Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

A Guide to Industry Payments and an Algorithm for Their Management.

BACKGROUND: The Open Payments database was created to increase transparency of industry payment relationships within medicine. The current literature often examines only 1 year of the database. In this study, the authors use 5 years of data to show trends among industry payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018. In addition, the authors lay out the basics of conflict-of-interest reporting for the new plastic surgeon. Finally, the authors suggest an algorithm for the responsible management of industry relationships. METHODS: This study analyzed nonresearch payments made to plastic surgeons from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R Statistical Software and visualized using Tableau. RESULTS: A total of 304,663 payments totaling $140,889,747 were made to 8148 plastic surgeons; 41 percent ($58.28 million) was paid to 50 plastic surgeons in the form of royalty or license payments. With royalties excluded, average and median payments were $276 and $25. The average yearly total per physician was $2028. Of the 14 payment categories, 95 percent of the total amount paid was attributable payments in one of six categories. Seven hundred thirty companies reported payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018; 15 companies (2 percent) were responsible for 80 percent ($66.34 million) of the total sum paid. Allergan was responsible for $24.45 million (29.6 percent) of this amount. CONCLUSIONS: Although discussions on the proper management of industry relationships continue to evolve, the data in this study illustrate the importance of managing industry relationships. The simple guidelines suggested create a basis for managing industry relationships in the career of the everyday plastic surgeon.

Gaps in standardized postoperative pain management quality measures: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was an assessment of availability postoperative pain management quality measures and National Quality Forum-endorsed measures. Postoperative pain is an important clinical timepoint because poor pain control can lead to patient suffering, chronic opiate use, and/or chronic pain. Quality measures can guide best practices, but it is unclear whether there are measures for managing pain after surgery. METHODS: The National Quality Forum Quality Positioning System, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Indicators, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Measures Inventory Tool databases were searched in November 2019. We conducted a systematic literature review to further identify quality measures in research publications, clinical practice guidelines, and gray literature for the period between March 11, 2015 and March 11, 2020. RESULTS: Our systematic review yielded 1,328 publications, of which 206 were pertinent. Nineteen pain management quality measures were identified from the quality measure databases, and 5 were endorsed by National Quality Forum. The National Quality Forum measures were not specific to postoperative pain management. Three of the non-endorsed measures were specific to postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: The dearth of published postoperative pain management quality measures, especially National Quality Forum-endorsed measures, highlights the need for more rigorous evidence and widely endorsed postoperative pain quality measures to guide best practices.

Mandated Copayment Reductions in Medicare Advantage: Effects on Skilled Nursing Care, Hospitalizations, and Plan Exit.

OBJECTIVES: To address concerns that postacute cost-sharing may deter high-need beneficiaries from participating in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have capped cost-sharing for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services in MA plans since 2011. This study examines whether SNF use, inpatient use, and plan disenrollment changed following stricter regulations in 2015 that required most MA plans to eliminate or substantially reduce cost-sharing for SNF care. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences retrospective analysis from 2013 to 2016. SETTING: MA plans. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one million MA members in 320 plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions and 261 plans without such reductions. MEASUREMENTS: Mean monthly number of SNF admissions, SNF days, hospitalizations, and plan disenrollees per 1000 members. RESULTS: Mean total cost-sharing for the first 20 days of SNF services decreased from $911 to $104 in affected plans. Relative to concurrent changes in plans without mandated cost-sharing reductions, plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions experienced no significant differences in the number of SNF days per 1000 members (adjusted between-group difference: 0.4 days per 1000 members [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -5.2 to 6.0, P=0.89], small decreases in the number of hospitalizations per 1000 members [adjusted between-group difference: 0.6 admissions per 1000 members (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P=0.03)], and small decreases in the number of SNF users who disenrolled at year-end [adjusted between-group difference: -16.8 disenrollees per 1000 members (95% CI, -31.9 to -1.8; P=0.03)]. CONCLUSIONS: Mandated reductions in SNF cost-sharing may have curbed selective disenrollment from MA plans without significantly increasing use of SNF services.

