Characterizing Disparities in the HIV Care Continuum among Transgender and Cisgender Medicare Beneficiaries.

Background: In the US, transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals, particularly trans feminine individuals, experience a disproportionately high burden of HIV relative to their cisgender counterparts. While engagement in the HIV Care Continuum (e.g., HIV care visits, antiretroviral (ART) prescribed, ART adherence) is essential to reduce viral load, HIV transmission, and related morbidity, the extent to which TGD people engage in one or more steps of the HIV Care Continuum at similar levels as cisgender people is understudied on a national level and by gendered subgroups. Methods and Findings: We used Medicare Fee-for-Service claims data from 2009 to 2017 to identify TGD (trans feminine and non-binary (TFN), trans masculine and non-binary (TMN), unclassified gender) and cisgender (male, female) beneficiaries with HIV. Using a retrospective cross-sectional design, we explored within- and between-gender group differences in the predicted probability (PP) of engaging in one or more steps of the HIV Care Continuum. TGD individuals had a higher predicted probability of every HIV Care Continuum outcome compared to cisgender individuals [HIV Care Visits: TGD PP=0.22, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI)=0.22-0.24; cisgender PP=0.21, 95% CI=0.21-0.22); Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Screening (TGD PP=0.12, 95% CI=0.11-0.12; cisgender PP=0.09, 95% CI=0.09-0.10); ART Prescribed (TGD PP=0.61, 95% CI=0.59-0.63; cisgender PP=0.52, 95% CI=0.52-0.54); and ART Persistence or adherence (90% persistence: TGD PP=0.27, 95% CI=0.25-0.28; 95% persistence: TGD PP=0.13, 95% CI=0.12-0.14; 90% persistence: cisgender PP=0.23, 95% CI=0.22-0.23; 95% persistence: cisgender PP=0.11, 95% CI=0.11-0.12)]. Notably, TFN individuals had the highest probability of every outcome (HIV Care Visits PP =0.25, 95% CI=0.24-0.27; STI Screening PP =0.22, 95% CI=0.21-0.24; ART Prescribed PP=0.71, 95% CI=0.69-0.74; 90% ART Persistence PP=0.30, 95% CI=0.28-0.32; 95% ART Persistence PP=0.15, 95% CI=0.14-0.16) and TMN people or cisgender females had the lowest probability of every outcome (HIV Care Visits: TMN PP =0.18, 95% CI=0.14-0.22; STI Screening: Cisgender Female PP =0.11, 95% CI=0.11-0.12; ART Receipt: Cisgender Female PP=0.40, 95% CI=0.39-0.42; 90% ART Persistence: TMN PP=0.15, 95% CI=0.11-0.20; 95% ART Persistence: TMN PP=0.07, 95% CI=0.04-0.10). The main limitation of this research is that TGD and cisgender beneficiaries were included based on their observed care, whereas individuals who did not access relevant care through Fee-for-Service Medicare at any point during the study period were not included. Thus, our findings may not be generalizable to all TGD and cisgender individuals with HIV, including those with Medicare Advantage or other types of insurance. Conclusions: Although TGD beneficiaries living with HIV had superior engagement in the HIV Care Continuum than cisgender individuals, findings highlight notable disparities in engagement for TMN individuals and cisgender females, and engagement was still low for all Medicare beneficiaries, independent of gender. Interventions are needed to reduce barriers to HIV care engagement for all Medicare beneficiaries to improve treatment outcomes and reduce HIV-related morbidity and mortality in the US.

Emergency Department Use Disparities Among Transgender and Cisgender Medicare Beneficiaries, 2011-2020.

This cross-sectional study compares emergency department use among transgender and gender-diverse as well as cisgender Medicare beneficiaries.

Enrollment Patterns of Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries by Dental, Vision, and Hearing Benefits.

