Association of Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare With 30-Day Mortality Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Importance: Medicare Advantage health plans covered 37% of beneficiaries in 2018, and coverage increased to 48% in 2022. Whether Medicare Advantage plans provide similar care for patients presenting with specific clinical conditions is unknown. Objective: To compare 30-day mortality and treatment for Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study that included 557 309 participants with ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (STEMI) and 1 670 193 with non-ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (NSTEMI) presenting to US hospitals from 2009-2018 (date of final follow up, December 31, 2019). Exposures: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included age- and sex-adjusted rates of procedure use (catheterization, revascularization), postdischarge medication prescriptions and adherence, and measures of health system performance (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and 30-day readmissions). Results: The study included a total of 2 227 502 participants, and the mean age in 2018 ranged from 76.9 years (Medicare Advantage STEMI) to 79.3 years (traditional Medicare NSTEMI), with similar proportions of female patients in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare (41.4% vs 41.9% for STEMI in 2018). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was associated with significantly lower adjusted 30-day mortality rates in 2009 (19.1% vs 20.6% for STEMI; difference, -1.5 percentage points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] and 12.0% vs 12.5% for NSTEMI; difference, -0.5 percentage points [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.1%]). By 2018, mortality had declined in all groups, and there were no longer statically significant differences between Medicare Advantage (17.7%) and traditional Medicare (17.8%) for STEMI (difference, 0.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6]) or between Medicare Advantage (10.9%) and traditional Medicare (11.1%) for NSTEMI (difference, -0.2 percentage points [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1]). By 2018, there was no statistically significant difference in standardized 90-day revascularization rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Rates of guideline-recommended medication prescriptions were significantly higher in Medicare Advantage (91.7%) vs traditional Medicare patients (89.0%) who received a statin prescription (difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2] for 2018 STEMI). Medicare Advantage patients were significantly less likely to be admitted to an ICU than traditional Medicare patients (for 2018 STEMI, 50.3% vs 51.2%; difference, -0.9 percentage points [95% CI, -1.8 to 0.0]) and significantly more likely to be discharged to home rather than to a postacute facility (for 2018 STEMI, 71.5% vs 70.2%; difference, 1.3 percentage points [95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1]). Adjusted 30-day readmission rates were consistently lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (for 2009 STEMI, 13.8% vs 15.2%; difference, -1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6]; and for 2018 STEMI, 11.2% vs 11.9%; difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.5 to 0.0]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, enrollment in Medicare Advantage, compared with traditional Medicare, was significantly associated with modestly lower rates of 30-day mortality in 2009, and the difference was no longer statistically significant by 2018. These findings, considered with other outcomes, may provide insight into differences in treatment and outcomes by Medicare insurance type.

Improving Prior Authorization in Medicare Advantage.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential benefits and harms of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and the health policy implications and opportunities for improvement.

A Comparison of Home Health Utilization, Outcomes, and Cost Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.

BACKGROUND: Home health use is rising rapidly in the United States as the population ages, the prevalence of chronic disease increases, and older Americans express their desire to age at home. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare (TM) has grown as well, from 13% of total Medicare enrollment in 2004 to 39% in 2020. Despite these shifts, little is known about outcomes and costs following home health in MA as compared with TM. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the association of MA enrollment with outcomes and costs for patients using home health. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in plans offered by 1 large, national MA organization and patients enrolled in TM, with at least 1 home health visit between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. EXPOSURE: MA enrollment. MAIN MEASURES: We compared the intensity of home health services and types of care delivered. The main outcome measures were hospitalization, the proportion of days in the home, and total allowed costs during the 180-day period following the first qualifying home health visit during the study period. KEY RESULTS: Among patients who used home health, our models demonstrated enrollment in MA was associated with 14%, and 6% decreased odds of 60- and 180-day hospitalization, respectively, a 12.8% and 14.7% decrease in medical costs exclusive and inclusive of home health costs, respectively, and a 0.27% increase in the proportion of days at home during the 180-day follow-up, equivalent to an additional half-day at home. There were few differences in home health care delivered for MA and TM [mean number of visits in the first episode of care (17.1 vs. 17.3) and mean visits per week (3.2 vs. 3.3)]. The mean number of visits by visit type and percent of patients with each type was similar between MA and TM as well. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enrollment in TM, enrollment in MA was associated with improved patient-centered outcomes and lower cost and utilization, despite few differences in the way home health was delivered. These findings might be explained by structural components of MA that encourage better care management, but further investigation is needed to clarify the mechanisms by which MA enrollment may lead to higher value home health care.