Financial Transactions from Manufacturers to Otolaryngologists in 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize in depth non-research and research payments from industry to otolaryngologists in 2018 with an emphasis on product types. METHODS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments program was used for data collection: payment amount, the nature of payments, products associated with the payments, date of the payments, and companies making the payments were studied. Products associated with the payments were classified by categorical type. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: There were 70,172 payments for a total of $11,001,875 made to otolaryngologists in 2018 with a median payment of $19. Food and beverage had the highest number of payments made (89.96%). Consulting fees (33.46%) composed the highest total payment amount. The two companies that contributed the highest amount were Stryker Corporation and Intersect ENT Inc. Sinus conditions had the most products within the top 25 products associated with payments. The top five products with the highest payments received were for balloon sinus dilation, nasal spray, sinus implant, Botox, and cochlear implant. There was a bimodal payment distribution demonstrating a higher number of payments made in the spring and fall. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to review payments to otolaryngologists in 2018 and classify these payments into product types. The products and companies that contributed the highest payments were associated with sinus conditions. The products that dominated in each subspecialty of otolaryngology coincide with clinical practice trends and emerging technologies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E388-E394, 2021.

Price transparency implementation: Accessibility of hospital chargemasters and variation in hospital pricing after CMS mandate.

BACKGROUND: National regulations have increasingly focused on transparency in hospital billing and pricing practices. A January 2019 federal mandate required hospitals to publicize lists of billable procedures and items known as chargemasters. METHODS: We identified the 500 top self-pay/uninsured revenue grossing hospitals nationally and searched each hospital's website for a chargemaster. Corresponding items were matched across chargemasters. Intrahospital and interhospital price variation were calculated. To investigate variation in item naming, a name variant and fuzzy matching search was conducted for fifteen common chargemaster items. RESULTS: Of 500 hospitals in this study, 69 (13.8%) had chargemasters that were inaccessible and 30 (6.0%) had chargemasters that did not meet mandated requirements. Among the remaining 431 hospitals, the mean interhospital and intrahospital variation in pricing for identical items was 18% (SD 28%) and 28% (SD 29%), respectively. 388 hospitals listed multiple prices for the same item, with a mean of 687.3 duplicated items (SD 1157.7). Among fifteen common chargemaster items, each item was associated with an average of 275 (SD 213) unique name variants. Interhospital price variation of these items ranged from 53% (transthoracic echocardiogram) to 243% (furosemide 40 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Many chargemasters have barriers to access, and item naming is inconsistent across chargemasters. There is significant interhospital price variation for similar items. IMPLICATIONS: Chargemasters are uninterpretable for the purpose of patient price comparison in their current form. Further regulatory efforts are necessary to increase price transparency and enhance the ability of patients to compare hospital prices.

Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program: where are the suppliers?

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) launched in April 2018, offering an unprecedented opportunity to reach the estimated 48.3% of older adults with prediabetes. Success of the innovative policy is likely to depend on adequate supplier availability. We examined supplier data from CMS to assess beneficiaries' potential access to MDPP services. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a descriptive analysis of MDPP suppliers using data extracted from the CMS registry of suppliers as of July 2019 and data about beneficiary populations. METHODS: Identifying the location, type, and number of MDPP suppliers and their respective sites, including within states, US territories, and the District of Columbia (hereafter, states), we mapped geographic coverage of MDPP access. RESULTS: There are 126 unique supplier organizations that offer the MDPP across 601 sites, equating to only 1 site per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Seventy-five percent of states have no MDPP sites, fewer than 1 site per 100,000 beneficiaries, and/or availability limited to a single municipality. Although only 10.3% of MDPP suppliers are community-based organizations, they represent more than half (55.7%) of sites where beneficiaries can access the program. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show inadequate MDPP access, with relatively few suppliers and locations where beneficiaries can receive services. Insufficient reimbursement relative to costs for suppliers may largely account for limited availability. Strategies to facilitate access are urgently needed, which may include partnering with large organizations for greater per capita reach and rural organizations for broader geographic coverage, along with setting fiscally sustainable rates based on refined program implementation and cost analysis.

Preparing for a value-driven future.