Importance: Most Medicare beneficiaries now choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Racial and ethnic minority group and low-income beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in MA plans. Objective: To examine whether dental, vision, and hearing supplemental benefits offered in MA plans are associated with the plan choices of traditionally underserved Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory observational cross-sectional study used data from the 2018 to 2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked to MA plan benefits. The nationally representative sample comprised primarily community-dwelling MA beneficiaries enrolled in general enrollment MA plans. Data analysis was performed between April and October 2023. Exposures: Beneficiary self-identified race and ethnicity and combined individual and spouse income and educational attainment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary indicators were developed to determine whether beneficiaries were enrolled in a plan offering any dental, comprehensive dental, any vision, eyewear, any hearing, or hearing aid benefit. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were estimated to report average marginal effects adjusted for beneficiary-level demographic and health characteristics, plan attributes, and plan availability. Results: This study included 8139 (weighted N = 31 million) eligible MA beneficiaries, with a mean (SD) age of 77.7 (7.5) years. More than half of beneficiaries (54.9%) were women; 9.8% self-identified as Black, 2.0% as Hispanic, 83.9% as White, and 4.2% as other or multiple races or ethnicities. Plan choices by dental benefits were examined among 7516 beneficiaries who were not enrolled in any dental standalone plan, by vision benefits for 8026 beneficiaries not enrolled in any vision standalone plan, and by hearing benefits for 8131 beneficiaries not enrolled in any hearing standalone plan. Black beneficiaries were more likely to enroll in plans with any dental benefit (9.0 percentage points [95% CI, 3.4-14.4]; P < .001), any comprehensive dental benefit (11.2 percentage points [95% CI, 5.7-16.7]; P < .001), any eye benefit (3.0 percentage points [95% CI, 1.0 to 5.0]; P = .004), or any eyewear benefit (6.0 percentage points [95% CI, 0.6-11.5]; P = .03) compared with White beneficiaries. Lower-income individuals (earning ≤200% of the federal poverty level) were more likely to enroll in a plan with a comprehensive dental benefit (4.4 percentage-point difference [95% CI, 0.1-7.9]; P = .01) compared with higher-income beneficiaries. Beneficiaries without a college degree were more likely to enroll in a plan with a comprehensive dental benefit (4.7 percentage-point difference [95% CI, 1.4-8.0]; P = .005) compared with those with higher educational attainment. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that racial and ethnic minority individuals and those with lower income or educational attainment are more likely to choose MA plans with dental or vision benefits. As the federal government prepares to adjust MA plan star ratings for health equity, implements MA payment cuts, and allows increasing flexibility in supplemental benefit offerings, these findings may inform benefit monitoring for MA.

Association Between the Medicare Advantage Quartile Adjustment System and Plan Behavior and Enrollment.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown in popularity, but critics believe that insurers are overpaid, partially due to the quartile adjustment system that determines plan benchmarks. However, elimination of the quartile adjustments may be associated with less generous benefits and fewer plan offerings, which could slow MA enrollment growth. Objective: To examine whether the quartile adjustment system is associated with differences in county-level benefits, insurer offerings, and MA enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The quartile adjustments create discontinuous jumps in county-level base payments based on historical traditional Medicare spending. Data from January 2017 to December 2021 and a regression discontinuity design were used to examine changes in insurer behavior and MA enrollment between quartiles. The analytic sample included 1557 county observations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes included monthly premiums, the share of plans charging premiums, primary care copayments, the share of plans using rebates to reduce Part B premiums, supplemental benefits, plan and contract availability, and MA enrollment. Results: Discontinuities were found in the quartile adjustments and benchmarks. A 1-percentage point (pp) increase in the quartile adjustment was associated with a $6.36 increase in monthly benchmarks (95% CI, 5.10-7.62), a $0.51 decrease in monthly premiums (95% CI, -0.96 to -0.07), and a 0.68 pp decrease in the share of plans charging premiums (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.10). Significant changes were not found in primary care copayments (-$0.04; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.09), the share of plans using rebates to reduce Part B premiums (-0.17 pp; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01), supplemental benefits (eg, preventive dental coverage; 0.17 pp; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.0), the number of plans (1.06; 95% CI, -3.44 to 5.57) or contracts (0.31; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.81), or the MA enrollment rate (0.16 pp; 95% CI, -0.61 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that MA plans are not very sensitive to modest changes in payment rates. Modifications to the quartile adjustment system may generate savings without substantially affecting MA beneficiaries.

