Which medicare advantage enrollees are at highest one-year mortality risk?

BACKGROUND: While a number of tools exist to predict mortality among older adults, less research has described the characteristics of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees at higher risk for 1 year mortality. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of MA enrollees at higher mortality risk using patient survey data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SUBJECTS: MA enrollees completing the 2019 MA Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey. MEASURES: Linked demographic, health, and mortality data from a sample of MA enrollees were used to predict 1-year mortality risk and describe enrollee characteristics across levels of predicted mortality risk. RESULTS: The mortality model had a 0.80 c-statistic. Mortality risks were skewed: 6 % of enrollees had a ≥ 10 % 1-year mortality risk, while 45 % of enrollees had 1 % to < 5 % 1-year mortality risk. Among the high-risk (≥10 %) group, 47 % were age 85+ versus 12 % among those with mortality risk <5 %. 79 % were in fair or poor self-rated health versus 29 % among those with mortality risk of <5 %. 71 % reported needing urgent care in the prior 6 months versus 40 % among those with a mortality risk of 1 to<5 %. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few older adults enrolled in MA are at high 1-year mortality risk. Nonetheless, MA enrollees over age 85, in fair or poor health, or with recent urgent care needs are far more likely to be in a high mortality risk group.

Income-related disparities in Medicare advantage behavioral health care quality.

OBJECTIVE: To inform efforts to improve equity in the quality of behavioral health care by examining income-related differences in performance on HEDIS behavioral health measures in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Reporting Year 2019 MA HEDIS data were obtained and analyzed. STUDY DESIGN: Logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in performance related to enrollee income, adjusting for sex, age, and race-and-ethnicity. Low-income enrollees were identified by Dual Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid or receipt of the Low-Income Subsidy (DE/LIS). Models without and with random effects for plans were used to estimate overall and within-plan differences in measure performance. Heterogeneity by race-and-ethnicity in the associations of low-income with behavioral health quality were examined using models with interaction terms. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data were included for all MA contracts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that collect HEDIS data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For six of the eight measures, enrollees with DE/LIS coverage were more likely to have behavioral health conditions that qualify for HEDIS measures than higher income enrollees. In mixed-effects logistic regression models, DE/LIS coverage was associated with statistically significantly worse overall performance on five measures, with four large (>5 percentage point) differences (-7.5 to -11.1 percentage points) related to follow-up after hospitalization and avoidance of drug-disease interactions. Where the differences were large, they were primarily within-plan rather than between-plan. Interactions between DE/LIS and race-and-ethnicity were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all measures; income-based quality gaps were larger for White enrollees than for Black or Hispanic enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Low income is associated with lower performance on behavioral health HEDIS measures in MA, but these associations differ across racial-and-ethnic groups. Improving care integration and addressing barriers to care for low-income enrollees may improve equity across income levels in behavioral health care.

Rural disparities in the quality of clinical care are notable and larger for males.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether rural-urban differences in quality of care for Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees vary between females and males. METHODS: Data for this study came from the 2019 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set. Linear regression was used to investigate urban-rural differences in individual MA enrollee scores on 34 clinical care measures grouped into 7 categories, and how those differences varied by sex (through evaluation of statistical interactions). FINDINGS: Across all 7 categories of measures, scores for rural residents were worse than scores for urban residents. For 4 categories-care for patients with (suspected) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, avoiding prescription misuse, behavioral health, and diabetes care-the average difference across measures in the category was greater than 3 percentage points. Across all 34 measures, there were 15 statistically significant rural-by-sex interactions that exceeded 1 percentage point. In 11 of those cases, the deficit associated with living in a rural area was greater for males than for females. In 3 cases, the deficit associated with living in a rural area was larger for females than for males. In 1 case involving Follow-up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness, rural residents had an advantage, and it was larger for males than for females. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions may help address patient- (eg, health literacy and patient activation), provider- (eg, workforce recruitment and retention), and structural-level issues contributing to these disparities, especially for rural males.

