Comparison of Health Care Utilization by Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With Complex Care Needs.

Importance: Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring chronic conditions and complex care needs experience high rates of acute care utilization and poor outcomes. These patterns are well described among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries, but less is known about outcomes among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. Compared with TM, MA plans have additional levers to potentially address beneficiary needs, such as network design, care management, supplemental benefits, and value-based contracting. Objective: To compare health care utilization for MA and TM beneficiaries with complex care needs. 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. Beneficiaries were segmented into the following cohorts: frail elderly, major complex chronic, and minor complex chronic. Regression models estimated the association between MA enrollment and health care utilization in 2018, using inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the MA and TM cohorts on observable characteristics. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. All analyses were conducted from December 2020 to August 2022. Exposures: Enrollment in MA vs TM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital stays (inpatient admissions and observation stays), emergency department (ED) visits, and 30-day readmissions. Results: Among a study population of 1 844 326 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.1] years; 1 021 479 [55.4%] women; 1 524 458 [82.7%] White; 223 377 [12.1%] with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility), 1 177 896 (63.9%) were enrolled in MA and 666 430 (36.1%) in TM. Beneficiary distribution across cohorts was as follows: frail elderly, 116 047 with MA (10.0% of the MA sample) and 104 036 with TM (15.6% of the TM sample); major complex chronic, 320 954 (27.2%) and 158 811 (23.8%), respectively; and minor complex chronic, 740 895 (62.9%) and 403 583 (60.6%), respectively. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, ED visits, and 30-day readmissions. The largest relative differences were observed for hospital stays, which ranged from -9.3% (95% CI, -10.9% to -7.7%) for the frail elderly cohort to -11.9% (95% CI, -13.2% to -10.7%) for the major complex chronic cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, ED visits, and 30-day readmissions than similar beneficiaries enrolled in TM, suggesting that managed care activities in MA may influence the nature and quality of care provided to these beneficiaries.

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.

Post-SNF outcomes and cost comparison: Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes and costs following skilled nursing facility (SNF) discharge for patients within a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization vs traditional Medicare (TM). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of adults with a postacute SNF admission identified from MA claims (MA cohort: n = 56,228) and the Medicare 5% Limited Data Sets (TM cohort: n = 67,859). METHODS: Outcomes included hospitalization, proportion of days at home, and total medical costs during the 180 days post SNF discharge, and successful community discharge. Regression models accounted for patient characteristics and health care utilization in the 180 days prior to the proximal hospitalization and characteristics of the proximal hospitalization using backward variable selection and fixed effects for MA enrollment. To control for observable differences between individuals who selected MA vs TM, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted. RESULTS: The MA cohort was younger than the TM cohort (median age, 77 vs 81 years), more likely to have qualified for Medicare based on disability (29% vs 20%), and less likely to have dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibility (16% vs 23%). After adjustment, MA was associated with 22% decreased odds of hospitalization during the 180 days post SNF discharge, 19% increased odds of successful community discharge, a 4% increase in the proportion of days at home (equating to 6.7 additional days), and a 24% decrease in medical costs post SNF discharge. Results using IPTW were similar. CONCLUSIONS: MA was associated with better outcomes and lower costs post SNF discharge, suggesting efficiencies in care for SNF patients with MA. Further research is needed to evaluate specific MA features that may lead to better value.