Social Risk and Dialysis Facility Performance in the First Year of the ESRD Treatment Choices Model.

Importance: The End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model randomly selected 30% of US dialysis facilities to receive financial incentives based on their use of home dialysis, kidney transplant waitlisting, or transplant receipt. Facilities that disproportionately serve populations with high social risk have a lower use of home dialysis and kidney transplant raising concerns that these sites may fare poorly in the payment model. Objective: To examine first-year ETC model performance scores and financial penalties across dialysis facilities, stratified by their incident patients' social risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of 2191 US dialysis facilities that participated in the ETC model from January 1 through December 31, 2021. Exposure: Composition of incident patient population, characterized by the proportion of patients who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, living in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood, uninsured, or covered by Medicaid at dialysis initiation. A facility-level composite social risk score assessed whether each facility was in the highest quintile of having 0, 1, or at least 2 of these characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of home dialysis, waitlisting, or transplant; model performance score; and financial penalization. Results: Using data from 125 984 incident patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-74]; 41.8% female; 28.6% Black; 11.7% Hispanic), 1071 dialysis facilities (48.9%) had no social risk features, and 491 (22.4%) had 2 or more. In the first year of the ETC model, compared with those with no social risk features, dialysis facilities with 2 or more had lower mean performance scores (3.4 vs 3.6, P = .002) and lower use of home dialysis (14.1% vs 16.0%, P < .001). These facilities had higher receipt of financial penalties (18.5% vs 11.5%, P < .001), more frequently had the highest payment cut of 5% (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and were less likely to achieve the highest bonus of 4% (0% vs 2.7%; P < .001). Compared with all other facilities, those in the highest quintile of treating uninsured patients or those covered by Medicaid experienced more financial penalties (17.4% vs 12.9%, P = .01) as did those in the highest quintile in the proportion of patients who were Black (18.5% vs 12.6%, P = .001). Conclusions: In the first year of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' ETC model, dialysis facilities serving higher proportions of patients with social risk features had lower performance scores and experienced markedly higher receipt of financial penalties.

Health Care Spending, Use, and Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With Mental Health Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the differences in health care spending and utilization, and financial hardship between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees with mental health symptoms. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries with mental health symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Kessler-6 Psychological Distress Scale in the 2015-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included health care spending and utilization (both general and mental health services), and financial hardship. The primary independent variable was MA enrollment. RESULTS: MA enrollees with mental health symptoms were 2.3 percentage points (95% CI: -3.4, -1.2; relative difference: 16.1%) less likely to have specialty mental health visits than TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. There were no significant differences in total health care spending, but annual out-of-pocket spending was $292 (95% CI: 152-432; 18.2%) higher among MA enrollees with mental health symptoms than TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. Additionally, MA enrollees with mental health symptoms were 5.0 (95% CI: 2.9-7.2; 22.3%) and 2.5 percentage points (95% CI: 0.8-4.2; 20.9%) more likely to have difficulty paying medical bills over time and to experience high financial burden than TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that MA enrollees with mental health symptoms were more likely to experience limited access to mental health services and high financial hardship compared to TM enrollees with mental health symptoms. There is a need to develop policies aimed at improving access to mental health services while reducing financial burden for MA enrollees.

Is there an advantage? Considerations for researchers studying the effects of the type of Medicare coverage.

OBJECTIVE: To describe common methodological problems that arise in comparisons of Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM) and within-MA studies and provide suggestions of how researchers can address these issues. STUDY SETTING: Published research evaluating Medicare coverage options in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: We considered key conceptual challenges and promising solutions that have been used thus far and suggest additional directions. DATA COLLECTION: Not available. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Many existing studies of MA versus TM include significant limitations, such as failing to account for unobserved confounders driving both beneficiary coverage choice and health outcomes once enrolled, not accounting for variation in benefit generosity, provider networks, or plan design across MA plans, and/or having been conducted at a time when MA enrollment was less than a third of all Medicare beneficiaries. We provide a review of methods that can help researchers to overcome these weaknesses and suggest additional methods and data sources that may aid future research. CONCLUSIONS: The MA program is becoming an essential part of the US healthcare system. By accounting for non-random movement into and out of MA and studying the heterogeneity of beneficiary experience across plan and market characteristics, researchers can provide the high-quality evidence necessary for policymakers to design the program and reform TM in ways that maximize beneficiary outcomes.