Poor self-rated mental health and Medicare beneficiaries' routine care-seeking.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between self-rated mental health (SRMH) and infrequent routine care among Medicare beneficiaries and to investigate the roles of managed care and having a personal doctor. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2018 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. METHODS: Logistic regression was used to predict infrequent routine care (having not made an appointment for routine care in the last 6 months) from SRMH, Medicare coverage type (fee-for-service [FFS] vs Medicare Advantage [MA], the managed care version of Medicare), and the interaction of these variables. Models that did and did not include having a personal doctor were compared. All models controlled for demographics and physical health. RESULTS: Overall, 14.9% of beneficiaries did not make a routine care appointment in the last 6 months, with rates adjusted for demographics and physical health ranging from 14.5% for those with "excellent" SRMH to 19.2% for those with "poor" SRMH. Beneficiaries with poor SRMH were less likely to make a routine care appointment in FFS than in MA (20.1% vs 16.4%, respectively, had not done so in the last 6 months; P < .05). Accounting for having a personal doctor reduced the association between SRMH and infrequent routine care by about a third. CONCLUSIONS: Extra efforts are needed to ensure receipt of routine care by beneficiaries with poor mental health-particularly in FFS, where more should be done to ensure that beneficiaries have a personal doctor.

Patient Experience for Hispanic Older Adults Varies by Language Preference.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic people with Medicare report worse patient experiences than non-Hispanic White counterparts. However, little research examines how these disparities may vary by language preference (English/Spanish). OBJECTIVES: Using Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data, assess whether 2014-2018 disparities in patient experiences for Hispanic people with Medicare vary by language preference. RESEARCH DESIGN: We fit a series of linear, case-mix adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures by race/ethnicity/language preference (Hispanic Spanish-respondents; Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents; Hispanic English-preferring respondents; and non-Hispanic White English-respondents). SUBJECTS: A total of 1,006,543 Hispanic and non-Hispanic White respondents to the Medicare 2014-2018 CAHPS surveys. RESULTS: There were disparities for all Hispanic groups relative to non-Hispanic White English-respondents. Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents reported worse experience than Hispanic Spanish-respondents for getting care quickly (-8 points), getting needed care (-5 points), doctor communication (-2 points), and customer service (-1 point), but better experiences for flu immunization (+2 points). Similarly, Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents reported worse experience than Hispanic English-preferring respondents for getting care quickly (-4 points) and getting needed care (-2 points). Hispanic English-preferring respondents reported worse experience than Hispanic Spanish-respondents for getting care quickly (-4 points), getting needed care (-3 points), doctor communication and customer service (-2 points each), but better experience for flu immunization (+2 points). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of language preference, Hispanic people with Medicare experience disparities in patient care relative to non-Hispanic White English-preferring counterparts. Hispanic Spanish-preferring English-respondents report the worse experiences, followed by Hispanic English-preferring respondents. Hispanic Spanish-respondents experienced the least disparities of the three Hispanic language subgroups.

Association of Medicare Advantage Premiums With Measures of Quality and Patient Experience.

