Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Medicare Advantage and Home Health Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Home health care serves millions of Americans who are "Aging in Place," including the rapidly growing population of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. This study systematically reviewed extant evidence illustrating home health care (HHC) services to MA enrollees.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 6 electronic databases to identify eligible studies, which resulted in 386 articles. Following 2 rounds of screening, 30 eligible articles were identified. Each study was also assessed independently for study quality using a validated quality assessment checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 30 studies, nearly half (n=13) were recently published between January 1, 2017 - January 6, 2022. Among various issues related to HHC to MA enrollees examined, which were often compared with Traditional Medicare (TM) enrollees, the 2 most studied issues were HHC use rate (including access) and care dosage/intensity. Inconsistencies were common in findings across reviewed studies, with slight variations in the level of inconsistency by studied outcomes. Several critical issues, such as heterogeneity of MA plans, influence of MA-specific features, and program response to policy and quality improvement initiatives, were only examined by 1 or 2 studies. The depth and scope of scientific investigation were also limited by the scale and details available in MA data in addition to other methodological limits.

CONCLUSIONS

Wild variations and conflicting findings on HHC to MA beneficiaries exist across studies. More research with rigorous designs and robust MA encounter data is warranted to determine home health care for MA enrollees and the relevant outcomes.

Differences in Home Health Services and Outcomes Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

Importance

Private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans recently surpassed traditional Medicare (TM) in enrollment. However, MA plans are facing scrutiny for burdensome prior authorization and potential rationing of care, including home health. MA beneficiaries are less likely to receive home health, but recent evidence on differences in service intensity and outcomes among home health patients is lacking.

Objective

To examine differences in home health service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 in 102 home health locations in 19 states and included 178 195 TM and 107 102 MA patients 65 years or older with 2 or fewer 60-day home health episodes. It included a secondary analysis of standardized assessment and visit data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting regression compared service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM episodes, accounting for differences in demographic characteristics, medical complexity, functional and cognitive impairments, social environment, caregiver support, and local community factors. Models included office location, year, and reimbursement policy fixed effects. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and July 2024.

Exposure

TM vs MA plan.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Home health length of stay and number of visits from nursing, physical, occupational, and speech therapy, social work, and home health aides. Patient outcomes included improvement in self-care and mobility function, discharge to the community, and transfer to an inpatient facility during home health.

Results

Of 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. MA patients had shorter home health length of stay by 1.62 days (95% CI, -1.82 to 1.42) and received fewer visits from all disciplines except social work. There were no differences in inpatient transfers. MA patients had 3% and 4% lower adjusted odds of improving in mobility and self-care, respectively (mobility odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; self-care OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). MA patients were 5% more likely to discharge to the community compared with TM (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that MA patients receive shorter and less intensive home health care vs TM patients with similar needs. Differences may be due to the administrative burden and cost-limiting incentives of MA plans. MA patients experienced slightly worse functional outcomes but were more likely to discharge to the community, which may have negative implications for MA patients, including reduced functional independence or increased caregiver burden.

Medicare advantage and dialysis facility choice

OBJECTIVE

To compare the characteristics of dialysis facilities used by traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare advantage (MA) enrollees with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

DATA SOURCES

We used 20% TM claims and 100% MA encounter data from 2018 and publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared the characteristics of the dialysis facilities treating TM and MA patients in the same ZIP code, adjusting for patient characteristics. The outcome variables were facility ownership, distance to the facility, and several measures of facility quality.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

We identified point prevalent dialysis patients as of July 15, 2018.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Compared to TM patients in the same ZIP code, MA patients were 1.84 percentage points more likely to be treated at facilities owned by the largest two dialysis organizations and 1.85 percentage points less likely to be treated at an independently owned facility. MA patients went to further and lower quality facilities than TM patients in the same ZIP code. However, these differences in facility quality were modest. For example, while the mean dialysis facility mortality rate was 21.85, the difference in mortality rates at facilities treating MA and TM patients in the same ZIP code was 0.67 deaths per 100 patient-years. Similarly, MA patients went to facilities that were, on average, 0.15 miles further than TM patients in the same ZIP code.

CONCLUSION

MA enrollees with ESKD were more likely than TM enrollees in the same ZIP code to use the dialysis facilities owned by the two largest chains, travel further for care, and receive care at lower quality facilities. While the magnitude of differences in facility distance and quality was modest, the direction of these results underscores the importance of monitoring dialysis network adequacy as ESKD MA enrollment continues to grow.

Proposing A Racism-Conscious Approach To Policy Making And Health Care Practices

Racial and ethnic health inequities are driven by multiple social and political factors. Race-neutral policies that overlook the role of racism in policy and in disparities may also contribute to inequities. In response, one broad policy-making approach has been to craft race-based policies that attempt to improve outcomes explicitly for specific racial groups. However, race-based policies can be politically infeasible. We propose a racism-conscious approach to policy making and health care practices that addresses racism and advances health equity. Using postacute and long-term care policies as a backdrop, we identify five key steps to creating racism-conscious policies that rest on continuous community engagement and policy evaluation. The proposed racism-conscious framework can be used to develop a new health policy or to redesign an existing policy, and it can work for federal, state, local, and organizational policies, practices, or both.