Estimated Fiscal Effects of Medicare Advantage's Quartile Payment System.

This economic analysis estimates fiscal effects of the quartile adjustments made to Medicare Advantage payments as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Favorable Selection In Medicare Advantage Is Linked To Inflated Benchmarks And Billions In Overpayments To Plans.

Increases in Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment, coupled with concerns about overpayment to plans, have prompted calls for change. Benchmark setting in MA, which determines plan payment, has received relatively little attention as an avenue for reform. In this study we used national data from the period 2010-20 to examine the relationships among unobserved favorable selection, benchmark setting, and payments to plans in MA. We found that unobserved favorable selection in MA led to underpayment to counties with lower MA penetration and overpayment to counties with higher MA penetration. Because the distribution of MA beneficiaries has shifted over time toward counties that were overpaid, we estimate that plans were overpaid by an average of $9.3 billion per year between 2017 and 2020. Changes to risk adjustment in benchmark setting could likely mitigate the impact of favorable selection in MA.

Medicare and Medicaid Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plan Enrollment and Beneficiary-Reported Experiences With Care.

This cross-sectional study analyzes Medicare Advantage surveys to compare Medicare and Medicaid dual-eligible individuals' experiences with care across 3 established categories of plans.

Medicare Advantage Enrollment and Disenrollment Among Persons With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias.

Importance: Large enrollment growth has been observed in the Medicare Advantage program, but less is known about enrollment patterns among persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Objective: To evaluate patterns in Medicare Advantage enrollment and disenrollment among beneficiaries with or without ADRD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 6 national data sources between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018. Analyses were performed between June 2021 and August 2022. The cohort comprised US Medicare beneficiaries with acute or postacute care utilization between 2013 and 2018. Exposure: ADRD diagnosis from an acute or postacute care encounter Medicare data source. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage, disenrollment from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare, and contract exit (leaving a Medicare Advantage contract for traditional Medicare or a different Medicare Advantage contract). Results: The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage among beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 24.7% (95% CI, 24.7%-24.8%) in 2013 to 33.0% (95% CI, 32.9%-33.1%) in 2018, an absolute increase of 8.3 percentage points and a 33.4% relative increase after adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and utilization and including county fixed effects. Among beneficiaries without ADRD, enrollment in Medicare Advantage increased by 8.2 percentage points from 27.6% (95% CI, 27.6%-27.6%) in 2013 to 35.8% (95% CI, 35.8%-35.8%) in 2018, a 29.7% relative increase over the study period. Beneficiaries with ADRD were 1.4 times as likely to disenroll from their Medicare Advantage contract to traditional Medicare (4.4% vs 3.2% in 2017-2018; P < .001) in adjusted analyses. Regardless of ADRD status, beneficiaries had similar rates of switching to a new Medicare Advantage contract. Differences in contract exit rates were associated with higher rates of disenrollment from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare among beneficiaries with ADRD vs those without ADRD (16.3% [95% CI, 16.2%-16.3%] vs 15.1% [95% CI, 15.1%-15.1%]). Beneficiaries with ADRD and dual eligibility for Medicaid enrollment had higher rates of contract exit than those without dual eligibility (19.7% [95% CI, 19.6%-19.7%] vs 14.9% [95% CI, 14.8%-14.9%]), and these differences were even greater than those among beneficiaries without ADRD and with and without dual-eligibility status, respectively (18.3% [95% CI, 18.2%-18.3%] vs 13.8% [95% CI, 13.7%-13.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. The findings highlight the need to understand the factors associated with higher disenrollment rates and determine whether such rates reflect access or quality challenges for beneficiaries with ADRD.

