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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects of the Medicaid coverage cliff on low-income elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

The Medicaid coverage "cliff" occurs when Medicare beneficiaries with household income exceeding 100% of the federal poverty level lose eligibility for supplemental Medicaid coverage. Using a regression discontinuity design with data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2007-2019, we demonstrate that the cliff increases out-of-pocket spending by 25% and the probability of experiencing problems paying medical bills by 44.4% without decreases in overall health care spending. However, there is evidence that near-poor Medicare beneficiaries changed behavior in response to the cliff, increasing the use of high-value diagnostic and preventive testing by 8.8% and enrollment in a more affordable plan by 12.2%. The cliff does not encourage healthy behavior.

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

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

Skilled Nursing and Home Health Policy: A Primer for the Hospital Clinician.

This paper addresses the increasing challenges faced by hospital clinicians in coordinating and recommending postacute care for patients, focusing on issues related to access to the most common postacute services: skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health agencies (HHAs). In coordinating discharges, hospital clinicians have minimal information on care delivery in these settings. This knowledge gap is exacerbated by the disrupted continuum of patient care between acute care hospitals, SNFs, and HHAs. To address these challenges, hospital clinicians must understand how recent federal policies have impacted SNF and HHA care provision. The paper provides an overview of recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) policies and programs affecting SNFs and HHAs, including: (1) fee-for-service reimbursement reform (ie, Patient Driven Payment Model [PDPM] and the Patient Driven Groupings Model [PDGM]); (2) bundled payment programs; (3) accountable care organizations; (4) Medicare Advantage plans. Overall, this paper aims to help hospital clinicians stay informed about the evolving landscape of postacute care delivery by providing relevant information on how recent policy changes have impacted patient care.

Breast cancer screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia.

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

Perceptions of Government-Assisted Payors: A Survey and Analysis of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Current Medicare, Medicare Advantage and Medicaid Practice Allocation.

INTRODUCTION: Significant discrepancy and variance exist in the United States health care system with regards to patient access to medical care based on a patient's insurance type, whether that be government-assisted or a private insurer. There are currently three major government-assisted insurance programs: Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid, each of which have their own patient mix and regulatory processes that govern care delivery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current perceptions of shoulder and elbow surgeons surrounding practice patterns and barriers to access for patients whose primary insurance is a government-assisted payor. METHODS: This was a national, observational study that surveyed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society membership. This 15-question survey assessed surgeon demographics, practice types, reimbursement models, as well as rates and trends of their access to patients with government-assisted insurance. Subgroup analysis between practice type and barriers to access for patients with one of these three government-assisted insurance were also analyzed and compared. Pearson's Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test was used to test association between categorical responses and categorical/binary respondent characteristics. A P value < .05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 257 ASES members completed the survey. Mean years in practice for respondents was 14. For Medicare patients, the most common perceived barriers were reimbursement (49%) followed by administrative burden (33%) and then implant reimbursement at the surgeon's primary surgical facility (32%). For Medicare Advantage patients the most common barrier to access was administrative burden (52%), reimbursement (50%), and the patient's ability to access peri-operative services such as physical therapy, home health etc. (40%). The most common barriers for Medicaid patients were relatively evenly distributed between reimbursement (62%), low patient engagement in their care (61%), and patient's ability to access peri-operative services (60%). CONCLUSION: Amongst members of the ASES, barriers to patient access varied by government-assisted payor. For Medicare advantage, administrative burden was largest barrier to access. Whereas for Medicare and Medicaid, reimbursement was the most significant barrier. Further investigation and understanding of these barriers to patient access are necessary to improve availability of shoulder and elbow subspecialized care to a broader population of patients insured by government-assisted payors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spillover effect of the Patient Drive Payment Model on skilled nursing facility therapy delivery among Medicare Advantage enrollees.

In a multi-payer health care system, economic theory suggests that different payers can impose spillover effects on one another. This study aimed to evaluate the spillover effect of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) on Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees, despite it being designed for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. We applied a regression discontinuity approach by comparing therapy utilization before and after the implementation of PDPM in October 2019 focusing on patients newly admitted to skilled nursing facilities. The results showed that both TM and MA enrollees experienced a decrease in individual therapy minutes and an increase in non-individual therapy minutes. The estimated reduction in total therapy use was 9 min per day for TM enrollees and 3 min per day for MA enrollees. The effect of PDPM on MA beneficiaries varied depending on the level of MA penetration, with the smallest effect in facilities with the highest MA penetration quartile. In summary, the PDPM had directionally similar effects on therapy utilization for both TM and MA enrollees, but the magnitudes were smaller for MA beneficiaries. These results suggest that policy changes intended for TM beneficiaries may spillover to MA enrollees and should be assessed accordingly.

