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.

Medicare Advantage Under Fire: Public Criticism and Implications.

Congressional hearings and public reports have drawn attention to problems afflicting Medicare Advantage (MA), the privatized version of Medicare. Private plans became a staple of Medicare through the passage of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Congress passed this law during a furor of privatization, when think tanks and powerful financial interests emphasized the power of corporations' profit incentive to improve the efficiency and quality of social enterprise. Yet the surging criticism of MA suggests a misalignment between the financial interest of some MA plans and the well-being of their patient populations. The criticisms range from deceptive marketing, ghost networks, and patient cherry-picking to unethical prior authorization denials and defrauding the government. In total, MA plans cost the federal government 22% more per patient than if these patients in question were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it is not clear that this additional funding is producing proportional benefits. These developments raise questions about the presence of a profit incentive in Medicare, and perhaps health care more broadly.

Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With and Without Food Insecurity.

BACKGROUND: Compared to traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans impose out-of-pocket cost limits and offer extra benefits, potentially providing financial relief for MA enrollees, especially for those with food insecurity. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the prevalence of food insecurity differs between TM and MA enrollees at baseline and then examine whether MA enrollment in a baseline year is associated with less financial hardships in the following year, relative to TM enrollment, especially for those experiencing food insecurity. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Our analysis included 2807 Medicare beneficiaries (weighted sample size, 23,963,947) who maintained continuous enrollment in either TM or MA in both 2020 and 2021 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed outcomes related to financial hardships in health care and non-health care domains (measured in 2021). Our primary independent variables were food insecurity and MA enrollment (measured in 2020). RESULTS: The point estimate of food insecurity prevalence was greater among MA enrollees than TM enrollees, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.1 percentage points [95% CI, - 1.0, 3.4]). Furthermore, there is evidence that compared to TM enrollment, MA enrollment did not mitigate the risk of financial hardship, particularly for food-insecure enrollees. Rather, food-secure MA enrollees faced greater financial hardship in the following year than food-secure TM enrollees (11.2% [8.9-13.6] and 7.6% [6.9-8.3] for problems paying medical bills and 5.5% [4.6-6.4] and 2.8% [2.1-3.6] for paying medical bills over time). Moreover, the point estimate of financial hardship was higher among food-insecure MA enrollees than food-insecure TM enrollees (21.5% [5.4-37.5] and 11.2% [4.1-18.4] and 23.7% [9.6-37.9] and 6.9% [0.5-13.3]) despite the lack of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the promise of financial protection offered by MA plans has not been fully realized, particularly for those with food insecurity.

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.

Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Dental Coverage for Medicare Beneficiaries.

Poor oral health has been associated with various systemic diseases (e.g., endocarditis, pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) and decreased quality of life. When enacted in 1965, Medicare excluded coverage for comprehensive dental services. As of 2023, Medicare has allowed coverage of limited dental services inextricably linked to specific medical conditions. Many Medicare Advantage plans (Medicare Part C) offer dental coverage. Yet in 2019, approximately 24 million Medicare beneficiaries (47% of all Medicare enrollees), lacked dental coverage. Seventy-one percent of traditional Medicare enrollees (those not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan) reported that high cost was the primary reason that they did not obtain dental care. The importance of oral health for the older adults has been the main reason that a national interprofessional consortium, which includes several national nursing organizations, has been advocating for legislation to expand Medicare to include dental coverage. The consortium's efforts have been thwarted by fierce opposition from the American Dental Association and many Republican legislators. Given the vital role that nurses and advanced practice nurses play in caring for the nation's older adults and disabled, nursing's voice needs to be strengthened as leaders in advocating for inclusion of dental benefits in traditional Medicare.

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.