At this month's staff meeting of your integrated primary care practice, the medical director makes an announcement: Your health system just signed a contract that includes a value-based payment (VBP) arrangement with a local managed care organization (MCO). The medical director suggests that this will lead to big changes in your practice because you will now focus on producing patient outcomes rather than on volume of care delivered. You wonder: What is a VBP arrangement? What kinds of patient outcomes? What does this mean for integrated care? and How do I help our organization succeed? Value-based care is the future, and it will impact the way that all of us practice. In value-based arrangements, the delivery of care fundamentally changes because payment for care shifts from our current fee-for-service model, in which provider productivity is key to financial survival, to payment for positive clinical outcomes where quality of care rules. And this change is happening now. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced aggressive national VBP targets, with a goal of tying 50% of all Medicare payments to alternative payment models by the end of 2018 (New York State Department of Health, 2015). Since then, many states have adopted similar targets for their Medicaid programs in light of ongoing state budget challenges and unsustainable cost growth trends. As these changes take hold, health care providers are increasingly expected to make fundamental changes to service delivery, financial, and organizational operations. As health care providers, VBP will require us and our health centers to develop new skills, capacities, and systems for managing clinical, financial, and operational performance and risk. We must all make sure we understand and are ready to play our part in the transition to VBP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Social media: How hospital facebook activity may influence patient satisfaction.

Some hospitals use social media to promote accurate health-related education, information, and engage consumers. We performed multiple linear regression analyses to determine the associations between hospital Facebook activity and patient satisfaction for 390 hospitals. Hospitals that had a Facebook page were active on Facebook in the past 30 days and had more "likes," had more patients willing to definitely recommend the hospital, and had a higher overall satisfaction score. Practitioners can use the results when considering whether a minimal financial investment in social media may be worth customer loyalty and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS) reimbursement benefits.

Prescribing Patterns and Costs Associated with Postoperative Eye Drop Use in Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Cataract Surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine costs and prescribing patterns of postoperative eye drops for cataract surgery and estimate potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with Part D coverage who underwent cataract surgery in 2016. METHODS: Medicare Part D claims were used to extract information on eye drop prescriptions that were filled during the postoperative period of cataract surgery. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total cost of postoperative eye drops for cataract surgery and physician and patient factors associated with medication cost. RESULTS: Postoperative eye drops were prescribed in 2016 to 88% of 591 733 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent cataract surgery during that calendar year, with brand medications accounting for 57.5% of prescription volume. The overall cost totaled more than $167 million, 76.5% of which was attributable to use of brand medications. The mean costs of medications were $228 and $324 for those undergoing 1 and 2 surgeries, respectively. Topical antibiotics (89%) were the most commonly prescribed drug class by volume, followed by topical steroids (86%) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (66%), and accounted for 26%, 37%, and 36% of the total cataract surgery eye drop cost, respectively. Use of therapeutic and generic alternatives could have resulted in cost savings of as much as $118 million, or 70% of the total cost of postoperative eye drops. In adjusted analysis, patient factors associated with increased eye drop cost included older age, female gender, and race or ethnicity. Physician characteristics associated with increased eye drop cost included female gender, greater number of years in practice, practicing in metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan areas, and practicing in the Northeast versus the South and in the South versus the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS: The cost to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for eye drops prescribed for postoperative use after cataract surgery in 2016 was approximately $170 million. In the absence of evidence of clinical superiority of expensive versus less costly options, substantial opportunity exists to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries.

Hospital ownership of postacute care providers and the cost of care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are facing incentives to manage the total cost of care for episodes of illness, including the costs of inpatient care as well as the cost of care provided by physicians and postacute care (PAC) providers. PAC is an especially important component of the overall cost of care. One strategy hospitals employ in managing this cost is to own PAC providers. Prior work on the relationship between PAC ownership and cost has reached mixed conclusions. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the associations between the episodic costs of care and hospital ownership of PAC providers, including skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), home health agencies (HHAs), and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF). METHODOLOGY: We examine panel data on hospital ownership of PAC providers from the American Hospital Association for 2013-2015 and cost of care data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Value-Based Purchasing Program. Using ordinary least squares, we quantify the association between a hospital's PAC ownership choice (both ownership of any PAC provider and ownership of particular types of providers) and the episodic cost of care. RESULTS: In 2015, 80% of hospitals owned some type of PAC provider. We find that ownership of SNFs and HHAs is associated with a lower episodic cost of care, whereas ownership of inpatient rehabilitation facilities is associated with higher episodic costs of care. The effects of ownership do not differ for hospitals that participate in a voluntary shared saving program (Bundled Payment for Care Improvement). CONCLUSION: The effects of PAC ownership vary by the type of PAC provider owned. Our results suggest that ownership of SNFs and HHAs may be a viable strategy for success in reimbursement programs that reward hospitals for managing the total costs for episodes of care.

