Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. MAIN MEASURES: Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. KEY RESULTS: Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Eliminating Algorithmic Racial Bias in Clinical Decision Support Algorithms: Use Cases from the Veterans Health Administration.

The Veterans Health Administration uses equity- and evidence-based principles to examine, correct, and eliminate use of potentially biased clinical equations and predictive models. We discuss the processes, successes, challenges, and next steps in four examples. We detail elimination of the race modifier for estimated kidney function and discuss steps to achieve more equitable pulmonary function testing measurement. We detail the use of equity lenses in two predictive clinical modeling tools: Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) and Care Assessment Need (CAN) predictive models. We conclude with consideration of ways to advance racial health equity in clinical decision support algorithms.

The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup-the authors of this paper-as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity. STUDY DESIGN: The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.

Spending patterns among commercially insured individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in US health care spending in a large, national, and commercially insured population during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of commercially insured members enrolled between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. METHODS: The study utilized a population-based sample of continuously enrolled members in a geographically diverse federation of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans across the United States. Our sample excluded Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The COVID-19 exposure period was defined as 2020-2021; 2018-2019 were pre-COVID-19 years. We defined 4 post-COVID-19 periods: March 1 to April 30, 2020; May 1 to December 31, 2020; January 1 to March 31, 2021; and April 1 to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was inflation-adjusted overall per-member per-month (PMPM) medical spending adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidities, area-level racial composition, income, and education. RESULTS: Our sample included 97,319,130 individuals. Mean PMPM medical spending decreased from $370.92 in January-February 2020 to $281.00 in March-April 2020. Between May and December 2020, mean PMPM medical spending recovered to-but did not exceed-prepandemic levels. Mean PMPM medical spending stayed below prepandemic levels between January and March 2021, rose above prepandemic baselines between April and June 2021, and decreased below baseline between July and December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic induced a spending shock in 2020, and health care spending did not recover to near baseline until mid-2021, with some emerging evidence of pent-up demand. The observed spending below baseline through the end of 2021 will pose challenges to setting spending benchmarks for alternative payment and shared savings models.

Pneumonia is not just pneumonia: Differences in utilization and costs with common comorbidities.

We sought to explore the heterogeneity among patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a condition targeted in payment reform. In a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for pneumonia, we compared postacute care utilization and costs of 90-day episodes of care among patients with and without comorbidities of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or heart failure. Of the 1,926,674 discharges, 28.1% had COPD, 14.3% had heart failure, and 14.6% carried both diagnoses. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to be discharged to a facility than those with pneumonia and COPD with or without heart failure, though less likely than those with pneumonia and heart failure only. Compared to patients with pneumonia only, patients with COPD and/or heart failure had higher episode payments. Acute conditions such as pneumonia may hold promise for episode-based care payment reform; however, the heterogeneity within this diagnosis indicates the need to consider other patient characteristics in interventions to improve value-based care.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plans With Health Care Use and Costs for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.

Background By increasing cost sharing, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) aim to reduce low-value health care use. The association of HDHPs with health care use and costs in patients with chronic cardiovascular disease is unknown. Methods and Results This longitudinal cohort study analyzed 57 690 privately insured patients, aged 18 to 64 years, from a large commercial claims database with chronic cardiovascular disease from 2011 to 2019. Health care entities in which all or most beneficiaries switched from being in a traditional plan to an HDHP were identified. A difference-in-differences design was used to account for differences between individuals who remained in traditional plans and those who switched to HDHPs and to assess changes in health care use and costs. Among the 934 individuals in the HDHP group and the 56 756 in the traditional plan group, switching to an HDHP was not associated with statistically significant changes in annual outpatient visits, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits (-8.3% [95% CI, -16.8 to 1.1], -28.5% [95% CI, -62.1 to 34.6], and 11.2% [95% CI, -20.9 to 56.5], respectively). Switching to an HDHP was associated with an increase of $921 (95% CI, $743-$1099) in out-of-pocket costs but no statistically significant difference in total health care costs. Conclusions Among commercially insured patients with chronic cardiovascular disease, switching to an HDHP was not associated with a change in health care use but was associated with an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Although health care use by individuals with chronic cardiovascular disease may not be sensitive to higher cost sharing associated with HDHP enrollment, there may be a significant increase in patients' financial burden.