Measuring resource use in Medicare Advantage using Encounter data.

OBJECTIVE: To check the completeness of Medicare Advantage (MA) Encounter data and to illustrate a process to measure resource use among MA enrollees using Encounter data. DATA SOURCES: 2015 Preliminary MA Encounter, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information System (HEDIS), and 2013 Traditional Medicare (TM) claims data. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We calculated the percentage of each contract's total hospitalizations in Encounter data after identifying total inpatient stays from Encounter and MedPAR data. We constructed each contract's ambulatory visits and emergency department (ED) visits per 1000 enrollees using Encounter data and compared those visit counts with the counts from HEDIS. We defined high data completeness as having less than 10% missing hospital stays and less than ±10% difference in ambulatory and ED visits between Encounter and HEDIS data. We used TM payments as standardized prices of services to examine resource use among MA enrollees with cancer in the contracts with high data completeness. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 83 of 380 MA contracts with high data completeness. Total resource use per enrollee with cancer in the 83 contracts was $14,715 in 2015. Service-specific resource use was $5342 for inpatient care, $5932 for professional services and $3441 for outpatient facility services. These represent what an MA enrollee with cancer would have cost on average if MA plans paid providers at TM payment rates, holding the observed utilization constant. CONCLUSIONS: Checking the completeness of Encounter data is an important step to ensure the validity of research on MA resource use. Using Encounter data to measure MA resource use is feasible. It can compensate for the lack of payment information in Encounter data. It will be important to identify and refine ways to best use Encounter data to learn about care provision to MA enrollees.

Financial Performance of Medicare Advantage Contracts in 2014 and Plan Renewal, Consolidation, and Termination Rates in the Subsequent Year.

BACKGROUND: Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act mandated that Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts spend at least 85% of total revenue on claims and quality improvement [ie, the medical loss ratio (MLR)] and submit revenue and cost data annually in MLR reports. These reports can improve transparency of the financial performance of MA contracts. However, little is known about revenues and costs of insurers that participate in MA and its impacts on status changes in the following year. OBJECTIVE: To characterize revenues and costs of MA contracts in 2014, with a focus on MLRs and gross margins, and to assess heterogeneity in subsequent-year plan renewal and termination rates by gross margins. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional data from MLR reports submitted in 2014 by MA contracts and from 2015 Part C & D Plan Crosswalk Files regarding plan renewal, termination, and other status changes from 2014 to 2015. SUBJECTS: Three hundred eighty-nine MA contracts. MEASURES: Primary outcomes are MLRs and gross margins. RESULTS: MLRs averaged 93% in 2014; 11% of contracts reported MLRs of at least 100%. Fifty-six percent reported negative margins, or costs that exceeded revenues. Seventeen percent of plans in contracts in the lowest quartile of gross margins were terminated in 2015, compared to under 5% of plans in the highest-margin contracts. CONCLUSIONS: In 2014, MA contracts reported MLRs greater than the mandatory minimum of 85%. Gross margins likely contribute to trends in plan and insurer availability. MLR reports from subsequent years can help explain fluctuations in insurers' participation in MA.