Importance: Quality of care varies substantially across Medicare Advantage plans. The price information that Medicare Advantage enrollees are most likely to consider when selecting a Medicare Advantage plan is the monthly premium. Enrollees may select plans to minimize premium or, alternatively, use premium as a proxy for quality and select plans with higher premiums; however, quality implications of these choices are unknown. Objective: To determine the extent to which the quality of care offered by Medicare Advantage plans varies within vs across premium levels. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of the population enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2016 to 2017 using clinical quality measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), patient experience measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys, and administrative data. Data were analyzed from March 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: Medicare Advantage monthly premium. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ten publicly reported 2017 HEDIS measures and 5 publicly reported 2017 CAHPS measures linearly transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Results: The 168 968 Medicare Advantage CAHPS respondents were representative of the enrollee population (14% were <65 years old and eligible through disability; 24% ≥80 years old; sex and race/ethnicity data were not considered); 40% were in 591 plans with no monthly premiums and less than 6% were in 144 plans with monthly premiums of $120 or more. There were from 77 054 to 2 139 422 enrollees by HEDIS measure. Among all Medicare Advantage enrollees, 79% were in plans with either a $0 premium or a low monthly premium (≤$60); patient experience and clinical quality were generally similar in these 2 categories of plans. To a small extent, enrollees in moderately high ($60-$120) and high (≥$120) premium plans reported better patient experience (+1.4 [95% CI, 0.7-2.1] and 2.2 [95% CI, 1.5-2.9] points) and received better clinical care (1.4 [95% CI, 0.3-2.5] to 3.3 [5% CI, 2.1-4.5] percentage points on most measures than those with $0 and low-premium plans. Quality differences within each premium level category were substantial; the within-premium category plan-level SDs were 6.5 points and 7.2 percentage points for patient experience and clinical quality, respectively. A plan at the 50th percentile of clinical quality and patient experience in the high premium category would fall in the 65th and 62nd percentile within the $0-premium category, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This population-based cross-sectional study found that although quality of care and patient experience were slightly higher with higher-premium plans, quality varied widely within each premium category. High-quality care and patient experience were found in each price category. Thus, paying higher premiums is not necessary for higher quality care in Medicare Advantage plans. Greater engagement of enrollees and advocates with quality of care and patient experience information for Medicare Advantage plan selection is recommended.

Sex differences in Medicare beneficiaries' experiences by low-income status.

OBJECTIVES: Medicare beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicaid are a low-income group who are often in poor health. Little research has examined sex differences in patient experience by dual/low-income subsidy (LIS) status. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison by sex and low-income status. METHODS: We used linear regression to compare 6 case mix-adjusted patient experience measures (on a 0-100 scale) by sex within non-dual/LIS and dual/LIS beneficiary groups among 549,603 respondents 65 years and older to the 2016-2017 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys of beneficiary experience with Medicare (mail with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents, 42% response rate). RESULTS: Dual/LIS male beneficiaries reported worse patient experiences on all 6 measures than female beneficiaries, with scores 1 to 2 percentage points lower for 3 measures and less than 1 percentage point lower for the other 3 measures. For 4 of the 6 measures, sex differences among dual/LIS beneficiaries were significantly larger than those among non-dual/LIS beneficiaries. In all 4 instances, the gaps between men and women among dual/LIS beneficiaries favored women; P < .05 for all differences discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income male Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report poor patient experiences, possibly because of lower health literacy, less patient activation, and smaller social networks, along with provider responses to these characteristics. Efforts to address these patient-level factors should happen in parallel with structural-level approaches to train and prepare providers to ensure attentive, respectful patient-centered care for all patients. Additionally, targeted use of ombudsmen and interventions may help reduce inequities.

The Contribution of First-name Information to the Accuracy of Racial-and-Ethnic Imputations Varies by Sex and Race-and-Ethnicity Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Data on race-and-ethnicity that are needed to measure health equity are often limited or missing. The importance of first name and sex in predicting race-and-ethnicity is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the contribution of first-name information to the accuracy of basic and more complex racial-and-ethnic imputations that incorporate surname information. RESEARCH DESIGN: We imputed race-and-ethnicity in a sample of Medicare beneficiaries under 2 scenarios: (1) with only sparse predictors (name, address, sex) and (2) with a rich set (adding limited administrative race-and-ethnicity, demographics, and insurance). SUBJECTS: A total of 284,627 Medicare beneficiaries who completed the 2014 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and reported race-and-ethnicity were included. RESULTS: Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, and non-Hispanic White racial-and-ethnic imputations are more accurate for males than females under both sparse-predictor and rich-predictor scenarios; adding first-name information increases accuracy more for females than males. In contrast, imputations of non-Hispanic Black race-and-ethnicity are similarly accurate for females and males, and first names increase accuracy equally for each sex in both sparse-predictor and rich-predictor scenarios. For all 4 racial-and-ethnic groups, incorporating first-name information improves prediction accuracy more under the sparse-predictor scenario than under the rich-predictor scenario. CONCLUSION: First-name information contributes more to the accuracy of racial-and-ethnic imputations in a sparse-predictor scenario than in a rich-predictor scenario and generally narrows sex gaps in accuracy of imputations.

