Total cost of care of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries participating in an appointment-based model in a national pharmacy chain.

BACKGROUND: The appointment-based model (ABM) is a pharmacy service to improve medication-related health outcomes. ABM involves medication synchronization and medication review, plus other services such as medication reconciliation, medication therapy management, vaccine administration, and multimedication packaging. ABM can improve medication adherence, but the economic impact is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a national pharmacy chain's ABM program for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries on total cost of care (TCOC). METHODS: This study analyzed administrative claims data from April 7, 2017, through February 29, 2020, for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with Part D using a propensity score-matched cohort design. The national pharmacy chain provided a list of ABM participants. Eligibility criteria for the ABM and control (non-ABM) groups included age 65 years or older on the index date (initial participation, ABM; random fill date, control) and continuous enrollment from at least 6 months pre-index (baseline) date through at least 6 months post-index (follow-up) date. Medical inflation-adjusted (2020) TCOC was calculated as the sum of all health care spending from Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with Part D plan and patient paid amounts, standardized to per patient per month (PPPM), during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included medication adherence calculated across prevalent maintenance therapeutic classes using proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Each group contained 5,225 patients with balanced characteristics after matching: 64% female, 73% White, mean age 75 years, mean Quan-Charlson comorbidity index score 0.9, and hypertension and dyslipidemia, each >65%. Median baseline all-cause PPPM health care costs in the ABM and control groups, respectively, were $517 and $548 ($221 and $234 medical, $135 and $164 pharmacy). Baseline PDC of at least 80% was 83% in the ABM group and, similarly, 84% in the control group. The mean (SD) follow-up was 604 (155) days for the ABM group and 598 (151) days for the control group. During the follow-up period, the median PPPM TCOC for the ABM group was $656 and was $723 for the control group (P = 0.011). Median pharmacy costs were also significantly less in the ABM group ($161 vs $193, P < 0.001), whereas median medical costs were $328 in the ABM group and $358 among controls (P = 0.254). More patients in the ABM group were adherent during follow-up, with 84% achieving PDC of at least 80% vs 82% among controls (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The ABM program was associated with significantly lower follow-up median total costs (medical and pharmacy), driven primarily by pharmacy costs. More patients were adherent in the ABM program. Payers and pharmacies can use this evidence to assess ABM programs for their members.

Biosimilar Uptake In The US: Patient And Prescriber Factors.

Among 196,766 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who newly initiated biologic drugs with available biosimilar versions, biosimilar initiation increased from 1 percent in 2013 to 34 percent in 2022. Patients were less likely to initiate biosimilars if they were younger than age eighteen or the drug was prescribed by a specialist or administered in a hospital outpatient facility.

Addressing the Marketing Practices of Medicare Advantage Plans.

The Medicare Advantage (MA) Program, home to nearly half of the eligible Medicare population, has recently come under increased scrutiny. Recent investigations conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have uncovered marketing practices of MA insurance agents that "were not complying with current regulation and unduly pressuring beneficiaries, as well as failing to provide accurate or enough information to assist a beneficiary in making an informed enrollment decision." These findings come at a time in which MA programs are under investigation for denials of prior authorization requests that fall within Medicare guidelines for covered health services. In this Commentary we consider the backdrop for the growing scrutiny of the MA program and the implications thereof to its future trajectory.

Macular Degeneration Drug Prescribing Patterns After Step Therapy Introduction in Medicare Advantage.