Complex Patients and Quality of Care in Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVES: New federal policies aim to focus Medicare Advantage (MA) plans on the needs of individuals with complex health conditions. Our objective was to examine enrollment patterns of MA beneficiaries with complex needs and the association of enrollment patterns with MA plan performance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The 2015 Medicare Health Outcome Survey baseline survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 273 336 MA beneficiaries enrolled in 467 MA plans who lived in the community. MEASUREMENTS: Complex patients included individuals 65 years and older with multiple self-reported chronic conditions and functional limitations and all patients with disabilities younger than 65 years. Outcomes included 27 performance measures reported under the 5-Star Part C Star Rating. Linear probability regression was used to examine the association of concentration of complex patients and performance measures. RESULTS: Most complex patients were enrolled in general MA plans. Concentration of complex patients ranged from 25.9% in MA contracts in the lowest quintile to 68.9% in the top quintile. MA contract performance scores generally decreased as the concentration of complex patients increased. After adjusting for contract and enrollee characteristics, MA contracts with more complex patients performed less well on half of the Part C performance measures including patient experience, preventive care, and chronic care measures. CONCLUSION: MA contracts with a high concentration of complex patients have lower performance scores on more than half of Part C measures. Further study is needed to understand whether these performance measures are capturing the delivery of poor care, deficiencies in the health plan's care systems, or whether some measures may not be appropriate for complex patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:395-402, 2020.

A Pharmacist-Led, Patient-Centered Program Incorporating Motivational Interviewing for Behavior Change to Improve Adherence Rates and Star Ratings in a Medicare Plan.

INTRODUCTION: The Medicare 5-star quality rating system was designed to drive improvements in Medicare quality and to increase accountability among Medicare plans. Medicare star ratings provide significant bonuses for plans that improve medication adherence. Envolve's pharmacy division, Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, which provides services for Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plans, developed an in-house medication therapy management (MTM) program to improve adherence rates and subsequent star ratings. As part of this program, Envolve invested in motivational interviewing (MI) as a means to improve adherence to antihypertensives, antihyperlipidemics, and antidiabetics but recognized the need for additional staff training to ensure pharmacist success with MI techniques. Thus, Envolve engaged a consultant to help train pharmacists and evaluate the program. This best practices article describes the implementation of an MI program and subsequent changes in patient adherence and star ratings. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: A pharmacist-led, patient-centered adherence program incorporating MI for behavior change was developed and implemented at Envolve. The program used didactic learning, coaching and skills assessments, and a train-the-trainer (TtT) intervention. This approach resulted in improved adherence rates in all 3 therapeutic classes immediately. In addition, a quality improvement process was incorporated to evaluate the improvements in adherence with this new program over 24 months. OBSERVATIONS: Key findings of the program are as follows: (a) the program increased adherence rates 5-9 percentage points (chi-square tests for all plans and drug classes measured, P < 0.05) over 5 years and improved Medicare star ratings by 1-2 stars; (b) there is a need for support of pharmacy MTM managers to ensure continued success of the program; and (c) there is value in a TtT program for managers that allows them to provide continuous evaluation and feedback to staff for improvement. IMPLICATIONS: Each year, as the Medicare star ratings system matures and plans are held more accountable for improving adherence measures, high star ratings become more difficult to attain. This MI TtT program for pharmacists allows for rapid cycle change in response to these challenges. DISCLOSURES: Funding was provided by Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, which contracted with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), School of Pharmacy for the development and implementation of the motivational interviewing and train-the-trainer programs described in this best practices article. Spears, Erkens, and Misquitta are employees of Envolve Pharmacy Solutions. Stebbins and Cutler are faculty in the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at the UCSF School of Pharmacy, who were contracted through Envolve Pharmacy Solutions to provide consulting services for this best practice.