Elimination of Cost Sharing for Screening Mammography in Medicare Advantage Plans.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required most insurers and the Medicare program to eliminate cost sharing for screening mammography. METHODS: We conducted a difference-in-differences study of biennial screening mammography among 15,085 women 65 to 74 years of age in 24 Medicare Advantage plans that eliminated cost sharing to provide full coverage for screening mammography, as compared with 52,035 women in 48 matched control plans that had and maintained full coverage. RESULTS: In plans that eliminated cost sharing, adjusted rates of biennial screening mammography increased from 59.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.9 to 65.0) in the 2-year period before cost-sharing elimination to 65.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 69.0) in the 2-year period thereafter. In control plans, the rates of biennial mammography were 73.1% (95% CI, 69.2 to 77.0) and 72.8% (95% CI, 69.7 to 76.0) during the same periods, yielding a difference in differences of 5.7 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 8.4). The difference in differences was 9.8 percentage points (95% CI, 4.5 to 15.2) among women living in the areas with the highest quartile of educational attainment versus 4.3 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2 to 8.4) among women in the lowest quartile. As indicated by the difference-in-differences estimates, after the elimination of cost sharing, the rate of biennial mammography increased by 6.5 percentage points (95% CI, 3.7 to 9.4) for white women and 8.4 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5 to 14.4) for black women but was almost unchanged for Hispanic women (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.3 to 8.1). CONCLUSIONS: The elimination of cost sharing for screening mammography under the ACA was associated with an increase in rates of use of this service among older women for whom screening is recommended. The effect was attenuated among women living in areas with lower educational attainment and was negligible among Hispanic women. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

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.

Sepsis Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 3. The Methods, Models, and Forecasts of Sepsis, 2012-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of sepsis, age, and comorbidities on death following an acute inpatient admission and to model and forecast inpatient and skilled nursing facility costs for Medicare beneficiaries during and subsequent to an acute inpatient sepsis admission. DESIGN: Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DataLink Project (CMS) and leveraging the CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category risk adjustment model. SETTING: All U.S. acute care hospitals, excepting federal hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS: All Part A/B (fee-for-service) Medicare beneficiaries with an acute inpatient admission in 2017 and who had no inpatient sepsis admission in the prior year. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Logistic regression models to determine covariate risk contribution to death following an acute inpatient admission; conventional regression to predict Medicare beneficiary sepsis costs. Using the Hierarchical Condition Category risk adjustment model to illuminate influence of illness on outcome of inpatient admissions, representative odds ratios (with 95% CIs) for death within 6 months of an admission (referenced to beneficiaries admitted but without the characteristic) are as follows: septic shock, 7.27 (7.19-7.35); metastatic cancer and acute leukemia (Hierarchical Condition Category 8), 6.76 (6.71-6.82); all sepsis, 2.63 (2.62-2.65); respiratory arrest (Hierarchical Condition Category 83), 2.55 (2.35-2.77); end-stage liver disease (Hierarchical Condition Category 27), 2.53 (2.49-2.56); and severe sepsis without shock, 2.48 (2.45-2.51). Models of the cost of sepsis care for Medicare beneficiaries forecast arise approximately 13% over 2 years owing the rising enrollments in Medicare offset by the cost of care per admission. CONCLUSIONS: A sepsis inpatient admission is associated with marked increase in risk of death that is comparable to the risks associated with inpatient admissions for other common and serious chronic illnesses. The aggregate costs of sepsis care for Medicare beneficiaries will continue to increase.

Sepsis Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 1. The Burdens of Sepsis, 2012-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To provide contemporary estimates of the burdens (costs and mortality) associated with acute inpatient Medicare beneficiary admissions for sepsis. DESIGN: Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DataLink Project. SETTING: All U.S. acute care hospitals, excluding federally operated hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS: All Medicare beneficiaries, 2012-2018, with an inpatient admission including one or more explicit sepsis codes. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total inpatient hospital and skilled nursing facility admission counts, costs, and mortality over time. From calendar year (CY)2012-CY2018, the total number of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) beneficiaries with an inpatient hospital admission associated with an explicit sepsis code rose from 811,644 to 1,136,889. The total cost of inpatient hospital admission including an explicit sepsis code for those beneficiaries in those calendar years rose from $17,792,657,303 to $22,439,794,212. The total cost of skilled nursing facility care in the 90 days subsequent to an inpatient hospital discharge that included an explicit sepsis code for Medicare Part A/B rose from $3,931,616,160 to $5,623,862,486 over that same interval. Precise costs are not available for Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) patients. Using available federal data sources, we estimated the aggregate cost of inpatient admissions and skilled nursing facility admissions for Medicare Advantage patients to have risen from $6.0 to $13.4 billion over the CY2012-CY2018 interval. Combining data for fee-for-service beneficiaries and estimates for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, we estimate the total inpatient admission sepsis cost and any subsequent skilled nursing facility admission for all (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) Medicare patients to have risen from $27.7 to $41.5 billion. Contemporary 6-month mortality rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a sepsis inpatient admission remain high: for septic shock, approximately 60%; for severe sepsis, approximately 36%; for sepsis attributed to a specific organism, approximately 31%; and for unspecified sepsis, approximately 27%. CONCLUSION: Sepsis remains common, costly to treat, and presages significant mortality for Medicare beneficiaries.