Importance: In Medicare Advantage (MA), step therapy for physician-administered drugs is an approach to lowering drug spending. The impact of step therapy in MA on prescribing behavior and the magnitude of any changes has not been analyzed. Objective: To evaluate the impact of step therapy on macular degeneration drug prescribing patterns for 3 large MA insurers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective encounter-based analysis using 20% nationally representative MA outpatient and carrier encounter records for 2017 to 2019. Participants were MA beneficiaries who were 65 years or older and had received a macular degeneration drug administration. Macular degeneration drug administrations for beneficiaries of MA Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare (UHC) insurers were assessed. Humana implemented macular degeneration step therapy in 2019, setting bevacizumab as the plan-preferred drug, and aflibercept and ranibizumab as the plan-nonpreferred drugs. Aetna and UHC, which did not implement macular degeneration step therapy, served as the control group. Data analyses were performed from May 2024 to December 2024. Exposures: A macular degeneration drug administration subject to a step therapy policy. Main Outcome and Measures: A binary indicator of whether the drug administered was bevacizumab. Linear probability models and a difference-in-differences framework were used to quantify changes in prescribing patterns before and after the introduction of step therapy for MA insurers that did and did not implement step therapy. To empirically measure the impact of step therapy, the first administration of a treatment episode was assessed, followed by switching patterns. Results: A total of 18 331 MA beneficiaries, 21 683 treatment episodes, and 171 985 drug administrations were included across the control and treatment groups. The difference-in-differences regressions found a 7.8% (95% CI, 4.9%-10.7%; P < .001) greater probability of being prescribed bevacizumab for the first administration due to step therapy. The predicted probabilities of preferred-drug administration in the treatment group increased from 0.61 to 0.70 between the periods before and after step therapy implementation for the first administration. Step therapy was not significantly associated with an increased rate of medication switching (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this retrospective encounter-based analysis indicate that step therapy is associated with a greater probability of prescribing the plan-preferred drug for the first administration. The analysis failed to find a statistically significant greater rate of medication switching within a treatment episode. Step therapy changed macular degeneration prescribing patterns, but step therapy alone did not transition all administrations to the plan-preferred drug.

Medicare Advantage customer service is used most by higher-need patients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine characteristics of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees who use their plan's customer service to help plans understand how to better meet members' needs. STUDY DESIGN: National sample of 259,533 respondents to MA Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey enrolled in any of the 559 MA contracts in 2022. METHODS: We assessed the association between self-reported customer service use in the prior 6 months and enrollee demographic, coverage, health, and health care utilization characteristics. We used weighted linear regression models to test for bivariate and multivariate associations between customer service use and enrollee characteristics. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of MA enrollees reported using customer service in the prior 6 months. Use was 20 percentage points (PP) higher for those in poor vs excellent/very good general health, 13 PP higher for those in poor vs excellent/very good mental health, and 14 PP higher for those reporting 3 or more vs no chronic conditions. Those using customer service more often had lower educational attainment, had limited income and assets, preferred another language to English, and had greater health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: MA customer service supports a less healthy, higher-need population with greater-than-average barriers to health care, and so should be designed and staffed to effectively serve medically complex, high-need patients. Commercial plan evidence suggests that continuity in customer service support for a member or a given issue may be helpful. Customer service is an important mechanism for improving quality and addressing health equity.

In-Home Health Risk Assessments And Chart Reviews Contribute To Coding Intensity In Medicare Advantage.

There is widespread agreement that taxpayers pay more when Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans than if those beneficiaries were enrolled in traditional Medicare. MA plans are paid on the basis of submitted diagnoses and thus have a clear incentive to encourage providers to find and report as many diagnoses for their enrollees as possible. Two mechanisms that MA plans use to identify diagnoses that are not available for beneficiaries in traditional Medicare are in-home health risk assessments and chart reviews. Using MA encounter data for 2015-20, I isolated the impact of these two types of encounters on the risk scores used for payments to MA plans during 2016-21. I found that encounter-based risk scores for MA enrollees were higher by 0.091 points, or 7.4 percent, in 2021 when in-home health risk assessments and chart reviews were included than they would have been without the use of these tools.

