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.

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.

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.

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.

New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

Importance: In 2018, the US Congress gave Medicare Advantage (MA) historic flexibility to address members' social needs with a set of Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCIs). In response, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded the definition of primarily health-related benefits (PHRBs) to include nonmedical services in 2019. Uptake has been modest; MA plans cited a lack of evidence as a limiting factor. Objective: To evaluate the association between adopting the expanded supplemental benefits designed to address MA enrollees' nonmedical and social needs and enrollees' plan ratings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared the plan ratings of MA enrollees in plans that adopted an expanded PHRB, SSBCI, or both using difference-in-differences estimators with MA Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems survey data from March to June 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021 linked to Medicare administrative claims and publicly available benefits and enrollment data. Data analysis was performed between April 2023 and March 2024. Exposure: Enrollees in MA plans that adopted a PHRB and/or SSBCI in 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollee plan rating on a 0- to 10-point scale, with 0 indicating the worst health plan possible and 10 indicating the best health plan possible. Results: The study sample included 388 356 responses representing 467 MA contracts and 2558 plans in 2021. Within the weighted population of responders, the mean (SD) age was 74.6 (8.7) years, 57.2% were female, 8.9% were fully Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible, 74.6% had at least 1 chronic medical condition, 13.7% had not graduated high school, 9.7% were helped by a proxy, 45.1% reported fair or poor physical health, and 15.6% were entitled to Medicare due to disability. Adopting both a new PHRB and SSBCI benefit in 2021 was associated with an increase of 0.22 out of 10 points (95% CI, 0.4-4.0 points) in mean enrollee plan ratings. There was no association between adoption of only a PHRB (adjusted difference, -0.12 points; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.02 points) or SSBCI (adjusted difference, 0.09 points; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21 points) and plan rating. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare Advantage plans that adopted both benefits saw modest increases in mean enrollee plan ratings. This evidence suggests that more investments in supplemental benefits were associated with improved plan experiences, which could contribute to improved plan quality ratings.

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.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Hospital Readmission and Frequent Hospitalizations Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia: Traditional Medicare Versus Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVES: Examine racial/ethnic disparities in 30-day readmission and frequent hospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia in traditional Medicare (TM) versus Medicare Advantage (MA). METHODS: In this case-control study, we used 2018-2019 TM and MA claims data. Participants included individuals 65+ with 2 years of continuous enrollment, diagnosis of dementia, a minimum of 4 office visits in 2018, and at least 1 hospitalization in 2019, (cases: TM [n = 36,656]; controls: MA [n = 29,366]). We conducted matching based on health-need variables and applied generalized linear models adjusting for demographics, health-related variables, and healthcare encounters. RESULTS: TM was associated with higher odds of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.07 [CI: 1.02 to 1.12]) and frequent hospitalizations (OR = 1.10 [CI: 1.06 to 1.14]) compared to MA. Hispanic and Black enrollees in TM had higher odds of frequent hospitalizations compared with Hispanic and Black enrollees in MA, respectively (OR = 1.35 [CI: 1.19 to 1.54]) and (OR = 1.26 [CI: 1.13 to 1.40]). MA was associated with lower Hispanic-White and Black-White disparities in frequent hospitalizations by 5.8 (CI: -0.09 to -0.03) and 4.4 percentage points (PP; CI: -0.07 to -0.02), respectively. For 30-day readmission, there was no significant difference between Black enrollees in TM and MA (OR = 1.04 [CI: 0.92 to 1.18]), but Hispanic enrollees in TM had higher odds of readmission than Hispanics in MA (OR = 1.23 [CI: 1.06 to 1.43]). MA was associated with a lower Hispanic-White disparity in readmission by 1.9 PP (CI: -0.004 to -0.01). DISCUSSION: MA versus TM was associated with lower risks of 30-day readmission and frequent hospitalizations. Moreover, MA substantially reduced Hispanic-White and Black-White disparities in frequent hospitalizations compared with TM.

