Emergency Department Visits And Hospital Capacity In The US: Trends In The Medicare Population During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Although emergency department (ED) and hospital overcrowding were reported during the later parts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the true extent and potential causes of this overcrowding remain unclear. Using data on the traditional fee-for-service Medicare population, we examined patterns in ED and hospital use during the period 2019-22. We evaluated trends in ED visits, rates of admission from the ED, and thirty-day mortality, as well as measures suggestive of hospital capacity, including hospital Medicare census, length-of-stay, and discharge destination. We found that ED visits remained below baseline throughout the study period, with the standardized number of visits at the end of the study period being approximately 25 percent lower than baseline. Longer length-of-stay persisted through 2022, whereas hospital census was considerably above baseline until stabilizing just above baseline in 2022. Rates of discharge to postacute facilities initially declined and then leveled off at 2 percent below baseline in 2022. These results suggest that widespread reports of overcrowding were not driven by a resurgence in ED visits. Nonetheless, length-of-stay remains higher, presumably related to increased acuity and reduced available bed capacity in the postacute care system.

Medicare Transitional Care Management Program and Changes in Timely Postdischarge Follow-Up.

Importance: In 2013, Medicare implemented payments for transitional care management (TCM) services, which provide increased reimbursement to clinicians providing ambulatory care to patients after discharge from medical facilities to the community. Objective: To determine whether the introduction of TCM payments was associated with an increase in timely postdischarge follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional interrupted time-series study assessed quarterly postdischarge visit rates before (2010-2012) and after (2013-2019) TCM implementation 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged to the community after a hospital or skilled nursing facility stay. Data analyses were performed February 1 to December 15, 2023. Exposure: Implementation of payments for TCM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Timely postdischarge primary care follow-up, defined as receipt of a primary care ambulatory visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included receipt of a TCM visit and specialty care follow-up. Results: The study sample comprised 79 125 965 eligible discharges. Of these, 55.4% were female; 1.5% were Asian, 12.1% Black, 5.6% Hispanic, and 79.0% were White individuals; and 79.6% were beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Timely primary care follow-up increased from 31.5% in 2010 to 38.8% in 2019 (absolute increase 7.3%), whereas specialist follow-up increased from 27.6% to 30.8% (absolute increase 3.2%). By 2019, 11.3% of eligible patients received TCM services. Interrupted time-series analyses demonstrated an increased slope of timely primary care follow-up after the introduction of TCM services (pre-TCM slope, 0.12% per quarter vs post-TCM slope, 0.29% per quarter; difference, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.02% to 0.22%). Receipt of timely follow-up increased for all demographic groups; however, Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid dual-eligible patients and patients residing in urban areas and counties with high-level social deprivation were less likely to receive follow-up during the study period. These disparities widened for Black patients (difference-in-differences in pre-TCM vs post-TCM slope, -0.14%; 95% CI, -0.25% to -0.2%) and patients who were Medicaid dual-eligible (difference-in-differences pre-TCM vs post-TCM slope, -0.21%; 95% CI, -0.35% to -0.07%). Conclusions: These findings indicate that Medicare's introduction of payments for TCM services was associated with a persistent increase in the rate of timely postdischarge primary care but did not narrow demographic or socioeconomic disparities. Most beneficiaries did not receive timely primary care follow-up.

Primary Care Physicians In Medicare Advantage Were Less Costly, Provided Similar Quality Versus Regional Average.

The use of many services is lower in Medicare Advantage (MA) compared with traditional Medicare, generating cost savings for insurers, whereas the quality of ambulatory services is higher. This study examined the role of selective contracting with providers in achieving these outcomes, focusing on primary care physicians. Assessing primary care physician costliness based on the gap between observed and predicted costs for their traditional Medicare patients, we found that the average primary care physician in MA networks was $433 less costly per patient (2.9 percent of baseline) compared with the regional mean, with less costly primary care physicians included in more networks than more costly ones. Favorable selection of patients by MA primary care physicians contributed partially to this result. The quality measures of MA primary care physicians were similar to the regional mean. In contrast, primary care physicians excluded from all MA networks were $1,617 (13.8 percent) costlier than the regional mean, with lower quality. Primary care physicians in narrow networks were $212 (1.4 percent) less costly than those in wide networks, but their quality was slightly lower. These findings highlight the potential role of selective contracting in reducing costs in the MA program.