Health Care Utilization and Pain Outcomes Following Early Imaging for Low Back Pain in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Professional societies have provided inconsistent guidance regarding whether older patients should receive early imaging for low back pain, in the absence of clinical indications. The study assesses the implications of early imaging by evaluating its association with downstream utilization in an elderly population. METHODS: Patients were included if they had a Medicare Advantage plan, had claims-based evidence of low back pain in 2014, and lacked conditions justifying early imaging. The outcomes examined were short-term, nonchronic, and chronic opioid use, steroid injections, and spinal surgery in the following 730 days, and persistent low back pain at 180 to 365 days. Morphine dose equivalents of opioid use was used as a measure of intensity. Logistic and γ regressions were used to assess the association between imaging in the first 6 weeks and the outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 57,293 patients meeting inclusion criteria, the mean age was 71.2, and 26,606 (46.4%) received early imaging. Early imaging was associated with increased adjusted odds of short-term (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.28), nonchronic (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.69 to 1.88), and chronic (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.18) opioid use, as well as steroid injections (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.28 to 2.85) and spinal surgery (OR, 3.40; 95% CI, 2.97 to 3.90). Patients that received early imaging were more likely to experience persistent pain (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14) and used significantly more morphine dose equivalents if they had nonchronic opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Early imaging for low back pain in older individuals was common, and was associated with greater utilization of downstream services and persistent pain.

Managed care for long-stay nursing home residents: an evaluation of Institutional Special Needs Plans.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of clinical service use for long-term nursing home residents enrolled in UnitedHealthcare's Medicare Advantage Institutional Special Needs Plans (I-SNPs), which provide on-site direct coordinated care for beneficiaries through the use of advanced practice clinicians. STUDY DESIGN: Observational analysis of 8052 I-SNP members and 12,982 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) long-term nursing home residents across 13 states. METHODS: Multivariate analyses were performed to compare rates of emergency department (ED), inpatient, and skilled nursing facility (SNF) use between I-SNP members and Medicare FFS long-term nursing home residents. RESULTS: In comparison with FFS institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, I-SNP members had 51% lower ED use, 38% fewer hospitalizations, and 45% fewer readmissions, whereas their SNF use was 112% higher. CONCLUSIONS: "At-risk" models, administered through specialized Medicare Advantage plans, that invest in clinical management in the nursing home setting have the potential to allow individuals to receive care on-site and avoid costly inpatient transfers.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care. Objective: To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019. Exposures: Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars). Results: Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Anybody There? Physicians Unfairly Penalized for AWOL Medicare Advantage Patients.

You've tried and tried and tried. Phone calls, emails - nothing. A Medicare Advantage plan assigned you a patient who didn't choose you, and the patient is driving that point home - by ignoring you. Or maybe the contact information the plan gave you is out of date, and the patient's latest phone number or email is unknown. Either way, your as-yet-unseen patient is AWOL - and you can be penalized for it on health plans' quality ratings, which ultimately can affect payments. New Texas Medical Association policy takes aim at the unfairness this lack of patient response can present for physicians, while opening up an opportunity for medicine to work with health plans to solve the problem.

Will 2019 kick off a new era in person-centered care?

Medicare's star rating system for Medicare Advantage health plans is a powerful tool for driving plan behavior and, beginning in 2019, CMS is providing new weight to patient access and experience measures. As the shift begins, a recent analysis of person-centered care measures in the star rating system conducted by the Center for Consumer Engagement in Health Innovation found ample room for improving both plan performance and how the ratings measure patient-centeredness. Although from 2010 to 2017, plans performed better on person-centered measures compared with the other measures in the star rating set (3.4 vs 3.0), our analysis also shows that performance on patient-centered measures has not comparatively budged appreciably over time. This may indicate that improvement initiatives focused on non-person-centered star measures have not had a spillover effect on the person-centered measures, or that plans may feel that once a minimum threshold on person-centered measures is met, they need not focus attention on further improvements. At the same time, we need a more comprehensive assessment of person-centeredness. The CMS star measures classified as person-centered are limited in scope and do not constitute a comprehensive view of what it actually means to be person-centered. The new weighting of patient access and experience measures in the CMS star rating system will press plans to refocus their managerial attention, allocate internal assets, and improve their performance, but we also need new measures that are more closely aligned with the domains that describe person-centered care.

Differences in Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Fee-for-Service Medicare Among Cardiology Practices.