Legislative and Regulatory Options for Improving Medicare Advantage.

The Medicare Advantage program was created to expand beneficiary choice and to reduce spending through capitated payment to private insurers. However, many stakeholders now argue that Medicare Advantage is failing to deliver on its promise to reduce spending. Three problematic design features in Medicare Advantage payment policy have received particular scrutiny: (1) how baseline payments to insurers are determined, (2) how variation in patient risk affects insurer payment, and (3) how payments to insurers are adjusted for quality performance. The authors analyze the statute underlying these three design features and explore legislative and regulatory strategies for improving Medicare Advantage. They conclude that regulatory approaches for improving risk adjustment and for recouping overpayments from risk-score gaming have the highest potential impact and are the most feasible improvement measures to implement.

Addressing social isolation and loneliness in older adults at the health plan level: A quality improvement project.

The aim of this quality improvement project was to develop and implement a strategy to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults at the health plan level. Validated tools were utilized to identify health plan members experiencing social isolation and/or loneliness. Identified members were offered a home-based intervention which consisted of a befriending model provided through in-home caregiver visits (n = 26) as well as a social prescribing (navigation) model (n = 23) to connect members to community resources. The quality improvement project demonstrated that validated assessment tools can successfully identify older health plan members experiencing social isolation and/or loneliness. In addition, the project results indicated that befriending through in-home caregiver visits and social navigation can improve social isolation and loneliness scores. Additional studies are needed to determine the significance of these improvements and if social navigation adds any additional benefit compared to in-home caregiver visits alone.

Temporal Patterns of High-Spend Subgroups Can Inform Service Strategy for Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Most healthcare costs are concentrated in a small proportion of individuals with complex social, medical, behavioral, and clinical needs that are poorly met by a fee-for-service healthcare system. Efforts to reduce cost in the top decile have shown limited effectiveness. Understanding patient subgroups within the top decile is a first step toward designing more effective and targeted interventions. OBJECTIVE: Segment the top decile based on spending and clinical characteristics and examine the temporal movement of individuals in and out of the top decile. DESIGN: Retrospective claims data analysis. PARTICIPANTS: UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees (N = 1,504,091) continuously enrolled from 2016 to 2019. MAIN MEASURES: Medical (physician, inpatient, outpatient) and pharmacy claims for services submitted for third-party reimbursement under Medicare Advantage, available as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) and National Drug Codes (NDC) claims. KEY RESULTS: The top decile was segmented into three distinct subgroups characterized by different drivers of cost: (1) Catastrophic: acute events (acute myocardial infarction and hip/pelvic fracture), (2) persistent: medications, and (3) semi-persistent chronic conditions and frailty indicators. These groups show different patterns of spending across time. Each year, 79% of the catastrophic group dropped out of the top decile. In contrast, 68-70% of the persistent group and 36-37% of the semi-persistent group remained in the top decile year over year. These groups also show different 1-year mortality rates, which are highest among semi-persistent members at 17.5-18.5%, compared to 12% and 13-14% for catastrophic and persistent members, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The top decile consists of subgroups with different needs and spending patterns. Interventions to reduce utilization and expenditures may show more effectiveness if they account for the different characteristics and care needs of these subgroups.

Puerto Rico's Attempts to Address a Public Health Crisis Struck Down by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

This RCD discusses a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that struck down Puerto Rico's Act 90-2019, which aimed to regulate pay structures for Medicare Advantage insurers in Puerto Rico. The court found that the provision in Act 90, known as the "Mandated Price Provision," is preempted by federal law. However, the author argues that the court's decision did not adequately consider the congressional intent of the Medicare Advantage Act in weighing the public health crisis in Puerto Rico. The RCD provides background on the Medicare Advantage program and Act 90 and explains how Act 90 aimed to eliminate insurers' practice of paying providers at rates below the CMS's minimum reimbursement rates under the traditional Medicare program. The article concludes that the court's decision inadequately considered the larger purpose of the Medicare Advantage Act and the relevant public health crisis in Puerto Rico.