Approaches to Comparing the Impact of Socioeconomic Disadvantage on Acute Myocardial Infarction Care Within and Across Countries: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how cardiovascular disease treatment and outcomes differ for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients across countries may reveal insights into the impact of countries' policy initiatives on health equity. However, methods of undertaking these studies are poorly characterized. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to identify studies describing between-country comparisons of socioeconomic inequalities in the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to determine the extent to which such comparisons have been conducted, the methodologies used, and outcomes assessed. We searched Medline from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2023 for peer-reviewed English-language publications. Studies were included if they stratified patients by a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage (eg, race, ethnicity, income, education, occupation, immigrant status) and made comparisons between 2 or more countries. RESULTS: Our search yielded 4861 articles focused on patients with AMI, of which 7 met our inclusion criteria. Common individual-level proxies for disadvantage were self-reported income or education. In contrast, we found no cross-country comparisons focused on other measures of disadvantage such as race and ethnicity. There was marked heterogeneity in methods and thresholds used to define socioeconomic disadvantage at the individual level. All included studies found that patients with higher income and higher educational attainment had improved AMI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Between-country comparisons of socioeconomic disparities in AMI outcomes are scarce and heterogeneous, but all identified studies relied on metrics of disadvantage including income and education that could be uniformly measured across countries. We found no articles addressing other types of inequities, likely because of significant methodologic challenges.

Clinician Risk Tolerance and Rates of Admission From the Emergency Department.

Importance: Much remains unknown about the extent of and factors that influence clinician-level variation in rates of admission from the emergency department (ED). In particular, emergency clinician risk tolerance is a potentially important attribute, but it is not well defined in terms of its association with the decision to admit. Objective: To further characterize this variation in rates of admission from the ED and to determine whether clinician risk attitudes are associated with the propensity to admit. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this observational cohort study, data were analyzed from the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database to identify all ED visits from October 2015 through December 2017 with any form of commercial insurance or Medicaid. ED visits were then linked to treating clinicians and their risk tolerance scores obtained in a separate statewide survey to examine the association between risk tolerance and the decision to admit. Statistical analysis was performed from 2022 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ratio between observed and projected admission rates was computed, controlling for hospital, and then plotted against the projected admission rates to find the extent of variation. Pearson correlation coefficients were then used to examine the association between the mean projected rate of admission and the difference between actual and projected rates of admission. The consistency of clinician admission practices across a range of the most common conditions resulting in admission were then assessed to understand whether admission decisions were consistent across different conditions. Finally, an assessment was made as to whether the extent of deviation from the expected admission rates at an individual level was associated with clinician risk tolerance. Results: The study sample included 392 676 ED visits seen by 691 emergency clinicians. Among patients seen for ED visits, 221 077 (56.3%) were female, and 236 783 (60.3%) were 45 years of age or older; 178 890 visits (46.5%) were for patients insured by Medicaid, 96 947 (25.2%) were for those with commercial insurance, 71 171 (18.5%) were Medicare Part B or Medicare Advantage, and the remaining 37 702 (9.8%) were other insurance category. Of the 691 clinicians, 429 (62.6%) were male; mean (SD) age was 46.5 (9.8) years; and 72 (10.4%) were Asian, 13 (1.9%) were Black, 577 (83.5%) were White, and 29 (4.2%) were other race. Admission rates across the clinicians included ranged from 36.3% at the 25th percentile to 48.0% at the 75th percentile (median, 42.1%). Overall, there was substantial variation in admission rates across clinicians; physicians were just as likely to overadmit or underadmit across the range of projected rates of admission (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.046 [P = .23]). There also was weak consistency in admission rates across the most common clinical conditions, with intraclass correlations ranging from 0.09 (95% CI, 0.02-0.17) for genitourinary/syncope to 0.48 (95% CI, 0.42-0.53) for cardiac/syncope. Greater clinician risk tolerance (as measured by the Risk Tolerance Scale) was associated with a statistically significant tendency to admit less than the projected admission rate (coefficient, -0.09 [P = .04]). The other scales studied revealed no significant associations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of ED visits from Massachusetts, there was statistically significant variation between ED clinicians in admission rates and little consistency in admission tendencies across different conditions. Admission tendencies were minimally associated with clinician innate risk tolerance as assessed by this study's measures; further research relying on a broad range of measures of risk tolerance is needed to better understand the role of clinician attitudes toward risk in explaining practice patterns and to identify additional factors that may be associated with variation at the clinician level.

Proportion Of Preventive Primary Care Visits Nearly Doubled, Especially Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2001-19.