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

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

Medicare Advantage plan characteristics associated with sorting their beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether certain Medicare Advantage (MA) plan characteristics are associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays. DATA SOURCES: This paper primarily used 2018-2019 MA encounter data and traditional Medicare (TM) claims data for a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: For each plan design aspect-plan type, carrier, star rating, and network breadth-we estimated two adjusted Poisson regressions of avoidable hospital stays: one without clinician fixed effects and the other with. We calculated the difference between the coefficients to evaluate the extent to which patient sorting affected avoidable hospital stays relative to TM. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Our sample included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older who were continuously enrolled in either MA or TM during 2018-2019. Beneficiaries in our sample had one or more chronic, ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient sorting can be attributed to certain characteristics of plan design aspects. For plan type, HMOs account for 86%, with PPOs accounting for only 14%. For carriers, Humana and smaller carriers account for 89%. For star ratings, high-star contracts account for 94%, with other stars only accounting for 6%. By network design, narrow network plan-counties explained 20% of the patient sorting effect. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans were found to be associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays, the effect is not homogeneous across the characteristics of MA plans. HMOs and high-star contracts are drivers of this MA phenomenon.

Medication adherence star ratings measures, health care resource utilization, and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between missed CMS Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence over 3 years for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications (9 measures) and health care utilization and relative costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study examined eligible patients who qualified for the diabetes, statin, and renin-angiotensin system antagonist medication adherence measures in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and were continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan from 2017 through 2021. A total of 103,900 patients were divided into 4 groups based on the number of adherence measures missed (3 medication classes over 3 years): (1) missed 0 measures, (2) missed 1 measure, (3) missed 2 or 3 measures, and (4) missed 4 or more measures. To achieve a quality measure, patients had to meet the Pharmacy Quality Alliance 80% threshold of proportion of days covered during the calendar year. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 71.1 years, and 49.9% were female. Compared with patients who missed 0 of 9 adherence measures, those who missed 1 measure, 2 or 3 measures, and 4 or more measures experienced 12% to 26%, 22% to 42%, and 24% to 50% increased risks, respectively, of all-cause and diabetes-related inpatient stays and all-cause and diabetes-related emergency department visits (all  P  values < .01). Additionally, patients who missed 1, 2 or 3, and 4 or more adherence measures experienced 14%, 19%, and 20% higher monthly medical costs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Missing Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence was associated with an increased likelihood of health care resource utilization and increased costs for patients taking medications to treat diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Traditional Medicare supplemental insurance and the rise of Medicare Advantage.

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.

Long-term outcomes after rehabilitation in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives in capitated Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may lead to inadequate rehabilitation. We therefore investigated if MA enrollees had worse long-term physical performance and functional outcomes after rehabilitation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study. We compared MA and fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries reporting rehabilitation between 2014 and 2017 by change in (1) Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and (2) NHATS-derived Functional Independence Measure (FIM) from the previous year, using t-tests incorporating inverse-probability weighting and complex survey design. Secondary outcomes were self-reported: (1) improved function during rehabilitation, (2) worse function since rehabilitation ended, (3) meeting rehabilitation goals, and (4) meeting insurance limits. RESULTS: Among 738 MA and 1488 FFS participants, weighted mean age was 76 years (SD 7.0), 59% were female, and 9% had probable dementia. MA beneficiaries were more likely to be Black (9% vs. 6%) or Hispanic/other race (15% vs. 10%), be on Medicaid (14% vs. 10%), have lower income (median $35,000 vs. $48,000), and receive <1 month of rehabilitation (30% vs. 23%). MA beneficiaries had a similar decline in SPPB (-0.46 [SD 1.8] vs. -0.21 [SD 2.7], p-value 0.069) and adapted FIM (-1.05 [SD 3.7] vs. -1.13 [SD 5.45], p-value 0.764) compared to FFS. MA beneficiaries were less likely to report improved function during rehabilitation (61% [95% CI 56-67] vs. 70% [95% CI 67-74], p-value 0.006). Other outcomes and analyses restricted to inpatient rehabilitation participants were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MA enrollment was associated with lower likelihood of self-reported functional improvement during rehabilitation but no clinically or statistically significant differences in annual changes of physical performance or function. As MA expands, future studies must monitor implications on rehabilitation coverage and older adults' independence.