Medicare Advantage enrollment by immigration and English proficiency status.

OBJECTIVES: Complex Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan choices may overwhelm immigrants, especially for those facing decision-making constraints due to limited English proficiency (LEP). We examined the trends and patterns of MA enrollment by immigration and English proficiency status. STUDY DESIGN: We employed a cross-sectional design using data from the 2008-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. METHODS: Our outcome was enrollment in an MA plan. Our primary independent variables were immigration and English proficiency status. We categorized the sample into 3 groups: LEP immigrants, non-LEP immigrants, and US-born residents. After adjusting for individual-level characteristics, we estimated the adjusted rates of MA enrollment for each group. RESULTS: Our adjusted analysis showed that MA enrollment was higher among immigrants than US-born residents, but the highest enrollment was found among LEP immigrants (LEP immigrants: 45.5%; 95% CI, 42.7%-48.2%; non-LEP immigrants: 42.1%; 95% CI, 39.4%-44.8%; US-born residents: 35.1%; 95% CI, 34.5%-35.6%). MA enrollment was higher among LEP immigrants with better health status (good self-reported health: 45.4%; 95% CI, 41.9%-48.8%; poor self-reported health: 41.4%; 95% CI, 37.7%-45.1%). However, we found small to no differences in the adjusted rates of MA enrollment between those with good vs poor self-reported health in both the non-LEP immigrants and US-born residents groups. We found no consistent enrollment patterns by socioeconomic status such as race/ethnicity, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest higher MA enrollment among immigrants, especially for LEP immigrants. Future research should study the care experience of immigrants in MA.

Trends in Cumulative Disenrollment in the Medicare Advantage Program, 2011-2020.

Importance: The Medicare Advantage (MA) program is rapidly growing. While previous work has found that beneficiaries with substantial health needs disenroll from plans at higher rates, the long-term frequency of disenrollment is not well understood. Objective: To compare cumulative disenrollment trends in the MA program by beneficiary and plan characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, serial cross-sectional study included beneficiaries with any MA enrollment from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020. Data analysis took place from September 2022 to March 2023. Exposures: Beneficiary characteristics, including race and ethnicity, length of Medicare enrollment, dual eligibility, and comorbidity burden, and contract characteristics, including vertical integration status, premium, and MA star rating. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was disenrollment from an MA contract within 5 years. Rates of cumulative disenrollment by beneficiary and contract characteristics were compared. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the correlation between a contract's 1-year disenrollment and the contract's disenrollment over a longer period. Results: The sample included 82 377 917 beneficiaries (524 442 225 beneficiary-year observations; 56.7% female; mean [SD] age, 71.9 [10.3] years). After 1 year, 13.2% of nondually enrolled and 15.9% of dually enrolled beneficiaries had left their contract, increasing to 48.3% and 53.4%, respectively, after 5 years. Black enrollees disenrolled at the highest rates among race and ethnicity categories, with 14.8% disenrolling after 1 year and 52.6% disenrolling after 5 years. Contracts had a median disenrollment rate of 9.8% (IQR, 4.5%-19.0%) after 1 year and 56.1% (IQR, 23.1%-79.0%) after 5 years. Contracts rated 5 stars had substantially lower 5-year disenrollment rates (23.0% after 5 years compared with 41.2% for 4- to 4.5-star contracts and 67.2% for 3- to 3.5-star contracts). Disenrollment from a contract after 1 year was not well correlated with disenrollment after 5 years (r, 0.46). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found substantial cumulative rates of disenrollment from MA plans within 5 years between 2011 and 2020, with wide variation in 5-year disenrollment by contract. The findings suggest that evaluating long-term disenrollment rates in MA performance measures may capture different outcomes than single-year disenrollment alone.

Antiretroviral Therapy Use Was Not Associated with Stillbirth or Preterm Birth in an Analysis of U.S. Medicaid Pregnancies to Persons with HIV.