Importance: One-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's private plan option. Medicare Advantage incentivizes performance on evidence-based care, but limited information exists using reliable clinical data to determine whether this translates into better quality for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in MA compared with those enrolled in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. Objective: To determine differences in evidence-based secondary prevention treatments and intermediate outcomes among patients with CAD enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this observational, retrospective, cohort study, deidentified data from patients 18 years or older diagnosed as having CAD between January 1, 2013, and May 1, 2014, at cardiology practices participating in the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry were studied, including 35 563 patients enrolled in MA and 172 732 enrolled in FFS Medicare. Data were analyzed from March to July 2018. Exposures: Medicare Advantage enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medication prescription patterns among eligible patients and intermediate outcomes, including blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Results: Of the 35 563 patients with CAD enrolled in MA, 20 193 (56.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.7 (7.6) years; of the 172 732 patients with CAD enrolled in FFS Medicare, 100 025 (57.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 77.5 (8.0) years. Patients enrolled in MA were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to be female and to have heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease compared with those enrolled in FFS Medicare. Compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments, including ß-blockers (80.6% vs 78.8%; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (70.7% vs 65.1%; P < .001), and statins (68.4% vs 64.5%; P < .001). Patients enrolled in MA were also more likely to receive all 3 medications when eligible (48.9% vs 40.4%; P < .001). After adjustment, MA beneficiaries had higher odds of receiving guideline-recommended therapy compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries for ß-blockers (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17; P = .002), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19; P < .001), and all 3 medications (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.001-1.50; P = .047). There were no significant differences in intermediate outcomes between those enrolled in MA and FFS Medicare, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with CAD in the PINNACLE registry, MA beneficiaries had more comorbidities than FFS Medicare beneficiaries and were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments. However, this did not translate into differences in intermediate outcomes. These findings suggest that MA plans may drive improvements in process-based quality measures for Medicare beneficiaries, although this may have a limited effect on improving patient outcomes over FFS Medicare.

Relationships between provider-led health plans and quality, utilization, and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: To compare healthcare quality, utilization, and patient satisfaction between provider-led health plans (PLHPs) and non-PLHPs. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 2016 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. METHODS: We included 3 quality outcomes (MA Star Rating System, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] effectiveness aggregate score, and HEDIS access aggregate score), 4 utilization outcomes (HEDIS average procedure rates, discharge rates, inpatient days, and readmission probability), and 1 patient satisfaction outcome (National Committee for Quality Assurance consumer satisfaction rating). We performed regression analysis to compare the 8 selected outcomes between PLHPs and non-PLHPs, controlling for key covariates, including region, profit status, patient risk, and patient-related and provider-related demographics. RESULTS: Our sample included 64 contracts offered by 31 PLHPs (representing 3,197,284 enrollees) and 311 contracts offered by 55 non-PLHPs (representing 13,881,210 enrollees). Compared with non-PLHPs, in our primary multivariable model, PLHPs were associated with higher star ratings (ß = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67), effectiveness scores (ß = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-4.80), and patient satisfaction (ß = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84), and lower procedure rates (ß = -0.47; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.16). There were no significant differences in access, discharges, inpatient days, and readmission probability. The association between PLHPs and outcomes differed by plan size, nonprofit status, and region. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of care within a PLHP was associated with improved quality, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, as well as lower procedure rates. As providers bear increasing financial risk under alternative payment models, there is momentum to integrate healthcare provision and payment through PLHPs. Our results demonstrate the potential of such organizations to deliver high-quality care, although opportunities remain to optimize utilization.