Disparities In The Quality Of Clinical Care Delivered To American Indian/Alaska Native Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

This study used data from the 2019 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) to examine differences in the quality of care received by American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries versus care received by non-Hispanic White beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage (managed care) plans. American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries were more likely than White beneficiaries to receive care that meets clinical standards for eight of twenty-six HEDIS measures and were less likely than White beneficiaries to receive care that meets clinical standards for five of twenty-six measures. Measures for which American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries were less likely to receive care meeting clinical standards were mainly ones pertaining to appropriate treatment of diagnosed conditions. In all cases, differences in care for American Indian/Alaska Native and White beneficiaries were largely within-plan differences. These findings indicate the need for improved clinical care for all beneficiaries. For American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries, there is a particular need for improvement in the treatment of diagnosed conditions, including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and alcohol and other forms of substance abuse.

Disparities in Care Experienced by Older Hispanic Medicare Beneficiaries in Urban and Rural Areas.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic older adults face substantial health disparities compared with non-Hispanic-White (hereafter "White") older adults. To the extent that these disparities stem from cultural and language barriers faced by Hispanic people, they may be compounded by residence in rural areas. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate possible interactions between Hispanic ethnicity and rural residence in predicting the health care experiences of older adults in the United States, and whether disparities in care for rural Hispanic older adults differ in Medicare Advantage versus Medicare Fee-for-Service. SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries age 65 years and older who responded to the 2017-2018 nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. METHODS: We fit a series of linear, case-mix-adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures of patient experience (rescaled to a 0-100 scale) from ethnicity, place of residence, and Medicare coverage type. RESULTS: In all residential areas, Hispanic beneficiaries reported worse experiences with getting needed care (-3 points), getting care quickly (-4 points), and care coordination (-1 point) than White beneficiaries (all P's<0.001). In rural areas only, Hispanic beneficiaries reported significantly worse experiences than White beneficiaries on doctor communication and customer services (-3 and -9 points, respectively, P<0.05). Tests of a 3-way interaction between ethnicity, rural residence, and coverage type were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve access to care and care coordination for Hispanic beneficiaries overall and doctor-patient communication and customer service for rural Hispanic beneficiaries. Strategies for addressing deficits faced by rural Hispanics may involve cultural competency training and provision of language-appropriate services for beneficiaries (perhaps as telehealth services).

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.

Do dual eligible beneficiaries experience better health care in special needs plans?

OBJECTIVE: Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) were intended to provide better care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid through better coordination of these two programs. DATA SOURCES: 671 913 dual eligible (DE) respondents to the 2009-2019 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the 2015-2019 experiences of DE beneficiaries in D-SNPs relative to fee-for-service Medicare (FFS) and non-SNP Medicare Advantage (MA) using propensity-score weighted linear regression. Comparisons were made to 2009-2014. 12 patient experience measures were considered. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Annual mail survey with telephone follow-up of non-respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: More than 65% of DE beneficiaries enrolled in FFS. Of 12 measures, D-SNP performance was higher than non-SNP MA on two (P < .05), lower than non-SNP MA on two (P < .05), and higher than FFS on four (P < .01). DE beneficiaries did not report better coordination of care in D-SNPs. D-SNP performance was often worse than other coverage types in prior periods. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to FFS Medicare, DE beneficiaries report higher immunization rates in D-SNPs, but slight or no better performance on other dimensions of patient experience. New requirements in 2021 may help D-SNPs attain their goal of better care coordination.

The Effect of Medicaid Expansion on the Nature of New Enrollees' Emergency Department Use.