Differences in healthcare utilization between enrollees of fully integrated dual eligible special needs plans versus non-fully integrated plans.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers advocate care integration models to enhance Medicare and Medicaid service coordination for dually eligible individuals. One rapidly expanding model is the fully integrated dual eligible (FIDE) plan, a sub-type of the dual eligible special needs plan (D-SNP) in which a parent insurer manages Medicare and Medicaid spending for dually eligible individuals. We examined healthcare utilization differences among dually eligible individuals aged 65 years or older enrolled in D-SNPs by plan type (FIDE vs non-FIDE). METHODS: Using 2018 Medicare Advantage encounters and Medicaid claims of FIDE and non-FIDE enrollees in six states (AZ, CA, FL, NY, TN, WI), we compared healthcare utilization between plan types, adjusting for enrollee characteristics and county indicators. We applied propensity score weighting to address differences between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees. RESULTS: In our main analysis, which included all dually eligible individuals in our sample, we observed no significant difference in healthcare utilization between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees. However, we identified some differences in healthcare utilization between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees in subgroup analyses. For example, among home and community-based service (HCBS) users, FIDE plan enrollees had 6.0 fewer hospitalizations per 1000 person-months (95% CI: -7.9, -4.0) and were 7.0 percentage points more likely to be discharged to home (95% CI: 2.6, 11.5) after hospitalization, compared to non-FIDE plan enrollees. CONCLUSION: While we found no differences in healthcare utilization between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees when considering all dually eligible individuals in our sample, some differences emerged when focusing on subgroups. For example, HCBS users with FIDE plans had fewer hospitalizations and were more likely to be discharged to their home following hospitalization, compared to HCBS users with non-FIDE plans. These findings suggest that FIDE plans may improve care coordination for specific subsets of dually eligible individuals.

Restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage provider networks across physician specialties.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to measure specialty provider networks in Medicare Advantage (MA) and examine associations with market factors. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We relied on traditional Medicare (TM) and MA prescription drug event data from 2011 to 2017 for all Medicare beneficiaries in the United States as well as data from the Area Health Resources File. STUDY DESIGN: Relying on a recently developed and validated prediction model, we calculated the provider network restrictiveness of MA contracts for nine high-prescribing specialties. We characterized network restrictiveness through an observed-to-expected ratio, calculated as the number of unique providers seen by MA beneficiaries divided by the number expected based on the prediction model. We assessed the relationship between network restrictiveness and market factors across specialties with multivariable linear regression. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Prescription drug event data for a 20% random sample of beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug coverage from 2011 to 2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Provider networks in MA varied in restrictiveness. OB-Gynecology was the most restrictive with enrollees seeing 34.5% (95% CI: 34.3%-34.7%) as many providers as they would absent network restrictions; cardiology was the least restrictive with enrollees seeing 58.6% (95% CI: 58.4%-58.8%) as many providers as they otherwise would. Factors associated with less restrictive networks included the county-level TM average hierarchical condition category score (0.06; 95% CI: 0.04-0.07), the county-level number of doctors per 1000 population (0.04; 95% CI: 0.02-0.05), the natural log of local median household income (0.03; 95% CI: 0.007-0.05), and the parent company's market share in the county (0.16; 95% CI: 0.13-0.18). Rurality was a major predictor of more restrictive networks (-0.28; 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that rural beneficiaries may face disproportionately reduced access in these networks and that efforts to improve access should vary by specialty.

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage "Affinity Plans".

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.

Partner Plan Choices and Medicare Advantage Enrollment Decisions Among Older Adults.

This study examines the association of partner Medicare Advantage plan status over 1 year with beneficiary and plan characteristics.