There is debate about the value of preventive visits in primary care, and multiple policy trends during the past fifteen years may have influenced the likelihood of US adults undergoing preventive primary care visits. Using nationally representative, serial cross-sectional data on adult visits to primary care physicians from the 2001-19 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we characterized temporal trends in the proportion of primary care visits with a preventive focus and the differential characteristics of these visits. Based on a sample of 139,783 unweighted (5,902,144,258 weighted) US primary care visits, we found that the proportion of primary care visits with a preventive focus increased between 2001 and 2019 (12.8 percent of visits in 2001-02 versus 24.6 percent in 2018-19; [Formula: see text]), with the greatest rate of increase seen for people with Medicare. Primary care visits with a preventive focus involved more time spent with the physician and addressed fewer reasons for the visit compared with problem-based visits. At least one of the following was significantly more likely to occur during a preventive visit than a problem-based visit: counseling provision, ordering of preventive labs, or ordering of a preventive image or procedure. Our findings demonstrate a relative increase in preventive versus problem-based visits in primary care and suggest the importance of enhanced insurance coverage in influencing preventive care delivery trends.

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.

Importance: As the US accelerates adoption of alternative payment through global payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA), high spending for cancer care is a potential target for savings. Objective: To quantify the extent to which ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations operating in a specific geographic area (hospital referral region [HRR]) could achieve savings by steering patients to efficient medical oncology practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study included serial cross-sections of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer from 2010 to 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total spending and spending by category in the 1-year period following an index visit for a patient with newly diagnosed (incident) or poor-prognosis cancer. Results: The incident cohort included 1 309 825 patients with a mean age of 74.0 years; the most common cancer types were breast (21.4%), lung (16.7%), and colorectal cancer (10.0%). The poor prognosis cohort included 1 429 973 (mean age, 72.7 years); the most common cancer types were lung (26.6%), lymphoma (11.7%), and leukemia (7.3%). Options for steering varied across markets; the top quartile market had 10 or more oncology practices, but the bottom quartile had 3 or fewer oncology practices. Total spending (including Medicare Part D) in the incident cohort increased from a mean of $57 314 in 2009 to 2010 to $66 028 in 2016 to 2017. Within markets, total spending for practices in the highest spending quartile was 19% higher than in the lowest quartile. Hospital spending was the single largest component of spending in both time periods ($20 390 and $19 718, respectively) followed by Part B (infused) chemotherapy ($8022 and $11 699). Correlations in practice-level spending between the first-year (2009) and second-year (2010) spending were high (>0.90 in all categories with most >0.98), but these attenuated over time. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest there may be opportunities for ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations to select or drive referrals to lower-spending oncology practices in many local markets.

Changes in the Use of Long-Term Medications Following Incident Dementia Diagnosis.

Importance: Dementia is a life-altering diagnosis that may affect medication safety and goals for chronic disease management. Objective: To examine changes in medication use following an incident dementia diagnosis among community-dwelling older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study of adults aged 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D, patients with incident dementia diagnosed between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched to control patients based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. The index date was defined as the date of first dementia diagnosis or, for controls, the date of the closest office visit. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to June 2023. Exposure: Incident dementia diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were overall medication counts and use of cardiometabolic, central nervous system (CNS)-active, and anticholinergic medications. A comparative time-series analysis was conducted to examine quarterly changes in medication use in the year before through the year following the index date. Results: The study included 266 675 adults with incident dementia and 266 675 control adults; in both groups, 65.1% were aged 80 years or older (mean [SD] age, 82.2 [7.1] years) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (eg, diabetes medications, 31.19% vs 36.45%). Immediately following the index date, the cohort with dementia had a greater increase in mean number of medications used (0.41 vs -0.06; difference, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.66]) and in the proportion of patients using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs 0.79%; difference, 2.65% [95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%]) owing to an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics. The cohort with dementia also had a modestly greater decline in use of anticholinergic medications (quarterly change in use, -0.53% vs -0.21%; difference, -0.32% [95% CI, -0.55% to -0.08%]) and most cardiometabolic medications (eg, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: -0.84% vs -0.40%; difference, -0.44% [95% CI, -0.64% to -0.25%]). One year after diagnosis, 75.2% of the cohort with dementia were using 5 or more medications (2.8% increase). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare Part D beneficiaries, following an incident dementia diagnosis, patients were more likely to initiate CNS-active medications and modestly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications compared with the control group. These findings suggest missed opportunities to reduce burdensome polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks or limited likelihood of benefit or that may be associated with impaired cognition.