Financial conflicts of interest in dentistry: how much money do providers receive from industry?

The purpose of this retrospective, observational study was to characterize the amounts and types of healthcare industry payments made to dental care providers in 2017. Data were collected from the Open Payments database of the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dentists were classified as providing general services or services in 1 of 9 specialties recognized by the American Dental Association (prior to the recognition of dental anesthesiology). The value and nature of each payment made to providers were recorded, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Distributions across dental specialties were compared with analyses of variance. In 2017, US dentists received a total of 321,627 industry payments totaling $110,750,601. The most money was spent on service fees ($37,333,870; 33.7%), followed by consulting fees ($12,983,013; 11.7%) and royalties and licenses ($11,426,776; 10.3%). Each provider received a median payment of $63.27 (range, $0.21-$22,931,027.12) spread over 2 payments (range, 1-285). Participation rates among dental specialists ranged from 19% to 62%, and the highest rates were found among orthodontists (61.8%), oral and maxillofacial surgeons (55.7%), and periodontists (54.6%). The greatest median payments per provider were made to specialists in oral and maxillofacial radiology ($187.52), periodontics ($127.31), and oral and maxillofacial surgery ($123.39). The mean number (P < 0.01) and amount of payments (P < 0.01) per provider differed significantly across all specialties. The majority of dentists in this study received less than $200; however, the distribution of payments was positively skewed by a few top earners. The effect of these payments on clinical practice remains to be determined.

Medicare reimbursement policy for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: A qualitative analysis of public comments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered the best means of diagnosing hypertension. However, it is rarely used and is reimbursed only under narrow conditions. We sought to gain insight into the perceived value of ABPM among stakeholders who responded to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) request for comments to inform the first revision of ABPM reimbursement policy in over 15 years. We found that most comments were classifiable in two main themes, current coverage and future coverage. Individuals and institutions representing multiple disciplines and specialties were highly supportive of expanding the current CMS coverage of ABPM, including for a wide range of clinical indications and populations. It is clear from the comments reviewed that there is wide support for expanding CMS coverage for ABPM. Broad support for a change in ABPM reimbursement policy may lead to changes in the way this technology is used in the United States.

Alternating operating theatre utilization is not associated with differences in clinical or economic outcome measures in primary elective knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: The practice of alternating operating theatres has long been used to reduce surgeon idle time between cases. However, concerns have been raised as to the safety of this practice. We assessed the payments and outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed during overlapping and nonoverlapping days, also comparing the total number of the surgeon's cases and the total time spent in the operating theatre per day. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Limited Data Set (LDS) on all primary elective TKAs performed at the New England Baptist Hospital between January 2013 and June 2016. Using theatre records, episodes were categorized into days where a surgeon performed overlapping and nonoverlapping lists. Clinical outcomes, economic outcomes, and demographic factors were calculated. A regression model controlling for the patient-specific factors was used to compare groups. Total orthopaedic cases and aggregate time spent operating (time between skin incision and closure) were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 3633 TKAs were performed (1782 on nonoverlapping days; 1851 on overlapping days). There were no differences between the two groups for length of inpatient stay, payments, mortality, emergency room visits, or readmission during the 90-day postoperative period. The overlapping group had 0.74 fewer skilled nursing days (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -1.22; p < 0.01), and 0.66 more home health visits (95% CI 0.14 to 1.18; p = 0.01) than the nonoverlapping group. On overlapping days, surgeons performed more cases per day (5.01 vs 3.76; p < 0.001) and spent more time operating (484.55 minutes vs 357.17 minutes; p < 0.001) than on nonoverlapping days. CONCLUSION: The study shows that the practice of alternating operating theatres for TKA has no adverse effect on the clinical outcome or economic utilization variables measured. Furthermore, there is opportunity to increase productivity with alternating theatres as surgeons with overlapping cases perform more cases and spend more time operating per day. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1081-1086.