Background: Using a U.S. based, nationally representative sample, this study compares stillbirth and preterm birth outcomes between women living with HIV (WWH) who did and did not use antiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy, additionally assessing ART duration and regimen type. Methods: Using 2001 to 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) data from the 14 states with the highest prevalence of HIV. We estimated two, propensity score matched, multivariate logistic regression models for both outcomes of stillbirth and preterm birth: (1) any ART use and (2) the number of months on ART during pregnancy for ART users, adjusting for patient-level covariates. Results: Only 34.6% of pregnancies among WWH had a history of ART use and among those, the proportions of stillbirth and preterm birth were 0.9% and 7.9%, respectively. Any ART use was not significantly associated with either outcome of stillbirth (marginal effects [MEs]: 0.06%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.17 to 0.28) or preterm birth (ME: -0.12%, 95% CI: -0.79 to 0.55). For ART users, duration of ART was not significantly associated with either outcome. Black race was a strong independent predictor in both models (stillbirth: 0.80% and 0.84%, preterm birth: 4.19% and 3.76%). Neither protease inhibitor (PI) nor boosted PI regimens were more strongly associated with stillbirth or preterm birth than nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens. Conclusion: ART use during pregnancy was low during this period. Our findings suggest that ART use and ART regimen are not associated, positively or negatively, with stillbirth or preterm birth for mothers with Medicaid. Additionally, our findings highlight a persisting need to address disparities in these outcomes for Black women.

Legislative and Regulatory Options for Improving Medicare Advantage.

The Medicare Advantage program was created to expand beneficiary choice and to reduce spending through capitated payment to private insurers. However, many stakeholders now argue that Medicare Advantage is failing to deliver on its promise to reduce spending. Three problematic design features in Medicare Advantage payment policy have received particular scrutiny: (1) how baseline payments to insurers are determined, (2) how variation in patient risk affects insurer payment, and (3) how payments to insurers are adjusted for quality performance. The authors analyze the statute underlying these three design features and explore legislative and regulatory strategies for improving Medicare Advantage. They conclude that regulatory approaches for improving risk adjustment and for recouping overpayments from risk-score gaming have the highest potential impact and are the most feasible improvement measures to implement.

Proportion of Physicians Who Treat Patients With Greater Social and Clinical Risk and Physician Inclusion in Medicare Advantage Networks.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are expanding rapidly, now serving 50% of all Medicare enrollees. Little is known about how inclusion rates of physicians in MA plan networks vary by the social and clinical risks of their patients. Objective: To examine the association of physicians caring for patients with higher levels of social and clinical risk in traditional Medicare (TM) with the likelihood of inclusion in MA plan networks. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated the number of patients of physicians participating in TM Part B in 2019. The data analysis was conducted between June 2022 and March 2023. Exposures: Quintiles of the proportion of patients who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and average beneficiary hierarchical condition category (HCC) score (a measure of a patient's chronic disease burden that is used in risk adjustment and MA plan payment, where higher scores indicate higher risk) in the Part B TM program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of MA plans and enrollees for which physicians were in network. Results: The analysis sample included 259 932 physicians billing Medicare Part B in 2019. After adjusting for physician, patient, and county characteristics, physicians with the highest quintile of patients with dual eligibility were associated with a lower likelihood of being included in MA plans and being in network with MA enrollees than the lowest quintile physicians (MA inclusion rate, -3.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to -2.8%]; P < .001; in-network enrollee proportion, -6.5% [95% CI, -7.0% to -6.0%]; P < .001). Similarly, physicians with the highest quintile HCC score were associated with a lower likelihood of being included in MA plans and being in network with MA enrollees than the lowest quintile physicians (MA inclusion rate, -7.5% [95% CI, -7.9% to -7.2%]; P < .001; in-network enrollee proportion, -18.7% [95% CI, -19.5% to -18.1%]; P < .001). Physicians in medical specialties in the highest clinical risk group (highest quintile HCC score) were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being in network with MA enrollees than those in the lowest clinical risk group (in-network enrollee proportion, -20.4% [95% CI, -21.1% to -19.8%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of physicians participating in TM Part B in 2019 found that physicians with higher numbers of patients with social and medical risks in TM were significantly less likely to be associated with MA plans.