Politics and Policymaking in Medicare Part C.

BACKGROUND: Once just a small part of the Medicare program, private managed care plans now cover over one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries and cost the Federal government ~$210 billion each year. Importantly, the evolution of Medicare managed care policy has been far from linear; for several decades there have been dramatic shifts in the payment and regulatory policies facing private Medicare managed care plans. OBJECTIVES: This article presents a critical review of the history of Medicare managed care payment and regulatory policies and discusses the role of political ideology and stakeholder influence in shaping the direction of policy over time. CONCLUSIONS: As Medicare Advantage becomes an increasingly prominent area of focus for the health services, health policy, and medical research communities, it is important to bear in mind the highly political history of the program, the role of stakeholder influence in shaping the direction of policy, and to understand the historic barriers to evidence-based policymaking.

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

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

Health Care Costs of Alzheimer's and Related Dementias Within a Medicare Managed Care Provider.

BACKGROUND: Although one third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, there is limited information about the cost of treating Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) in these settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate direct health care costs attributable to ADRD among older adults within a large MA plan. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective cohort design was used to estimate direct total, outpatient, inpatient, ambulatory pharmacy, and nursing home costs for 3 years before and after an incident ADRD diagnosis for 927 individuals diagnosed with ADRD relative to a sex-matched and birth year-matched set of 2945 controls. SUBJECT: Adults 65 years of age and older enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente Washington MA plan and the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) Study, a prospective longitudinal cohort study of ADRD and brain aging. MEASURES: Data on monthly health service use obtained from health system electronic medical records for the period 1992-2012. RESULTS: Total monthly health care costs for individuals with ADRD are statistically greater (P<0.05) than controls beginning in the third month before diagnosis and remain significantly greater through the eighth month following diagnosis. Greater total health costs are driven by significantly (P<0.05) greater nursing home costs among individuals diagnosed with ADRD beginning in the third month prediagnosis. Although total costs were no longer significantly greater at 8 months following diagnosis, nursing home costs remained higher for the people with dementia through the 3 years postdiagnosis we analyzed. CONCLUSION: Greater total health care costs among individuals with ADRD are primarily driven by nursing home costs.

Subgroups of High-Cost Medicare Advantage Patients: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing focus on improving the quality and value of health care delivery for high-cost patients. Compared to fee-for-service Medicare, less is known about the clinical composition of high-cost Medicare Advantage populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe a high-cost Medicare Advantage population and identify clinically and operationally significant subgroups of patients. DESIGN: We used a density-based clustering algorithm to group high-cost patients (top 10% of spending) according to 161 distinct demographic, clinical, and claims-based variables. We then examined rates of utilization, spending, and mortality among subgroups. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one thousand five hundred forty-six Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. MAIN MEASURES: Spending, utilization, and mortality. KEY RESULTS: High-cost patients (n = 6154) accounted for 55% of total spending. High-cost patients were more likely to be younger, male, and have higher rates of comorbid illnesses. We identified ten subgroups of high-cost patients: acute exacerbations of chronic disease (mixed); end-stage renal disease (ESRD); recurrent gastrointestinal bleed (GIB); orthopedic trauma (trauma); vascular disease (vascular); surgical infections and other complications (complications); cirrhosis with hepatitis C (liver); ESRD with increased medical and behavioral comorbidity (ESRD+); cancer with high-cost imaging and radiation therapy (oncology); and neurologic disorders (neurologic). The average number of inpatient days ranged from 3.25 (oncology) to 26.09 (trauma). Preventable spending (as a percentage of total spending) ranged from 0.8% (oncology) to 9.5% (complications) and the percentage of spending attributable to prescription medications ranged from 7.9% (trauma and oncology) to 77.0% (liver). The percentage of patients who were persistently high-cost ranged from 11.8% (trauma) to 100.0% (ESRD+). One-year mortality ranged from 0.0% (liver) to 25.8% (ESRD+). CONCLUSIONS: We identified clinically distinct subgroups of patients within a heterogeneous high-cost Medicare Advantage population using cluster analysis. These subgroups, defined by condition-specific profiles and illness trajectories, had markedly different patterns of utilization, spending, and mortality, holding important implications for clinical strategy.