Evaluating reimbursement of integrated support services using chronic care management (CCM) codes for treatment of hepatitis C among Medicare beneficiaries.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) implemented Project INSPIRE, an integrated model of hepatitis C care coordination and telementoring services, from 2014 to 2017. We evaluated the use of chronic care management (CCM) codes to sustain the intervention. DOHMH data were collected as part of a Healthcare Innovation Award from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A retrospective cohort medical billing study was conducted by assigning INSPIRE activities to procedure codes in both facility and nonfacility settings. Rates for procedures were extracted from the CMS's 2018 fee schedules and added across the eligibility periods for Medicare enrollees. Reimbursement was adjusted on the basis of expected patient attrition and compared to costs. The minimum number needed to treat (NNT) to break even was calculated in each setting. Facility reimbursement was higher than costs, whereas nonfacility reimbursement was lower (both P < .01). The NNT was 23 patients in facilities and 33 patients in nonfacilities; 24 patients per care coordinator were treated annually in INSPIRE. CCM fees alone were insufficient to fully reimburse the costs in either setting. Implementation of an appropriate risk financing strategy is necessary to mitigate financial shortfalls when providing CCM services in facility settings.

Gender variation in Medicare utilization and payments in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF) and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier National Provider Identifier (POS NPI) Aggregate Report are publicly available files from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that include payments to providers who care for fee-for-service Medicare recipients. The aim of this study was to analyze variability in gynecologic oncologists' Medicare reimbursements, with attention to differences in provider gender and time in practice. METHODS: The 2015 POSPUF and POS NPI were analyzed with respect to gynecologic oncologists. We searched external publicly available data sources to confirm subspecialty and to determine each provider's number of years in practice. Evaluation and management (E&M) and procedure/surgery codes were analyzed; drug delivery codes were excluded due to variability in billing by facility/hospital. RESULTS: The POS NPI file included 733 gynecologic oncologist providers receiving $55,626,739 in total payments. Female providers comprised 39% of gynecologic oncologists and received 31% of reimbursements (30% of E&M reimbursements and 24% of surgical reimbursements). During the first ten years in practice, female providers comprised 58% of providers and accounted for 52% of reimbursed services, compared to 38% of providers/26% of reimbursed services (11-20 years), and 18% of providers/19% of reimbursed services (>20 years). CONCLUSION: Male gynecologic oncologists perform more Medicare services than their female counterparts. There is a comparable number of services performed between genders among both the most senior and the most junior providers, with a gender gap in services and reimbursements among mid-career providers.

Perspectives of Medicare Advantage Plan Representatives on Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Response to the CHRONIC Care Act.

Importance: The passage of the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act in 2018 allows Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which enroll more than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries, greater flexibility to address members' social determinants of health (SDOH) through supplemental benefits. Objective: To understand MA plan representatives' perspectives on the importance of addressing members' SDOH and their responses to the passage of the CHRONIC Care Act. Design, Setting, and Participants: This semistructured qualitative interview study conducted via telephone from July 6, 2018, to November 7, 2018, included participants from 17 MA plans that collectively enrolled more than 13 million MA members (>65% of the total MA market). Data analysis was conducted from September 18, 2018, to December 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using a modified content analysis approach to identify major themes and subthemes. Results: Thirty-eight participants representing 17 MA plans varying in region, star rating, and size were interviewed. Analysis of interviews revealed 3 key themes. The first theme was that participants increasingly recognize the value of addressing members' SDOH. The second theme was that participants had different perspectives on whether MA plans should directly address SDOH and how to do so. While some reported that they were taking advantage of the increased flexibility provided by the CHRONIC Care Act to design new benefits or partner with community-based organizations, others indicated that it was outside of their purview to directly address members' SDOH. The third theme was that participants described complex decision-making around how to provide supplemental benefits, including a need for evidence, return on investment, strong community partnerships, and guidance from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the changes in MA plans' benefit packages in response to the CHRONIC Care Act and their efforts to address SDOH will vary. Therefore, it is likely that MA enrollees will be differentially affected by the implementation of the CHRONIC Care Act.