Medicare Advantage growth and skilled nursing facility finances.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between growth in Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment and changes in finances at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). DATA SOURCES: Medicare SNF cost reports, LTCFocus.org data, and county MA penetration rates. STUDY DESIGN: We used ordinary least squares regression with SNF and year fixed effects. Our primary outcomes were SNF revenues, expenses, profits, and occupancy. Our primary independent variable was the yearly county Medicare Advantage penetration. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION: We linked facility-year data from 2012 to 2019 obtained from cost reports and LTCFocus.org to county-year MA penetration. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A 10 percentage point increase in county MA enrollment was associated with a $213,883.89 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -296,869.08, -130,898.71) decrease in revenue, a $132,456.19 (95% CI: -203,852.28, -61,060.10) decrease in expenses, and a 0.59 percentage point (95% CI: -0.97, -0.21) decrease in profit margin. A 10 percentage point increase in county MA enrollment was associated with a decline (-318.93; 95% CI: -468.84, -169.02) in the number of resident-days (a measure of occupancy) as well as a decline in the revenue per resident day ($4.50; 95% CI: -6.81, -2.20), potentially because of lower prices in MA. There was also a decline in expenses per patient day (-2.35; 95% CI: -4.76, 0.05), though this was only statistically significant at the 10% level. While increased MA enrollment was associated with a substantial decline in the number of Medicare resident days (487.53; 95% CI: -588.70, -386.37), this was partially offset by an increase in other payer (e.g., private pay) resident days (285.91; 95% CI: 128.18, 443.63). Increased MA enrollment was not associated with changes in the number of Medicaid resident days or a decrease in staffing per resident day. CONCLUSION: SNFs in counties with more MA growth had substantially greater relative declines in revenue, expenses, and profit margins. The continued growth of MA may result in significant changes in the SNF industry.

Social Risk Factors and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care Resource Utilization Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries With Psychiatric Disorders.

The intersection of social risk and race and ethnicity on mental health care utilization is understudied. This study examined disparities in health care treatment, adjusting for clinical need, among 25,780 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. We assessed contributions to disparities from racial and ethnic differences in the composition and returns of social risk variables. Black and Hispanic beneficiaries had lower rates of mental health outpatient visits than Whites. Assessing composition, Black and Hispanic beneficiaries experienced greater financial, food, and housing insecurity than White beneficiaries, factors associated with greater mental health treatment. Assessing returns, food insecurity was associated with an exacerbation of Hispanic-White disparities. Health care systems need to address the financial, food and housing insecurity of racial and ethnic minority groups with psychiatric disorder. Accounting for racial and ethnic differences in social risk adjustment-based payment reforms has significant implications for provider reimbursement and outcomes.

The mechanics of risk adjustment and incentives for coding intensity in Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: To study diagnosis coding intensity across Medicare programs, and to examine the impacts of changes in the risk model adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for 2024. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Claims and encounter data from the CMS data warehouse for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. STUDY DESIGN: We created cohorts of MA enrollees, TM beneficiaries attributed to Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and TM non-ACO beneficiaries. Using the 2019 Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) software from CMS, we computed HCC prevalence and scores from base records, then computed incremental prevalence and scores from health risk assessments (HRA) and chart review (CR) records. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We used CMS's 2019 random 20% sample of individuals and their 2018 diagnosis history, retaining those with 12 months of Parts A/B/D coverage in 2018. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Measured health risks for MA and TM ACO individuals were comparable in base records for propensity-score matched cohorts, while TM non-ACO beneficiaries had lower risk. Incremental health risk due to diagnoses in HRA records increased across coverage cohorts in line with incentives to maximize risk scores: +0.9% for TM non-ACO, +1.2% for TM ACO, and + 3.6% for MA. Including HRA and CR records, the MA risk scores increased by 9.8% in the matched cohort. We identify the HCC groups with the greatest sensitivity to these sources of coding intensity among MA enrollees, comparing those groups to the new model's areas of targeted change. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous literature, we find increased health risk in MA associated with HRA and CR records. We also demonstrate the meaningful impacts of HRAs on health risk measurement for TM coverage cohorts. CMS's model changes have the potential to reduce coding intensity, but they do not target the full scope of hierarchies sensitive to coding intensity.

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.