We examine changes in emergency department (ED) visit acuity and care intensity for uninsured patients who gained Medicaid insurance in 2014 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We use 2013-2015 longitudinal patient visit-level data from 30 EDs across 7 states from an emergency medicine group. We examine changes in ED use by previously uninsured Medicaid patients and patients remaining uninsured who were repeat ED users (≥1 visit before and after expansion) using a propensity-score weighted approach with statistical machine learning to estimate the weights. Compared with those remaining uninsured in nonexpansion states, newly covered Medicaid patients in expansion states showed a 29% relative increase in hospital admissions and 32% increase in admissions for nonambulatory care sensitive conditions with no increases in care intensity. Obtaining Medicaid insurance increased the relative proportion of ED visits requiring hospital admission suggesting increased outpatient access for low-acuity conditions previously addressed with ED care.

Gender Differences in Patient Experience Across Medicare Advantage Plans.

BACKGROUND: Medicare beneficiaries annually select fee-for-service Medicare or a private Medicare insurance (managed care) plan; information about plan performance on quality measures can inform their decisions. Although there is drill-down information available regarding quality variation by race and ethnicity, there remains a dearth of evidence regarding the extent to which care varies by other key beneficiary characteristics, such as gender. We measured gender differences for six patient experience measures and how gender gaps differ across Medicare plans. METHODS: We used data from 300,979 respondents to the 2015-2016 Medicare Advantage Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys. We fit case mix-adjusted linear mixed-effects models to estimate gender differences and evaluate heterogeneity in differences across health plans. RESULTS: Nationally, women's experiences were better than men's (p < .05) by 1 percentage point on measures involving interactions with administrative staff (+1.6 percentage point for customer service) and timely access to care (+1.1 percentage point for getting care quickly), but worse on a measure that may involve negotiation with physicians (getting needed care). Gender gaps varied across plans, particularly for getting care quickly and getting needed care, where plan-level differences of up to 5 to 6 percentage points were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although the average national differences in patient experience by gender were generally small, gender gaps were larger in some health plans and for specific measures. This finding indicates opportunities for health plans with larger gender gaps to implement quality improvement efforts.

Disparities in Care Experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the health care experiences of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs) due to limited data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the health care experiences of AIAN Medicare beneficiaries relative to non-Hispanic Whites using national survey data pooled over 5 years. SUBJECTS: A total of 1,193,248 beneficiaries who responded to the nationally representative 2012-2016 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. METHODS: Linear regression models predicted CAHPS measures from race and ethnicity. Scores on the CAHPS measures were linearly transformed to a 0-100 range and case-mix adjusted. Three AIAN groups were compared with non-Hispanic Whites: single-race AIANs (n=2491; 0.4% of the total sample), multiple-race AIANs (n=15,502; 1.3%), and Hispanic AIANs (n=2264; 0.2%). RESULTS: Among AIAN groups, single-race AIANs were most likely to live in rural areas and areas served by the Indian Health Service; Hispanic AIANs were most likely to be Spanish-language-preferring (P's<0.05). Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, single-race AIANs reported worse experiences with getting needed care (adjusted disparity of -5 points; a "large" difference), getting care quickly (-4 points; a "medium" difference), doctor communication (-2 points; a "small" difference), care coordination (-2 points), and customer service (-7 points; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Disparities were similar for Hispanic AIANs but more limited for multiple-race AIANs. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement efforts are needed to reduce disparities faced by older AIANs. These findings may assist in developing targeted efforts to address cultural, communication, and health system factors presumed to underlie disparities in health care access and customer service.

Educational Attainment and Perceived Need for Urgent Care.

While lower educational attainment is associated with worse health status, education may also affect one's ability to identify need for urgent care. Using data from the 2010 Medicare CAHPS survey, we estimated multivariate logistic models to test the relationship between self-reported educational attainment and the perceived need for urgent care, controlling for health status and other factors. As expected, lower educational attainment was associated with greater reported need for urgent care in bivariate analyses because of poorer health. However, lower educational attainment was associated with less perceived need for urgent care after controlling for health status, particularly for those in poor health. These findings suggest the need for interventions to improve the likelihood that people with less education recognize the need for urgent care, particularly those in poor health and in most need of urgent care.