Adjusting Medicare Advantage star ratings for socioeconomic status and disability.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have identified potential unintended effects of not adjusting clinical performance measures in value-based purchasing programs for socioeconomic status (SES) factors. We examine the impact of SES and disability adjustments on Medicare Advantage (MA) plans' and prescription drug plans' (PDPs') contract star ratings. These analyses informed the development of the Categorical Adjustment Index (CAI), which CMS implemented with the 2017 star ratings. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of MA and PDP performance using 2012 Medicare beneficiary-level characteristics and performance data from the Star Rating Program. METHODS: We modeled within-contract associations of beneficiary SES (Medicaid and Medicare dual eligibility [DE] or receipt of a low-income subsidy [LIS]) and disability with performance on 16 clinical measures. We estimated variability in contract-level DE/LIS and disability disparities using mixed-effects regression models. We simulated the impact of applying the CAI to adjust star ratings for DE/LIS and disability to construct the 2017 star ratings. RESULTS: DE/LIS was negatively associated with performance for 12 of 16 measures and positively associated for 2 of 16 measures. Disability was negatively associated with performance for 11 of 15 measures and positively associated for 3 of 15 measures. Adjusting star ratings using the CAI resulted in half-star rating increases for 8.5% of MA and 33.3% of PDP contracts that exceeded 50% DE/LIS beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in star ratings following adjustment of clinical performance for SES and disability using the CAI focused on contracts with higher percentages of DE/LIS beneficiaries. Adjustment for enrollee characteristics may improve the accuracy of quality measurement and remove incentives for providers to avoid caring for more challenging patient populations.

How Do Gender Differences in Quality of Care Vary Across Medicare Advantage Plans?

BACKGROUND: Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures have long been used to compare care across health plans and to study racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. However, possible gender differences in seniors' quality of care have received less attention. OBJECTIVE: To test for the presence and nature of any gender differences in quality of care across MA Plans, overall and by domain; to identify those most at risk of poor care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of individual-level HEDIS measure scores from 23.8 million records using binomial mixed-effect models to estimate the effect of gender on performance. For each measure, we assess variation in gender gaps and their correlation with plan performance. PARTICIPANTS: Beneficiaries from 456 MA plans in 2011-2012 HEDIS data. MAIN MEASURES: Performance on 32 of 34 HEDIS measures which were available in both measurement years. The two excluded measures had mean performance scores below 10%. KEY RESULTS: Women experienced better quality of care than men for 22/32 measures, with most pertaining to screening or treatment. Men experienced better quality on nine measures, including four related to cardiovascular disease and three to potentially harmful drug-disease interactions. Plans varied substantially in the magnitude of gender gaps for 21/32 measures; in general, the gender gap in quality of care was least favorable to men in low-performing plans. CONCLUSIONS: Women generally experienced better quality of care than men. However, women experienced poorer care for cardiovascular disease-related intermediate outcomes and potentially harmful drug-disease interactions. Quality improvement may be especially important for men in low-performing plans and for cardiovascular-related care and drug-disease interactions for women. Gender-stratified reporting could reveal gender gaps, identify plans for which care varies by gender, and motivate efforts to address faults and close the gaps in the delivery system.

Quality disclosure and the timing of insurers' adjustments: Evidence from medicare advantage.

Mandatory quality disclosure often includes a period over which the quality of new entrants is unreported. This provides the opportunity for forward-looking firms to adjust product characteristics in advance of disclosure. Using comprehensive data on Medicare Advantage (MA) from 2007 to 2015, I exploit the design of the MA Star Rating program to examine the presence of forward-looking behavior among insurers. I find that high-quality insurers reduce prices leading up to quality disclosure, while low-quality insurers increase prices in advance of quality disclosure. These dynamics are consistent with firms anticipating a future change in consumer inertia and updating current-period prices accordingly.

Separable covariance models for health care quality measures across years and topics.

Public quality reports for Medicare Advantage health plans include 11 measures of patient experiences reported in the annual Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys. Computing summaries at the health plan level (of multiple measures in multiple years) yields an array-structured random variable. To summarize associations among measures and years, we model the variance-covariance matrix governing the plan-level vectors of yearly quality measures as a Kronecker product of an across-measure matrix and an across-year matrix, or a sum of such Kronecker products. This approach extends separable covariance structure to Fay-Herriot models. In addition, we develop linear combinations of Kronecker products similar to principal components for array random variables. To each Kronecker-product term, we apply post hoc analyses suited to the corresponding dimension of the cross-classification: 1-way factor analysis for the across-measure factor and time-series analysis to the across-year factor. These methods draw out key patterns of variation in the quality measures over time and suggest new strategies for reporting quality information to consumers.