The Relationship Between Medicare Advantage Star Ratings and Enrollee Experience.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage plans, private managed care plans that enrolled 34% of Medicare beneficiaries in 2019, received $6 billion in annual bonus payments on the basis of their performance on a 5-star rating system. Little is known, however, as to the extent these ratings adequately capture enrollee experience. OBJECTIVES: To measure the effect of exposure to higher rated Medicare Advantage contracts on enrollee experience. DESIGN: An instrumental variables analysis using MA contract consolidation as an exogenous shock to the quality of plan enrollees are exposed to. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 345,897 MA enrollees enrolled in non-consolidated contracts and 21,405 enrollees who were consolidated. MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was enrollee star rating, instrumented using contract consolidation. The primary outcomes were enrollee self-reported experience measures. KEY RESULTS: There were no significant effects on increased star ratings on 23 of 27 outcomes. A one-star increase in contract star rating leads to a 5.4 percentage point increase in reporting that pain does not interfere with daily activities (95%CI 2.4, 8.4), and a 4.4 percentage reduction in the likelihood that a physician would talk to the enrollee about physical activity (95%CI: -7.8, -1.1, all p<0.05). A one-star increase in contract star rating led to an 8.4 percentage point reduction in achieving the top score on the received needed information index (95%CI: -16.4, -0.4), and a 1.8 percentage point reduction in responding with the lowest score for the overall rating of care (95%CI: -3.5, -0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to a higher rated MA contract did not appreciably increase enrollee experience. Policymakers should consider reassessing how these ratings and associated bonus payments are currently calculated.

Patient-Reported Care Coordination is Associated with Better Performance on Clinical Care Measures.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies using aggregated data suggest that better care coordination is associated with higher performance on measures of clinical care process; it is unclear whether this relationship reflects care coordination activities of health plans or physician practices. OBJECTIVE: Estimate within-plan relationships between beneficiary-reported care coordination measures and HEDIS measures of clinical process for the same individuals. DESIGN: Mixed-effect regression models in cross-sectional data. PARTICIPANTS: 2013 Medicare Advantage CAHPS respondents (n=152,069) with care coordination items linked to independently collected HEDIS data on clinical processes. MAIN MEASURES: Care coordination measures assessed follow-up, whether doctors had medical records during visits, whether doctors discussed medicines being taken, how informed doctors seemed about specialist care, and help received with managing care among different providers. HEDIS measures included mammography, colorectal cancer screening, cardiovascular LDL-C screening, controlling blood pressure, 5 diabetes care measures (LDL-C screening, retinal eye exam, nephropathy, blood sugar/HbA1c <9%, LCL-C<100 mg/dL), glaucoma screening in older adults, BMI assessment, osteoporosis management for women with a fracture, and rheumatoid arthritis therapy. KEY RESULTS: For 9 of the 13 HEDIS measures, within health plans, beneficiaries who reported better care coordination also received better clinical care (p<0.05) and none of the associations went in the opposite direction; HEDIS differences between those with excellent and poor coordination exceeded 5 percentage points for 7 measures. Nine measures had positive associations (breast cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, cardiovascular care LDL-C screening, 4 of 5 diabetes care measures, osteoporosis management, and rheumatoid arthritis therapy). CONCLUSIONS: Within health plans, beneficiaries who report better care coordination also received higher-quality clinical care, particularly for care processes that entail organizing patient care activities and sharing information among different healthcare providers. These results extend prior research showing that health plans with better beneficiary-reported care coordination achieved higher HEDIS performance scores.

Comparing Receipt of Prescribed Post-acute Home Health Care Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage (MA) covers more than 1/3rd of all Medicare beneficiaries. MA plans are required to provide the same benefits as Traditional Medicare (TM), but can impose utilization management tools to control costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences between TM and MA enrollees in the probability of receiving prescribed post-acute home health (HH) care and to describe MA plan characteristics associated with HH receipt. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of claims data, HH patient assessment data, and MA plan data from 2011 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older with an incident hospitalization for joint replacement, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, urinary tract infection, septicemia, acute renal failure, or congestive heart failure. MAIN MEASURES: Receipt of prescribed HH as indicated by a HH discharge code and corresponding HH patient assessment within 14 days of hospital discharge. KEY RESULTS: There were 2,723,245 beneficiaries prescribed HH at discharge (68% TM, 32% MA). About 75% of TM enrollees and 62% of MA enrollees received prescribed post-acute HH. In adjusted analyses, MA enrollees had an -11.7 percentage point (pp) (95% confidence interval (CI): -16.8, -6.5) lower probability of receiving HH compared with TM enrollees. In adjusted analyses, HMO enrollees in plans with cost sharing (- 8.4 pp; 95% CI: - 14.3, - 2.5), referrals (- 3.7 pp; 95% CI: - 6.1, - 1.2), and pre-authorization (- 5.1 pp; 95% CI: - 8.3, - 2.0) were less likely to receive prescribed HH. In adjusted analyses, PPO enrollees in plans with cost sharing were -7.0 pp (95% CI: - 12.7, - 1.4) less likely to receive HH, but there was no difference for those with referrals (1.1 pp; 95% CI, - 1.5, 3.7) or pre-authorization (1.6 pp; 95% CI: - 0.6, - 3.9). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries, MA enrollees were less likely to receive prescribed post-acute HH compared with TM. As enrollment in MA continues to grow, it is important to examine how differences in utilization relate to outcomes.