Association of Functional Status, Cognition, Social Support, and Geriatric Syndrome With Admission From the Emergency Department.

Importance: The role of patient-level factors that are unrelated to the specific clinical condition leading to an emergency department (ED) visit, such as functional status, cognitive status, social supports, and geriatric syndromes, in admission decisions is not well understood, partly because these data are not available in administrative databases. Objective: To determine the extent to which patient-level factors are associated with rates of hospital admission from the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed survey data collected from participants (or their proxies, such as family members) enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2018. These HRS data were linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims data from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2018. Information on functional status, cognitive status, social supports, and geriatric syndromes was obtained from the HRS data, whereas ED visits, subsequent hospital admission or ED discharge, and other claims-derived comorbidities and sociodemographic characteristics were obtained from Medicare data. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was hospital admission after an ED visit. A baseline logistic regression model was estimated, with a binary indicator of admission as the dependent variable of interest. For each primary variable of interest derived from the HRS data, the model was reestimated, including the HRS variable of interest as an independent variable. For each of these models, the odds ratio (OR) and average marginal effect (AME) of changing the value of the variable of interest were calculated. Results: A total of 42 392 ED visits by 11 783 unique patients were included. At the time of the ED visit, patients had a mean (SD) age of 77.4 (9.6) years, and visits were predominantly for female (25 719 visits [60.7%]) and White (32 148 visits [75.8%]) individuals. The overall percentage of patients admitted was 42.5%. After controlling for ED diagnosis and demographic characteristics, functional status, cognition status, and social supports all were associated with the likelihood of admission. For instance, difficulty performing 5 activities of daily living was associated with an 8.5-percentage point (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.29-1.66) AME increase in the likelihood of admission. Having dementia was associated with an AME increase in the likelihood of admission of 4.6 percentage points (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Living with a spouse was associated with an AME decrease in the likelihood of admission of 3.9 percentage points (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89), and having children living within 10 miles was associated with an AME decrease in the likelihood of admission of 5.0 percentage points (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89). Other common geriatric syndromes, including trouble falling asleep, waking early, trouble with vision, glaucoma or cataract, use of hearing aids or trouble with hearing, falls in past 2 years, incontinence, depression, and polypharmacy, were not meaningfully associated with the likelihood of admission. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that the key patient-level characteristics, including social supports, cognitive status, and functional status, were associated with the decision to admit older patients to the hospital from the ED. These factors are critical to consider when devising strategies to reduce low-value admissions among older adult patients from the ED.

Estimated Annual Spending on Lecanemab and Its Ancillary Costs in the US Medicare Program.

This cross-sectional cost analysis uses data from the 2018 Health and Retirement Study to estimate the potential future Medicare spending and beneficiary costs for lecanemab.

Estimated Costs of Intervening in Health-Related Social Needs Detected in Primary Care.

Importance: Health-related social needs are increasingly being screened for in primary care practices, but it remains unclear how much additional financing is required to address those needs to improve health outcomes. Objective: To estimate the cost of implementing evidence-based interventions to address social needs identified in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical microsimulation of patients seen in primary care practices, using data on social needs from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 through 2018 (N = 19 225) was conducted. Primary care practices were categorized as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas, non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas, and practices in lower-poverty areas. Data analysis was performed from March 3 to December 16, 2022. Intervention: Simulated evidence-based interventions of primary care-based screening and referral protocols, food assistance, housing programs, nonemergency medical transportation, and community-based care coordination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was per-person per-month cost of interventions. Intervention costs that have existing federally funded financing mechanisms (eg, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and costs without such an existing mechanism were tabulated. Results: Of the population included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 34.4 (25.9) years, and 54.3% were female. Among people with food and housing needs, most were program eligible for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment (eg, due to inadequate program capacity), with 78.0% of people with housing needs being program eligible vs 24.0% enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs being program eligible vs 70.2% enrolled. Among those with transportation insecurity and care coordination needs, eligibility criteria limited enrollment (26.3% of those in need being program eligible for transportation programs, and 5.7% of those in need being program eligible for care coordination programs). The cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these 4 domains averaged $60 (95% CI, $55-$65) per member per month (including approximately $5 for screening and referral management in clinics), of which $27 (95% CI, $24-$31) (45.8%) was federally funded. While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps (intervention costs not borne by existing federal funding mechanisms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical microsimulation study, food and housing interventions were limited by low enrollment among eligible people, whereas transportation and care coordination interventions were more limited by narrow eligibility criteria. Screening and referral management in primary care was a small expenditure relative to the cost of interventions to address social needs, and just under half of the costs of interventions were covered by existing federal funding mechanisms. These findings suggest that many resources are necessary to address social needs that fall largely outside of existing federal financing mechanisms.