Prevalence of Independence at Home-Qualifying Beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare, 2014-2021.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center Independence at Home (IAH) demonstration, a test of home-based primary care operating in a value-based shared-savings payment model, ended December 2023 after a decade of consistently showing savings to Medicare. It is important to assess whether high-need, IAH-qualified beneficiaries continue to pose a growing challenge to traditional Medicare (TM) or if Medicare Advantage (MA), with programmatic features favorable to caring for this subset of the general Medicare population, can disproportionately provide such care. Objective: To examine the size and share of IAH-qualified beneficiaries in TM and MA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used all Medicare claims data and MA encounter data for 2014 and 2021. IAH qualifying criteria were applied to the TM populations enrolled in Parts A and B in 2014 and 2021, and to MA enrollees in 2021. Growth in the number of IAH-qualified TM beneficiaries from 2014 to 2021 was calculated, and the proportions and numbers of IAH-qualified enrollees in the total 2021 TM and MA populations were compared. Data were analyzed between April and June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number and share of beneficiaries meeting IAH criteria in TM and MA; the share of TM spending among IAH-qualified beneficiaries. Results: Among 64 million Medicare beneficiaries in 2021, there were 30.55 million beneficiaries in TM with Parts A and B coverage, down from 33.82 million in 2014. The number of IAH-qualified beneficiaries in TM grew 51%, from 2.16 million to 3.27 million, while their proportionate share in TM grew 67% from 6.4% to 10.7% of TM between 2014 and 2021. IAH-qualified beneficiaries represented $155 billion in 2021 Medicare Parts A and B spending, 44% of all TM spending, up from 29% of total spending in 2014. In 2021, 2.15 million IAH-qualified beneficiaries represented 8.0% of Medicare Advantage enrollees. Combining TM and MA, 5.42 million IAH-qualified beneficiaries represented 9.3% of all Medicare beneficiaries, with 3.27 million (60.3%) being insured by TM. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of IAH-qualified Medicare beneficiaries, the share of IAH-qualified beneficiaries in TM grew between 2014 and 2021, with 60% of Medicare high-need beneficiaries accounting for 44% of TM spending. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should continue to operate value-based programs like IAH that are specifically designed for these high-needs individuals.

Medicare-Covered Services Near the End of Life in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare.

Importance: Financial incentives in Medicare Advantage (MA), the managed care alternative to traditional Medicare (TM), were designed to reduce overutilization. For patients near the end of life (EOL), MA incentives may reduce potentially burdensome care and encourage hospice but could also restrict access to costly but necessary services. Objective: To compare receipt of potentially burdensome treatments and transfers and potentially necessary postacute services in the last 6 months of life in individuals with MA vs TM. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data among older Medicare beneficiaries who died between 2016 and 2018. The study included Medicare decedents aged 66 years or older covered by TM (n = 659 135) or MA (n = 360 430). All decedents and the subset of decedents with 1 or more emergent hospitalizations with a life-limiting condition (cancer, dementia, end-stage organ failure) that would likely qualify for hospice care were included. Exposure: MA enrollment. Main Outcomes: Receipt of potentially burdensome hospitalizations and treatments; receipt of postdischarge home and facility care. Results: The study included 659 135 TM enrollees (mean [SD] age at death, 83.3 [9.0] years, 54% female, 15.1% non-White, 55% with 1 or more life-limiting condition) and 360 430 MA enrollees (mean [SD] age at death 82.5 [8.7] years, 53% female, 19.3% non-White, 49% with 1 or more life-limiting condition). After regression adjustment, MA enrollees were less likely to receive potentially burdensome treatments (-1.6 percentage points (pp); 95% CI, -2.1 to -1.1) and less likely to die in a hospital (-3.3 pp; 95% CI, -4.0 to -2.7) compared with TM. However, when hospitalized, MA enrollees were more likely to die in the hospital (adjusted difference, 1.3 pp; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5) and less likely to be transferred to rehabilitative or skilled nursing facilities (-5.2 pp; 95% CI, -5.7 to -4.6). Higher rates of home health and home hospice among those discharged home offset half of the decline in facility use. Results were unchanged in the life-limiting conditions sample. Conclusions: MA enrollment was associated with lower rates of potentially burdensome and facility-based care near the EOL. Greater use of home-based care may improve quality of care but may also leave patients without adequate assistance after hospitalization.