Growth of Medicare Advantage After Plan Payment Reductions.

Importance: Various policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program. Objective: To quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month. Results: Among 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001). Conclusion and Relevance: This cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.

Association Between a Bundled Payment Program for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement and Patient Outcomes Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Much of the evidence for bundled payments has been drawn from models in the traditional Medicare program. Although private insurers are increasingly offering bundled payment programs, it is not known whether they are associated with changes in episode spending and quality. Objective: To evaluate whether a voluntary bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer was associated with changes in episode spending or quality of care for beneficiaries receiving lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 23 034 LEJR surgical episodes that emulated a stepped-wedge design by using the time-varying, geographically staggered rollout of the bundled payment program from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Episode-level multivariable regression models were estimated within practice to compare changes before and after program participation, using episodes at physician practices that had not yet begun participating in the program during a given time period (but would go on to do so) as the control. Data analyses were performed from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Exposures: Physician practice participation in the bundled payment program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was episode spending (plan and beneficiary). Secondary outcomes included postacute care use (skilled nursing facility and home health care), surgical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), and quality (90-day complications [including deep vein thrombosis, wound infection, fracture, or dislocation] and readmissions). Results: The final analytic sample included 23 034 LEJR episodes (6355 bundled episodes and 16 679 control episodes) from 109 physician practices participating in the program. Of the beneficiaries, 7730 were male and 15 304 were female, 3057 were Black, 19 351 were White, 447 were of other race or ethnicity (assessed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiary race and ethnicity code, which reflects data reported to the Social Security Administration), and 179 were of unknown race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 70.9 (7.2) years. Participation in the bundled payment program was associated with a 2.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.1%) decrease in spending per episode (mean episodic spending, $21 964 [95% CI, $21 636-$22 296] vs $22 562 [95% CI, $22 346-$22 779]), as well as reductions in skilled nursing facility use after discharge (21.3% for bundled episodes vs 25.0% for control episodes; odds ratio [OR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]) and increased use of the outpatient surgical setting (14.1% for bundled episodes vs 8.4% for control episodes; OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.53-2.09]). The program was not associated with changes in quality outcomes, including 90-day complications (8.8% for bundled episodes vs 8.6% for control episodes; OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]) and readmissions (4.3% for bundled episodes vs 4.6% for control episodes; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.75-1.13]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of an LEJR bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer, findings suggest that physician practice participation in the program was associated with a decrease in episode spending without changes in quality. Bundled payments offered by private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, are an alternate payment option to fee for service that may reduce spending for LEJR episodes while maintaining quality of care.

Hospital Consolidation: The Rise of Geographically Distant Mergers.

This Viewpoint discusses how and why cross-market hospital mergers are different than prototypical within-market mergers in their effects on patients and communities, why the trend may be accelerating, and future policy and research directions.

Disparities in emergency department and urgent care opioid prescribing before and after randomized clinician feedback interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Racial and ethnic minorities receive opioid prescriptions at lower rates and dosages than White patients. Though opioid stewardship interventions can improve or exacerbate these disparities, there is little evidence about these effects. We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted among 438 clinicians from 21 emergency departments and 27 urgent care clinics. Our objective was to determine whether randomly allocated opioid stewardship clinician feedback interventions that were designed to reduce opioid prescriptions had unintended effects on disparities in prescribing by patient race and ethnicity. METHODS: The primary outcome was likelihood of receiving a low-pill prescription (low ≤10 pills, medium 11-19 pills, high ≥20 pills). Generalized mixed-effects models were used to determine patient characteristics associated with low-pill prescriptions during the baseline period. These models were then used to determine whether receipt of a low-pill prescription varied by patient race or ethnicity during the intervention period between usual care and three opioid stewardship interventions: (1) individual audit feedback, (2) peer comparison feedback, and (3) combined (individual audit + peer comparison) feedback. RESULTS: Compared with White patients, Black patients were more likely to receive a low-pill prescription during the baseline (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.31, p = 0.002) and intervention (adjusted OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.91, p = 0.015). While combined feedback was associated with an overall increase in low-pill prescriptions as intended (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.28-2.78, p = 0.001), there were no significant differences in treatment effects of any of the interventions by patient race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Combined individual audit and peer comparison feedback was associated with fewer opioid pills per prescription equally by patient race and ethnicity. However, the intervention did not significantly close the baseline disparity in prescribing by race.