Differences in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Low- and High-Income Patients in 6 Countries.

Importance: Differences in the organization and financing of health systems may produce more or less equitable outcomes for advantaged vs disadvantaged populations. We compared treatments and outcomes of older high- and low-income patients across 6 countries. Objective: To determine whether treatment patterns and outcomes for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction differ for low- vs high-income individuals across 6 countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional cohort study of all adults aged 66 years or older hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction from 2013 through 2018 in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Israel using population-representative administrative data. Exposures: Being in the top and bottom quintile of income within and across countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day and 1-year mortality; secondary outcomes included rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization, length of stay, and readmission rates. Results: We studied 289 376 patients hospitalized with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 843 046 hospitalized with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Adjusted 30-day mortality generally was 1 to 3 percentage points lower for high-income patients. For instance, 30-day mortality among patients admitted with STEMI in the Netherlands was 10.2% for those with high income vs 13.1% for those with low income (difference, -2.8 percentage points [95% CI, -4.1 to -1.5]). One-year mortality differences for STEMI were even larger than 30-day mortality, with the highest difference in Israel (16.2% vs 25.3%; difference, -9.1 percentage points [95% CI, -16.7 to -1.6]). In all countries, rates of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention were higher among high- vs low-income populations, with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 6 percentage points (eg, 73.6% vs 67.4%; difference, 6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 11.0] for percutaneous intervention in England for STEMI). Rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with STEMI in low- vs high-income strata were similar but for NSTEMI were generally 1 to 2 percentage points higher among high-income patients (eg, 12.5% vs 11.0% in the US; difference, 1.5 percentage points [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8 ]). Thirty-day readmission rates generally also were 1 to 3 percentage points lower and hospital length of stay generally was 0.2 to 0.5 days shorter for high-income patients. Conclusions and Relevance: High-income individuals had substantially better survival and were more likely to receive lifesaving revascularization and had shorter hospital lengths of stay and fewer readmissions across almost all countries. Our results suggest that income-based disparities were present even in countries with universal health insurance and robust social safety net systems.

Differences In Use Of Services And Quality Of Care In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare, 2010 And 2017.

Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment growth could make it difficult for MA plans to maintain their track record of limiting discretionary utilization while delivering higher-quality care than traditional Medicare. We compared quality and utilization measures in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in 2010 and 2017. Clinical quality performance was higher in MA health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and preferred provider organizations (PPOs) than in traditional Medicare for almost all measures in both years. MA HMOs outperformed traditional Medicare on all measures in 2017. MA HMOs' performance on nearly all seven patient-reported quality measures improved, and MA HMOs outperformed traditional Medicare on five of those measures in 2017. MA PPOs performed the same as or better than traditional Medicare on all but one patient-reported quality measure in 2010 and 2017. The number of emergency department visits was 30 percent lower, the number of elective hip and knee replacements was approximately 10 percent lower, and the number of back surgeries was almost 30 percent lower in MA HMOs than in traditional Medicare in 2017. Utilization trends were similar in MA PPOs, but differences from traditional Medicare were narrower. Despite increased enrollment, overall utilization remains lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare, whereas quality performance is the same or higher.

