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.

Medicare Advantage Disenrollment Patterns Among Beneficiaries With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

This study examines whether Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees with more chronic conditions were more likely to disenroll when MA enrollment grew rapidly from 2009 to 2019.

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

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

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

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

Association between health system specialty pharmacy use and health care costs among national sample of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Health care expenditures are growing rapidly. There is a growing body of literature showing that health system specialty pharmacy is associated with improvement in clinical outcomes; however, there is a lack of data on its effect on health care costs and utilization. OBJECTIVE: To perform exploratory research assessing the association between health system specialty pharmacy use and health care costs and utilization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted examining medical and pharmacy claims from 2018 and 2019 of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Optum Advisory Service's proprietary deidentified Normative Health Information database was used, which includes claims, membership, and provider data for 12.6 million Medicare Advantage members. Members who filled a prescription at a health system specialty pharmacy and had a specialty provider participating in the health system specialty pharmacy care model in clinic were assigned to the intervention group. Members who did not use a health system specialty pharmacy but had the same provider (provider benchmark group) or different provider (network benchmark group) were considered as comparisons. The network benchmark group was further refined to match variation in health care cost due to geography. The primary outcome measure was total health care costs (across the medical and pharmacy benefit) on a per-patient per-month basis. Secondary outcomes were selected utilization drivers and cost subcomponents. Cost and utilization metrics were calculated on a risk-adjusted basis using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC) risk score methodology. Differences were assessed for categorical variables with chi-square tests, and 2-tailed t-tests were used for continuous variables. RESULTS: Of the analytic sample of 9,780 members used in this study, 208 (2.1%) used health system specialty pharmacy services. During the 2018 baseline period, total health care costs and utilization were similar after CMS-HCC risk score adjustment ($9,520 among health system specialty pharmacy users; $8,691 among the provider benchmark group; $9,510 among the network benchmark group) but lower in 2019 ($7,060, $7,683, and $8,152, respectively). The differences in 2019 were primarily driven by savings in pharmacy and free-standing physician-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a health system specialty pharmacy is associated with a lower health care cost. Further study is required to analyze how drug and disease-specific interactions influence total health care costs and utilization for health system specialty pharmacy populations. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Shields Health Solutions and completed with Optum Advisory Services, which provided all analysis and was the sole source of data. University of Massachusetts Medical School investigators were independent context experts, who volunteered their time for this study. Hellems is employed by Optum Advisory Services; Fasching and Smith are employed by Shields Health Solutions; and Soni and McManus are employed by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Soni received support from the National Institute of General Medical Science (T32GM107000), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1-TR001454), and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1F30HD091975-03). McManus's time was supported by R01HL126911, R01HL137734, R01HL137794, R01HL135219, R01HL136660, U54HL143541 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. McManus has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Care Evolution, Samsung, Apple Computer, Pfizer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Philips Research Institute, Flexcon, Fitbit; has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Rose Consulting, Boston Biomedical Associates, and FlexCon; and is also a member of the Operations Committee and Steering Committee for the GUARD-AF Study (NCT04126486), sponsored by Bristol Meyers Squibb and Pfizer. The other authors have nothing additional to disclose. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funders played no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Comparing apples with oranges: administrative expenses and finances in Medicare systems.

OBJECTIVES: Proponents of a single-payer or public option health care system often cite the lower administrative expenses in public Medicare compared with those in private Medicare, claiming that this difference represents efficiency. We check the validity of this comparison in terms of accuracy and definitions and suggest expanding its scope to include expanded financial data of the 2 Medicare systems. STUDY DESIGN: Using annual Medicare Boards of Trustees and National Health Expenditure Accounts data from CMS and health insurers' financial statement data, we compare the level and percentage of the administrative expenses of the Medicare systems and show incompatible and not reconcilable definitions of administrative expenses. We expand our analysis to income, benefits, gains and losses, and loss ratios of the programs. METHODS: Our methodology is a careful comparison of categories of expenses between public and private insurers using official data sources. The comparison is both qualitative and quantitative. RESULTS: We validate the low administrative expenses of Medicare parts A, B, and D (1.35% of benefits in 2018) compared with Medicare Part C (10.86% of benefits without loss adjustment expenses [LAE] and 14.84% with LAE for 2018). Expanding the focus, the income and benefits per beneficiary grew faster and larger in Medicare parts A, B, and D than in Medicare Part C-a reversal of earlier trends. The public Medicare program suffered losses in 11 years during 2002-2018, whereas private insurers' Medicare remained solvent with about an 85% loss ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of the systems in the United States would benefit from expanding the focus beyond incomparable administrative expenses. For the current period of coronavirus disease 2019, if the trends continue, public Medicare may suffer greater deficits relative to the private Medicare Part C.

Mandated Copayment Reductions in Medicare Advantage: Effects on Skilled Nursing Care, Hospitalizations, and Plan Exit.

OBJECTIVES: To address concerns that postacute cost-sharing may deter high-need beneficiaries from participating in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have capped cost-sharing for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services in MA plans since 2011. This study examines whether SNF use, inpatient use, and plan disenrollment changed following stricter regulations in 2015 that required most MA plans to eliminate or substantially reduce cost-sharing for SNF care. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences retrospective analysis from 2013 to 2016. SETTING: MA plans. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one million MA members in 320 plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions and 261 plans without such reductions. MEASUREMENTS: Mean monthly number of SNF admissions, SNF days, hospitalizations, and plan disenrollees per 1000 members. RESULTS: Mean total cost-sharing for the first 20 days of SNF services decreased from $911 to $104 in affected plans. Relative to concurrent changes in plans without mandated cost-sharing reductions, plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions experienced no significant differences in the number of SNF days per 1000 members (adjusted between-group difference: 0.4 days per 1000 members [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -5.2 to 6.0, P=0.89], small decreases in the number of hospitalizations per 1000 members [adjusted between-group difference: 0.6 admissions per 1000 members (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P=0.03)], and small decreases in the number of SNF users who disenrolled at year-end [adjusted between-group difference: -16.8 disenrollees per 1000 members (95% CI, -31.9 to -1.8; P=0.03)]. CONCLUSIONS: Mandated reductions in SNF cost-sharing may have curbed selective disenrollment from MA plans without significantly increasing use of SNF services.