Organizational capacity among hospitals in Medicare and commercial bundled payments.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals must strategically build organizational capacities to succeed in bundled payment arrangements. Given differences between Medicare and commercial arrangements, capacities may vary between hospitals in Medicare vs both Medicare and commercial bundled payment programs. This study compared organizational capacities between these 2 hospital groups. STUDY DESIGN: National survey of American Hospital Association (AHA) member hospitals with experience in bundled payment programs. METHODS: We analyzed data from October 31, 2017, to April 30, 2018, collected from AHA member hospitals with bundled payment experience in only Medicare (Medicare-only hospitals) or in both Medicare and commercial insurers (multipayer hospitals). Survey questions examined capacity in 4 areas: (1) physician performance feedback, (2) care management, (3) postacute care provider utilization, and (4) health information technology. RESULTS: Our sample included 114 hospitals reporting experience in Medicare or commercial bundled payment programs. Both Medicare-only and multipayer hospitals reported high organizational capacities in performance measurement of physician-level quality and cost feedback and in incorporation of health information technology. More multipayer hospitals reported high capacity for coordinating hospital to postacute care settings (88% vs 52%). Although nearly all hospitals in both groups reported formalized relationships with skilled nursing facilities (98%), fewer hospitals reported such relationships with long-term acute care hospitals (83%) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Although they have similar capacity in a number of areas, Medicare-only and multipayer hospitals differed with respect to other aspects of organizational capacity.

Performance of Physician Groups and Hospitals Participating in Bundled Payments Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Hospital participation in bundled payment initiatives has been associated with financial savings and stable quality of care. However, how physician group practices (PGPs) perform in bundled payments compared with hospitals remains unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the association of PGP participation in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative with episode outcomes and to compare these with outcomes for participating hospitals. Design, Settings, and Participants: This cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis used 2011 to 2018 Medicare claims data to compare the association of BPCI participation with episode outcomes for PGPs vs hospitals providing medical and surgical care to Medicare beneficiaries. Data analyses were conducted from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022. Exposures: Hospitalization for any of the 10 highest-volume episodes (5 medical and 5 surgical) included in the BPCI initiative for Medicare patients of participating PGPs and hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day total episode spending. Secondary outcomes were 90-day readmissions and mortality. Results: The total sample comprised data from 1 288 781 Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 696 710 (mean [SD] age, 76.2 [10.8] years; 432 429 [59.7%] women; 619 655 [85.5%] White individuals) received care through 379 BPCI-participating hospitals and 1441 propensity-matched non-BPCI-participating hospitals, and 592 071 (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [10.9] years; 527 574 [86.6%] women; 360 835 [59.3%] White individuals) received care from 6405 physicians in BPCI-participating PGPs and 24 758 propensity-matched physicians in non-BPCI-participating PGPs. For PGPs, BPCI participation was associated with greater reductions in episode spending for surgical (difference, -$1368; 95% CI, -$1648 to -$1088) but not for medical episodes (difference, -$101; 95% CI, -$410 to $206). Hospital participation in BPCI was associated with greater reductions in episode spending for both surgical (-$1010; 95% CI, -$1345 to -$675) and medical (-$763; 95% CI, -$1139 to -$386) episodes. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study and difference-in-differences analysis of PGPs and hospital participation in BPCI found that bundled payments were associated with cost savings for surgical episodes for PGPs, and savings for both surgical and medical episodes for hospitals. Policy makers should consider the comparative performance of participant types when designing and evaluating bundled payment models.