Association of Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare With 30-Day Mortality Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Importance: Medicare Advantage health plans covered 37% of beneficiaries in 2018, and coverage increased to 48% in 2022. Whether Medicare Advantage plans provide similar care for patients presenting with specific clinical conditions is unknown. Objective: To compare 30-day mortality and treatment for Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study that included 557 309 participants with ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (STEMI) and 1 670 193 with non-ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (NSTEMI) presenting to US hospitals from 2009-2018 (date of final follow up, December 31, 2019). Exposures: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included age- and sex-adjusted rates of procedure use (catheterization, revascularization), postdischarge medication prescriptions and adherence, and measures of health system performance (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and 30-day readmissions). Results: The study included a total of 2 227 502 participants, and the mean age in 2018 ranged from 76.9 years (Medicare Advantage STEMI) to 79.3 years (traditional Medicare NSTEMI), with similar proportions of female patients in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare (41.4% vs 41.9% for STEMI in 2018). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was associated with significantly lower adjusted 30-day mortality rates in 2009 (19.1% vs 20.6% for STEMI; difference, -1.5 percentage points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] and 12.0% vs 12.5% for NSTEMI; difference, -0.5 percentage points [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.1%]). By 2018, mortality had declined in all groups, and there were no longer statically significant differences between Medicare Advantage (17.7%) and traditional Medicare (17.8%) for STEMI (difference, 0.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6]) or between Medicare Advantage (10.9%) and traditional Medicare (11.1%) for NSTEMI (difference, -0.2 percentage points [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1]). By 2018, there was no statistically significant difference in standardized 90-day revascularization rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Rates of guideline-recommended medication prescriptions were significantly higher in Medicare Advantage (91.7%) vs traditional Medicare patients (89.0%) who received a statin prescription (difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2] for 2018 STEMI). Medicare Advantage patients were significantly less likely to be admitted to an ICU than traditional Medicare patients (for 2018 STEMI, 50.3% vs 51.2%; difference, -0.9 percentage points [95% CI, -1.8 to 0.0]) and significantly more likely to be discharged to home rather than to a postacute facility (for 2018 STEMI, 71.5% vs 70.2%; difference, 1.3 percentage points [95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1]). Adjusted 30-day readmission rates were consistently lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (for 2009 STEMI, 13.8% vs 15.2%; difference, -1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6]; and for 2018 STEMI, 11.2% vs 11.9%; difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.5 to 0.0]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, enrollment in Medicare Advantage, compared with traditional Medicare, was significantly associated with modestly lower rates of 30-day mortality in 2009, and the difference was no longer statistically significant by 2018. These findings, considered with other outcomes, may provide insight into differences in treatment and outcomes by Medicare insurance type.

Turnover among new Medicare Advantage enrollees may be greater than perceived.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the proportion of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees who switched insurers or disenrolled to traditional Medicare (TM) in the years immediately after first choosing to join an MA health plan. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis using 2012-2017 Medicare enrollment data. METHODS: We studied enrollees who joined MA between 2012 and 2016 and identified all enrollees who changed insurers (switched insurance or disenrolled to TM) at least once between the start of enrollment and the end of the study period. We categorized each change as switching insurers or disenrollment to TM, and by whether the previous insurer had exited the market. RESULTS: Among 6,520,169 new MA enrollees, 15.6% had changed insurance within 1 year after enrollment in MA and 49.2% had changed insurance by 5 years. More enrollees switched insurers rather than disenrolled, and most enrollees who changed insurers did not do so as a result of insurer exits. CONCLUSIONS: New MA enrollees change insurers at a substantial rate when followed across multiple years. These changes may disincentivize insurers from investing in preventive care and chronic disease management and, as shown in several non-MA populations, may lead to discontinuities in care, increased expenditures, and inferior health outcomes.

Estimated Annual Spending on Aducanumab in the US Medicare Program.

This cross-sectional study examines upper bound and lower bound annualized Medicare costs for administering aducanumab to beneficiaries with the approved indications of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia.

The Underuse of Medicare's Prevention and Coordination Codes in Primary Care : A Cross-Sectional and Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to better support primary care include the addition of primary care-focused billing codes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). OBJECTIVE: To examine potential and actual use by primary care physicians (PCPs) of the prevention and coordination codes that have been added to the MPFS. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and modeling study. SETTING: Nationally representative claims and survey data. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare patients. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of use and estimated Medicare revenue involving 34 billing codes representing prevention and coordination services for which PCPs could but do not necessarily bill. RESULTS: Eligibility among Medicare patients for each service ranged from 8.8% to 100%. Among eligible patients, the median use of billing codes was 2.3%, even though PCPs provided code-appropriate services to more patients, for example, to 5.0% to 60.6% of patients eligible for prevention services. If a PCP provided and billed all prevention and coordination services to half of all eligible patients, the PCP could add to the practice's annual revenue $124 435 (interquartile range [IQR], $30 654 to $226 813) for prevention services and $86 082 (IQR, $18 011 to $154 152) for coordination services. LIMITATION: Service provision based on survey questions may not reflect all billing requirements; revenues do not incorporate the compliance, billing, and opportunity costs that may be incurred when using these codes. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians forego considerable amounts of revenue because they infrequently use billing codes for prevention and coordination services despite having eligible patients and providing code-appropriate services to some of those patients. Therefore, creating additional billing codes for distinct activities in the MPFS may not be an effective strategy for supporting primary care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.