Medicare Advantage Plan and Health System Vertical Integration, 2011-2020.

This cross-sectional study compares the beneficiary and plan characteristics and trends in enrollment, premiums, star ratings, and benefits of nonintegrated, non­legacy-integrated, and legacy-integrated Medicare Advantage plans between 2011 and 2020.

Medicare Advantage Plan Star Ratings and County Social Vulnerability.

Importance: The star rating of a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan is meant to represent plan performance, and it determines the size of quality bonuses. Consumer access to MA plans with a high star rating may vary by the extent of social vulnerability in geographic regions. Objective: To examine the association between a county's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the star rating of a county's MA plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2023 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data for all MA plans linked to 2020 county-level SVI data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data were analyzed from March to October 2023. Exposure: Quintile rank of county based on composite and theme-specific SVI scores, with quartile 1 (Q1) representing the least vulnerable counties and Q5, the most vulnerable counties. The SVI is a multidimensional measure of a county's social vulnerability across 4 themes: socioeconomic status, household characteristics (such as disability, age, and language), racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation. Main Outcomes and Measures: County-level mean star rating and the number of MA plans with low-rated (<3.5 stars), high-rated (3.5 or 4.0 stars), and highest-rated (≥4.5 stars) plans. Results: Across 3075 counties, the median county-level star rating was 4.1 (IQR, 3.9-4.3) in Q1 counties and 3.8 (IQR, 3.6-4.0) in Q5 counties (P < .001). The mean star rating of MA plans was lower (difference, -0.24 points; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.21 points; P < .001), the number of low-rated plans was higher (incidence rate ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06; P < .001), and the number of highest-rated plans was lower (incidence rate ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81; P < .001) in Q5 counties compared with Q1 counties. Similar patterns were found across theme-specific SVI score quintiles and for 2022 star ratings. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the most socially vulnerable counties were found to have the fewest highest-rated plans for MA beneficiaries. As MA enrollment grows in socially vulnerable regions, this may exacerbate regional differences in health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries.

Unfulfilled home health referrals lead to higher mortality among Medicare Advantage members.

OBJECTIVES: Medicare Advantage (MA) members referred to home health after inpatient hospitalization may or may not receive these services for a variety of member- and health care system-related reasons. Our objective was to compare outcomes among MA members referred to home health following hospitalization who receive home health services vs those who do not. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective quasi-experimental study. METHODS: Following acute hospitalization, members with discharge orders to receive home health services between January 2021 and October 2022 were identified in a medical claims database consisting of MA beneficiaries. Members who received services within 30 days of discharge were balanced using inverse propensity score weighting on member- and admission-related covariates with a comparator group of members who did not receive services. Primary outcomes included mortality and readmissions in the ensuing 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, primary care visits, and per-member per-month costs. RESULTS: The home health-treated group consisted of 2115 discharges, and the untreated group consisted of 761 discharges. The treated group experienced lower mortality at 30 days (2% vs 3%, respectively; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92), 90 days (8% vs 10%; OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98), and 180 days (11% vs 14%; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99). The treated group also experienced higher readmissions at 30 days (13% vs 10%; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60), 90 days (24% vs 16%; OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.39-2.05), and 180 days (33% vs 24%; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.29-1.79). CONCLUSION: MA members referred to home health after acute hospitalization who did not receive home health services had higher mortality.