Shifting From Passive Quality Reporting to Active Nudging to Influence Consumer Choice of Health Plan.

Comparative quality information on health plan and provider performance is increasingly available in the form of quality report cards, but consumers rarely make use of these passively provided decision support tools. In 2012-2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated quality-based nudges designed to encourage beneficiaries to move into higher quality Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. We assess the impacts of CMS' targeted quality-based nudges with longitudinal analysis of 2009-2014 MA plan enrollment trends. Nudges are associated with 17% reductions in enrollment in the lowest-performing plans and 3% increases in enrollment in the highest performing plans (annually, p < .01 for both), occurring at the time of nudge implementation and relative to trends for plans with moderate performance that were not targeted by nudges. These findings suggest that quality-based nudges can successfully steer consumers into higher quality plans and provide opportunities for purchasers and payers to increase consumers' use of quality information.

Exploring Disparities in Influenza Immunization for Older Women.

OBJECTIVES: While women obtain most recommended preventive health interventions more often than men, evidence is mixed regarding influenza vaccination for older adults. Therefore, we evaluated sex differences in influenza vaccination among older adults. DESIGN: Nationally representative cross-sectional survey. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1 252 705 adults, aged 65 years and older, responding to 2013 to 2017 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys. MEASUREMENTS: The dependent variable was Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set self-reported influenza immunization. The primary predictor was sex. Covariates included general health status, education, race/ethnicity, and Medicare Advantage (MA; managed care) vs Fee-for-Service (FFS) coverage. RESULTS: After adjusting for health status and other sociodemographic factors, women's immunization was 2% lower than men's immunization in MA, with no significant overall sex difference in FFS. Women were immunized less often than men in 95% of MA health plans, with the largest gaps in low-immunizing plans. Further analyses revealed variation in sex differences by health status, education, and race/ethnicity in both MA and FFS. Notably in MA, women in poor health were immunized less often than men in similar health (-4%; P < .001). Black women were immunized much less often than black men in both MA and FFS (-5%; P < .001 for each). Hispanic women were immunized less often than Hispanic men in MA (-4%; P < .001) but not within FFS. CONCLUSION: Women in MA experience small disparities overall in influenza immunization, with larger disparities for black and Hispanic women. Providers and MA plans should increase efforts to recommend and monitor immunization for older women, especially black and Hispanic women and those in poor health. Given the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality, equitable access to a critical preventive health service, such as influenza immunization, is crucial for all older adults.

Using predicted Spanish preference to target bilingual mailings in a mail survey with telephone follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Spanish-preferring Medicare beneficiaries are underrepresented in national patient experience surveys. We test a method for improving their representation via higher response rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: 2009-2010 Medicare CAHPS surveys; Medicare population. STUDY DESIGN: We used surname and address to predict Spanish-language preference for a national sample of 177 139 beneficiaries. We randomized half of the 10 000 non-Puerto Rico beneficiaries with the highest predicted probabilities of Spanish preference (>10 percent) to bilingual mailings (intervention) and half to standard English-only mailings (control). DATA COLLECTION: Medicare CAHPS Survey data were collected through mail surveys with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Mail response rate was higher for intervention (28.7 percent) than control (23.9 percent) (P < 0.0001); phone response rates among mail nonrespondents were similar in intervention and control arms (15.8 percent vs 15.7 percent, P = 0.90). Targeted bilingual mailings induced 6.5 percent of those who would not have responded to respond by mail and 54.0 percent of those who would have responded in English to respond in Spanish. Beneficiaries with greater Spanish probabilities showed greater increases in response rates, a higher proportion of responses in Spanish, and lower control response rates among. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted bilingual mailing of mixed-mode surveys using commonly available surname and address information can efficiently increase representation of this underrepresented group.