare Advantage plans may lead to financial strain on provider groups who care for these patients and face additional overhead costs.

Is the Rise of Medicare Advantage Impacting the Fidelity of Traditional Medicare Claims Data? Implications for Reporting of Long-Term Total Hip Arthroplasty Survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registries often use traditional Medicare (TM) claims data to report long-term total hip arthroplasty (THA) survivorship. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the large number of patients leaving TM for Medicare Advantage (MA) has compromised the fidelity of TM data. METHODS: We identified 10,962 THAs in 9,333 Medicare-eligible patients who underwent primary THA from 2000 to 2020 at a single institution. Insurance type was analyzed, and 83% of patients had TM at the time of THA. Survivorship free from any revision or reoperation was calculated for patients who have TM. The same survivorship end points were recalculated with censoring performed when a patient transitioned to an MA plan after their primary THA to model the impact of losing patients from the TM dataset. Differences in survivorship were compared. The mean follow-up was 7 years. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2020, there was a decrease in TM insurance (93 to 73%) and a corresponding increase in MA insurance (0 to 19%) among THA patients. Following THA, 23% of TM patients switched to MA. For patients who had TM at the time of surgery, 15-year survivorship free from any reoperation or revision was 90% and 93%, respectively. When censoring patients upon transition from TM to MA, survivorship free from any reoperation became significantly higher (92 versus 90% at 15 years; hazard ratio = 1.16, P = .033), and there was a trend toward higher survivorship free from any revision (95 versus 93% at 15 years; hazard ratio = 1.16, P = .074). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients left TM for MA after primary THA, effectively making them lost to follow-up within TM datasets. The mass exodus of patients out of TM appears to have led to a slight overestimation of survivorship free from any reoperation and trended toward overestimating survivorship free from any revision. If MA continues to grow, efforts to obtain MA data will become even more important.

Dental Coverage for Medicare Beneficiaries.

Poor oral health has been associated with various systemic diseases (e.g., endocarditis, pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) and decreased quality of life. When enacted in 1965, Medicare excluded coverage for comprehensive dental services. As of 2023, Medicare has allowed coverage of limited dental services inextricably linked to specific medical conditions. Many Medicare Advantage plans (Medicare Part C) offer dental coverage. Yet in 2019, approximately 24 million Medicare beneficiaries (47% of all Medicare enrollees), lacked dental coverage. Seventy-one percent of traditional Medicare enrollees (those not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan) reported that high cost was the primary reason that they did not obtain dental care. The importance of oral health for the older adults has been the main reason that a national interprofessional consortium, which includes several national nursing organizations, has been advocating for legislation to expand Medicare to include dental coverage. The consortium's efforts have been thwarted by fierce opposition from the American Dental Association and many Republican legislators. Given the vital role that nurses and advanced practice nurses play in caring for the nation's older adults and disabled, nursing's voice needs to be strengthened as leaders in advocating for inclusion of dental benefits in traditional Medicare.

Incidence, Attributable Mortality, and Healthcare and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Clostridioides difficile Infection in US Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

BACKGROUND: US attributable Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) mortality and cost data are primarily from Medicare fee-for-service populations, and little is known about Medicare Advantage Enrollees (MAEs). This study evaluated CDI incidence among MAEs from 2012 to 2019 and determined attributable mortality and costs by comparing MAEs with and without CDI occurring in 2018. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed CDI incidence and associated mortality and costs for eligible MAEs ≥65 years of age using the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum; Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA). Outcomes included mortality, healthcare utilization, and costs, which were assessed via a propensity score-matched cohort using 2018 as the index year. Outcome analyses were stratified by infection acquisition and hospitalization status. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2019, overall annual CDI incidence declined from 609 to 442 per 100 000 person-years. Although the incidence of healthcare-associated CDI declined overall (2012, 53.2%; 2019, 47.2%), community-associated CDI increased (2012, 46.8%; 2019, 52.8%). The 1-year attributable mortality was 7.9% (CDI cases, 26.3%; non-CDI controls, 18.4%). At the 2-month follow-up, CDI-associated excess mean total healthcare and out-of-pocket costs were $13 476 and $396, respectively. Total excess mean healthcare costs were greater among hospitalized (healthcare-associated, $28 762; community-associated, $28 330) than nonhospitalized CDI patients ($5704 and $2320, respectively), whereas total excess mean out-of-pocket cost was highest among community-associated hospitalized CDI patients ($970). CONCLUSIONS: CDI represents an important public health burden in the MAE population. Preventive strategies and treatments are needed to improve outcomes and reduce costs for healthcare systems and this growing population of older US adults.