The impacts of supplemental benefits on Medicare Advantage plan composition.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019 and 2020, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans received historic flexibility to begin to address members' nonmedical and social needs through a set of primarily health-related benefits (PHRBs) and Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCIs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of adoption on the number and composition of new MA plan enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: A difference-in-differences design of retrospective Medicare enrollment data linked to publicly available plan and county-level data. METHODS: We linked individual-level Medicare enrollment data to publicly available, plan-level MA benefit, crosswalk, and penetration files from 2016 to 2020. We compared the number of new enrollees and the proportion of new enrollees who were Black, Hispanic, younger than 65 years, partially and fully Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible, and disabled in plans that adopted a PHRB or SSBCI vs a set of matched control plans that did not. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, PHRB adoption was associated with a 2.2% decrease in the proportion of fully dual-eligible new members (95% CI, -4.0% to -0.5%). SSBCI adoption was associated with a 2.3% decrease in the proportion of new members younger than 65 years (95% CI, -3.6% to -0.9%). After accounting for multiple comparisons, these results were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We determined that supplemental benefit adoption was not associated with demographic shifts in MA plan enrollment.

Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

Less Care at Higher Cost-The Medicare Advantage Paradox.

This Viewpoint makes the case for eliminating Medicare Advantage and doubling down on Traditional Medicare.

Primary care visit cadence and hospital admissions in high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVES: Most Medicare beneficiaries obtain supplemental insurance or enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA) to protect against potentially high cost sharing in traditional Medicare (TM). We examined changes in Medicare supplemental insurance coverage in the context of MA growth. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2005 to 2019. METHODS: We determined whether Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older were enrolled in MA (without Medicaid), TM without supplemental coverage, TM with employer-sponsored supplemental coverage, TM with Medigap, or Medicaid (in TM or MA). RESULTS: From 2005 to 2019, beneficiaries with TM and supplemental insurance provided by their former (or current) employer declined by approximately half (31.8% to 15.5%) while the share in MA (without Medicaid) more than doubled (13.4% to 35.1%). The decline in supplemental employer-sponsored insurance use was greater for White and for higher-income beneficiaries. Over the same period, beneficiaries in TM without supplemental coverage declined by more than a quarter (13.9% to 10.1%). This decline was largest for Black, Hispanic, and lower-income beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid rise in MA enrollment from 2005 to 2019 was accompanied by substantial changes in supplemental insurance with TM. Our results emphasize the interconnectedness of different insurance choices made by Medicare beneficiaries.

Association of Medicare Advantage Enrollment With Financial Burden of Care : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans typically offer supplemental benefits and lower copayments for in-network services and must include an out-of-pocket spending limit. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the financial burden of care decreased for persons switching from TM to MA (TM-to-MA switchers) relative to those remaining in TM (TM stayers). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study comparing changes in financial outcomes between TM-to-MA switchers and TM stayers. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2014 to 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Individual health care costs (out-of-pocket spending and cost sharing), financial burden (high and catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills, paying medical bills over time, and inability to pay medical bills). RESULTS: Compared with TM stayers, TM-to-MA switchers had small differences in out-of-pocket spending ($168 [95% CI, -$133 to $469]) and proportions of total health expenses paid out of pocket (cost sharing) (0.2 percentage point [CI, -1.3 to 1.7 percentage points]), families with out-of-pocket spending greater than 20% of their income (high financial burden) (0.3 percentage point [CI, -2.5 to 3.0 percentage points]), families reporting out-of-pocket spending greater than 40% of their income (catastrophic financial burden) (0.7 percentage point [CI, -0.1 to 1.6 percentage points]), families reporting paying medical bills over time (-0.2 percentage point [CI, -1.7 to 1.4 percentage points]), families having problems paying medical bills (-0.4 percentage point [CI, -2.7 to 1.8 percentage points]), and families reporting being unable to pay medical bills (0.4 percentage point [CI, -1.3 to 2.0 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Inability to account for all medical care and cost needs and variations across MA plans, small baseline differences in out-of-pocket spending, and potential residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Differences in financial outcomes between beneficiaries who switched from TM to MA and those who stayed with TM were small. Differences in financial burden ranged across outcomes and did not have a consistent pattern. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Research Foundation of Korea.