Medicare Advantage Enrollment Among Beneficiaries With End-Stage Renal Disease in the First Year of the 21st Century Cures Act.

Importance: Before 2021, most Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were unable to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The 21st Century Cures Act permitted these beneficiaries to enroll in MA plans effective January 2021. Objective: To examine changes in MA enrollment among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD after enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act overall and by race or ethnicity and dual-eligible status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional time-trend study used data from Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD (both kidney transplant recipients and those undergoing dialysis) between January 2019 and December 2021. Data were analyzed between June and October 2022. Exposures: 21st Century Cures Act. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with prevalent ESRD who switched from traditional Medicare to MA between 2020 and 2021 and those with incident ESRD who newly enrolled in MA in 2021. Individuals who stayed in traditional Medicare were enrolled in 2020 and 2021 and those who switched to MA were enrolled in traditional Medicare in 2020 and MA in 2021. Results: Among 575 797 beneficiaries with ESRD in 2020 or 2021 (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [14.2] years, 42.2% female, 34.0% Black, and 7.7% Hispanic or Latino), the proportion of beneficiaries enrolled in MA increased from 24.8% (December 2020) to 37.4% (December 2021), a relative change of 50.8%. The largest relative increases in MA enrollment were among Black (72.8% relative increase), Hispanic (44.8%), and dual-eligible beneficiaries with ESRD (73.6%). Among 359 617 beneficiaries with TM and prevalent ESRD in 2020, 17.6% switched to MA in 2021. Compared with individuals who stayed in traditional Medicare, those who switched to MA had modestly more chronic conditions (6.3 vs 6.1; difference, 0.12 conditions [95% CI, 0.10-0.16]) and similar nondrug spending in 2020 (difference, $509 [95% CI, -$58 to $1075]) but were more likely to be Black (difference, 19.5 percentage points [95% CI, 19.1-19.9]) and have dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility (difference, 20.8 percentage points [95% CI, 20.4-21.2]). Among beneficiaries who were newly eligible for Medicare ESRD benefits in 2021, 35.2% enrolled in MA. Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest that increases in MA enrollment among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD were substantial the first year after the 21st Century Cures Act, particularly among Black, Hispanic, and dual-eligible individuals. Policy makers and MA plans may need to assess network adequacy, disenrollment, and equity of care for beneficiaries who enrolled in MA.

Variation in Usual Source of Care in Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander Adult Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in access to care between non-Hispanic White and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) patients are often attributed to higher uninsurance rates among AANHPI patients. Less is known about variation among individuals with Medicaid health insurance coverage and among AANHPI subgroups. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine differences in access to care between White and AANHPI adult Medicaid beneficiaries, both in the aggregate and disaggregated into 9 ethnic subgroups (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander). RESEARCH DESIGN: Nationwide Adult Medicaid Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data (2014-2015), a cross-sectional survey representative of all Medicaid beneficiaries. SUBJECTS: A total of 126,728 White and 10,089 AANHPI Medicaid beneficiaries were included. MEASURES: The study outcomes were: (1) having a usual source of care; and (2) reporting a health center or clinic as the usual site of care. Multivariable linear probability models assessed the relationship between race/ethnic subgroup and our outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and health status. RESULTS: Compared with White beneficiaries, Korean beneficiaries were significantly less likely to report having a usual source of care [difference=-8.9 percentage points (PP), P =0.01], and Chinese (difference=8.4 PP, P =0.001), Native Hawaiian (difference=25.8 PP, P <0.001), and Pacific Islander (difference=22.2 PP, P =0.001) beneficiaries were significantly more likely to report a health center or clinic as their usual site of care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar health insurance coverage, significant differences in access to care remain between White and AANHPI Medicaid beneficiaries. Disaggregated AANHPI data may reveal important variation in access to care and inform more targeted public policies.

Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) is the largest test of primary care payment and delivery reform. This program aims to strengthen primary care via enhanced and alternative payment, data feedback, learning, and health information technology support for practice transformation for more than 3,000 practices. We analyzed participation rates and how CPC+ practices differ from other primary care practices in CPC+ regions. METHODS: We assembled a unique data set describing all US primary care practices and compared primary care practices in CPC+ regions, CPC+ applicants, and CPC+ participants. Among CPC+ participants, we compared across 2 model tracks. RESULTS: Of the primary care practices in CPC+ regions, 22% applied for CPC+ and 15% participated. Practices that applied to CPC+ were diverse, but they were generally larger, more sophisticated electronic health record users, more likely to be owned by a hospital or health system, more likely to have experience with transformation efforts, and more likely to be in urban areas than practices that did not apply. Applicants also generally served slightly healthier and more advantaged Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Differences between practices that applied but did not join CPC+ and CPC+ participants were smaller yet systematic. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in CPC+ are diverse but not representative of all primary care practices, underscoring the need to further engage practices that are small, independent, in rural areas, and lack experience with practice and payment transformation models, as well as the need to extrapolate evaluation results carefully.