Assessing the validity of race and ethnicity coding in administrative Medicare data for reporting outcomes among Medicare advantage beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of race/ethnicity coding in Medicare data and whether misclassification errors lead to biased outcome reporting by race/ethnicity among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: In this national study of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, we analyzed individual-level data from the Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS), race/ethnicity codes from the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF), and outcomes from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) files from 2015 to 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We used self-reported beneficiary race/ethnicity to validate the Medicare Enrollment Database (EDB) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) race/ethnicity codes. We measured the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Medicare EDB and RTI codes compared to self-report. For outcomes, we compared annualized hospital admission, 30-day, and 90-day readmission rates. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who completed either the HOS or CAHPS survey were linked to MBSF and MedPAR files. Validity was assessed for both self-reported multiracial and single-race beneficiaries. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the EDB and RTI race/ethnicity codes have high validity for identifying non-Hispanic White or Black beneficiaries, but lower sensitivity for beneficiaries self-reported Hispanic any race (EDB: 28.3%, RTI: 85.9%) or non-Hispanic Asian American or Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (EDB: 56.1%, RTI: 72.1%). Only 8.7% of beneficiaries self-reported non-Hispanic American Indian Alaska Native are correctly identified by either Medicare code, resulting in underreported annualized hospitalization rates (EDB: 31.5%, RTI: 31.6% vs. self-report: 34.6%). We find variation in 30-day readmission rates for Hispanic beneficiaries across race categories, which is not measured by Medicare race/ethnicity coding. CONCLUSIONS: Current Medicare race/ethnicity codes misclassify and bias outcomes for non-Hispanic AIAN beneficiaries, who are more likely to select multiple racial identities. Revisions to race/ethnicity categories are needed to better represent multiracial/ethnic identities among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

Identifying Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia using home health OASIS assessments.

BACKGROUND: Home health services are an important site of care following hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries, providing health assessments that can be leveraged to detect diagnoses that are not available in other data sources. In this work, we aimed to develop a parsimonious and accurate algorithm using home health outcome and assessment information set (OASIS) measures to identify Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with a complete OASIS start of care assessment in 2014, 2016, 2018, or 2019 to determine how well the items from various versions could identify those with an ADRD diagnosis by the assessment date. The prediction model was developed iteratively, comparing the performance of different models in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of prediction, from a multivariable logistic regression model using clinically relevant variables, to regression models with all available variables and predictive modeling techniques, to estimate the best performing parsimonious model. RESULTS: The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. Results from the parsimonious model were consistent across the four annual cohorts and OASIS versions with high specificity (above 96%), but poor sensitivity (below 58%). The positive predictive value was high, over 87% across study years. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm has high accuracy, requires a single OASIS assessment, is easy to implement without sophisticated statistical models, and can be used across four OASIS versions and in situations where claims are not available to identify individuals with a diagnosis of ADRD, including the growing population of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

Increased Medicare Advantage Penetration Is Associated With Lower Postacute Care Use For Traditional Medicare Patients.

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which accounted for 45 percent of total Medicare enrollment in 2022, are incentivized to minimize spending on low-value services. Prior research indicates that MA plan enrollment is associated with reduced postacute care use without adverse impacts on patient outcomes. However, it is unclear whether a rising MA enrollment level is associated with a change in postacute care use in traditional Medicare, especially given growing participation in traditional Medicare Alternative Payment Models that have been found to be associated with lower postacute care spending. We hypothesize that market-level MA expansion is associated with reduced postacute care use among traditional Medicare beneficiaries-a "spillover" effect of providers modifying their practice patterns in response to MA plans' incentives. We found increased MA market penetration associated with reduced postacute care use among traditional Medicare beneficiaries, without a corresponding increase in hospital readmissions. This association was generally stronger in markets with a greater share of traditional Medicare beneficiaries attributed to accountable care organizations, suggesting that policy makers should account for MA penetration when evaluating potential savings in Alternative Payment Models within traditional Medicare.