In-home Visits and Subsequent Health Outcomes in Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries With Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes, Hypertension, and Depression.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, and depression are common burdensome conditions. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether multidimensional preventive in-home visits were associated with fewer emergency and inpatient care episodes and higher quality of care. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational, retrospective data analysis. SUBJECTS: A nationwide Medicare Advantage population from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse. MEASURES: We compared beneficiaries with 1 or more of the conditions with an in-home visit in 2018 ("Exposure") with those without a visit in 2018 but with a future visit in 2019 ("Wait List Control") using a difference-in-differences analysis. Primary outcomes were 1-year all-cause inpatient care and emergency visit counts. Secondary outcomes included primary care visits, major adverse cardiovascular events, and select quality-of-care metrics. An exploratory outcome was the time-to-first primary care visit after the index date. RESULTS: Among those eligible to receive an in-home visit, a total of 48,566 patients had an in-home visit in 2018 (the "Exposure" group), and 36,549 beneficiaries constituted the "Wait List" control group. Receiving an in-home visit early was associated with a greater decrease in inpatient stays for all 4 conditions (change score range for any stay: -5.22% to -2.47%) (P<0.001, depression <0.05); decrease in emergency visits (change score range for any stay: -4.39% to -3.67%) (P<0.0.001, depression <0.05); and fewer major adverse cardiovascular events for coronary artery disease and depression (P<0.001 and <0.025, respectively) 1 year later. Minimal differences were noted for change in ambulatory and primary care visits, with no consistent increase in quality-of-care metrics. Time-to-first primary care visit was shorter for the "Exposure" versus the Wait List control group in all conditions (difference between 2.45 and 4.95 d). CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and impact of a nationwide multidimensional preventive in-home visit were demonstrated, targeting common and high morbidity conditions. Benefits were observed against a Wait List control group, resulting in less resource-intense care.

Essential not Supplemental: Medicare Advantage Members' Use of Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT).

BACKGROUND: Over five million people in the USA miss or delay medical care because of a lack of transportation. Transportation barriers are especially relevant to Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan enrollees, who are more likely to live with multiple chronic conditions and experience mobility challenges. Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) helps to address transportation gaps by providing rides to and from routine medical care (for example, medical appointments, laboratory tests, and pharmacy visits) and has been added as a supplemental benefit to some MA health plans. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize MA enrollees' experiences with supplemental NEMT benefits. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews focused on participants' experiences with existing NEMT benefits, transportation, and mobility. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one MA enrollees who used their MA NEMT benefit in 2019 and who remained eligible for ongoing transportation benefits through 2021. APPROACH: Using purposive sampling from a list of eligible participants, we recruited individuals who used their MA NEMT benefit in 2019 and who remained eligible for benefit-covered transportation services through 2021. KEY RESULTS: Participants considered NEMT an essential service, particularly because these services helped them decrease social isolation, reduce financial insecurity, and manage their own medical needs. Navigating logistical challenges associated with arranging NEMT services required participants to commit considerable time and energy and limited the effectiveness and reliability of NEMT. CONCLUSION: Participants described NEMT as a valued service essential to their ability to access health care. They suggested ways to increase service flexibility and reliability that could inform future NEMT policy and practice. As health systems and payers learn how to best address social risks, particularly as the US population ages, our findings underscore the importance of NEMT services and highlight opportunities to advance comprehensive transportation solutions for MA participants.