Comparison of Low-Value Services Among Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Low-value care in the Medicare program is prevalent, costly, potentially harmful, and persistent. Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use managed care strategies not available in traditional Medicare (TM), it is not clear whether this flexibility is associated with lower rates of low-value care. Objectives: To compare rates of low-value services between MA and TM beneficiaries and explore how elements of insurance design present in MA are associated with the delivery of low-value care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. All analyses were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: Enrollment in MA vs TM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Low-value care was assessed using 26 claims-based measures. Regression models were used to estimate the association between MA enrollment and rates of low-value services while controlling for beneficiary characteristics. Stratified analyses explored whether network design, product design, value-based payment, or utilization management moderated differences in low-value care between MA and TM beneficiaries and among MA beneficiaries. Results: Among a study population of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.0] years; 1 346 777 [54.5%] female; 229 107 [9.3%] Black and 2 126 353 [86.1%] White individuals), 1 527 763 (61.8%) were enrolled in MA and 942 436 (38.2%) were enrolled in TM. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA received 9.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.8%) fewer low-value services in 2019 than TM beneficiaries (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). Although MA beneficiaries enrolled in health management organization and preferred provider organization products received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, the difference was largest for those enrolled in health management organization products (2.6 fewer [95% CI, 2.4-2.8] vs 2.1 fewer [95% CI, 1.9-2.3] services per 100 beneficiaries, respectively). Across primary care payment arrangements, MA beneficiaries received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, with the largest difference observed for MA beneficiaries whose primary care physicians were reimbursed within 2-sided risk arrangements. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of low-value care than those enrolled in TM; elements of insurance design present in the MA program and absent in TM were associated with reduction in low-value care.

Characteristics, utilization, and concentration of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the (1) distribution of outpatient care for dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries ("duals") and (2) intensity of outpatient care utilization of duals vs non-dual-eligible beneficiaries ("nonduals"). STUDY DESIGN: Using data preceding the introduction of several outpatient alternative payment models, as well as Medicaid expansion, we evaluated the distribution of outpatient care across physician practices using a Lorenz curve and compared utilization of different outpatient services between duals and nonduals. METHODS: We defined practices that did (high dual) and did not (low dual and no dual) account for the large majority of visits based on the Lorenz curve and then performed descriptive statistics between these groups of practices. Practice-level outcomes included patient demographics, practice characteristics, and county measures of structural disadvantage and population health. Patient-level outcomes included number of outpatient visits and unique outpatient physicians, primary vs subspecialty care visits, and expenditures. RESULTS: Nearly 80% of outpatient visits for duals were provided by 35% of practices. Compared with low-dual and no-dual practices, high-dual practices served more patients (1117.6 patients per high-dual practice vs 683.8 patients per low-dual practice and 447.5 patients per no-dual practice; P < .001) with more comorbidities (3.9 mean total Elixhauser comorbidities among patients served by high-dual practices vs 3.6 among low-dual practices and 3.3 among no-dual practices; P < .001). With regard to utilization, duals had 2 fewer outpatient visits per year compared with nonduals (13.3 vs 15.2; P < .001), with particularly fewer subspecialty care visits (6.5 vs 7.9; P < .001) despite having more comorbidities (3.5 vs 2.7; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient care for duals was concentrated among a small number of practices. Despite having more chronic conditions, duals had fewer outpatient visits. Duals and the practices that serve them may benefit from targeted policies to promote access and improve outcomes.

Trends in Enrollment in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance in the US Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, January 2019 to June 2021.

This cross-sectional study compares trends in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage in the US before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation of Spending Differences Between Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

Importance: The 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk. Objective: To examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022. Exposures: Enrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Per-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending. Results: The sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.