Disparities in Successful Discharge to the Community Following Use of Medicare Home Health by Level of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage

Considering the importance of social and structural support and resources in recovering health, where people reside could lead to differences in health outcome in Medicare home health care. We used the 2019 Outcome and Assessment Information Set and Area Deprivation Index to examine the association between neighborhood context and successful discharge to community among older Medicare home health care users. Based on the multivariable logistic regression (OR: 0.84; 95% CI, 0.83-0.85) and conditional logistic regression models stratified by home health agency (OR: 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.95), patients living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to experience successful discharge to community than others. Furthermore, the predicted probability of successful discharge to community decreased as the percentage of patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods within a home health agency increased. Policymakers should consider using area-level interventions and supports to reduce disparities in Medicare home health care.

Examining the role of race and quality of home health agencies in delayed initiation of home health services for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)

INTRODUCTION

We examined differences in the timeliness of the initiation of home health care by race and the quality of home health agencies (HHA) among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD).

METHODS

Medicare claims and home health assessment data were used for the study cohort: individuals aged ≥65 years with ADRD, and discharged from the hospital. Home health latency was defined as patients receiving home health care after 2 days following hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Of 251,887 patients with ADRD, 57% received home health within 2 days following hospital discharge. Black patients were significantly more likely to experience home health latency (odds ratio [OR] = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.19) compared to White patients. Home health latency was significantly higher for Black patients in low-rating HHA (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.22-1.37) compared to White patients in high-rating HHA.

DISCUSSION

Black patients are more likely to experience a delay in home health care initiation than White patients.

Potentially More Out of Reach: Public Reporting Exacerbates Inequities in Home Health Access

Policy Points Public reporting is associated with both mitigating and exacerbating inequities in high-quality home health agency use for marginalized groups. Ensuring equitable access to home health requires taking a closer look at potentially inequitable policies to ensure that these policies are not inadvertently exacerbating disparities as home health public reporting potentially does. Targeted federal, state, and local interventions should focus on raising awareness about the five-star quality ratings among marginalized populations for whom inequities have been exacerbated.

CONTEXT

Literature suggests that public reporting of quality may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality, long-term care for older adults. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the home health five-star ratings on changes in high-quality home health agency use by race, ethnicity, income status, and place-based factors.

METHODS

We use data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare Enrollment Files, Care Compare, and American Community Survey to estimate differential access to high-quality home health agencies between July 2014 and June 2017. To estimate the impact of the home health five-star rating introduction on the use of high-quality home health agencies, we use a longitudinal observational pretest-posttest design.

FINDINGS

After the introduction of the home health five-star ratings in 2016, we found that adjusted rates of high-quality home health agency use increased for all home health patients, except for Hispanic/Latine and Asian American/Pacific Islander patients. Additionally, we found that the disparity in high-quality home health agency use between low-income and higher-income home health patients was exacerbated after the introduction of the five-star quality ratings. We also observed that patients within predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods had a significant decrease in their use of high-quality home health agencies, whereas patients in predominantly White and integrated neighborhoods had a significant increase in high-quality home health agency use. Other neighborhoods experience a nonsignificant change in high-quality home health agency use.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should be aware of the potential unintended consequences for implementing home health public reporting, specifically for Hispanic/Latine, Asian American/Pacific Islander, and low-income home health patients, as well as patients residing in predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods. Targeted interventions should focus on raising awareness around the five-star ratings.

Post-Acute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Plans Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Compare post-acute care (PAC) utilization and outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) between beneficiaries covered by Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) plans during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year.

DESIGN

This multiyear cross-sectional study used Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data to assess PAC delivery from January 2019 to December 2020.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Inpatient rehabilitation for stroke, hip fracture, joint replacement, and cardiac and pulmonary conditions among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older.

METHODS

Patient-level multivariate regression models with difference-in-differences approach were used to compare TM and MA plans in length of stay (LOS), payment per episode, functional improvements, and discharge locations.

RESULTS

A total of 271,188 patients were analyzed [women (57.1%), mean (SD) age 77.8 (0.06) years], among whom 138,277 were admitted for stroke, 68,488 hip fracture, 19,020 joint replacement, and 35,334 cardiac and 10,069 pulmonary conditions. Before the pandemic, MA beneficiaries had longer LOS (+0.22 days; 95% CI: 0.15-0.29), lower payment per episode (-$361.05; 95% CI: -573.38 to -148.72), more discharges to home with a home health agency (HHA) (48.9% vs 46.6%), and less to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (15.7% vs 20.2%) than TM beneficiaries. During the pandemic, both plan types had shorter LOS (-0.68 day; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84), higher payment (+$798; 95% CI: 558-1036), increased discharges to home with an HHA (52.8% vs 46.6%), and decreased discharges to an SNF (14.5% vs 20.2%) than before. Differences between TM and MA beneficiaries in these outcomes became smaller and less significant. All results were adjusted for beneficiary and facility characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although the COVID-19 pandemic affected PAC delivery in IRF in the same directions for both TM and MA plans, the timing, time duration, and magnitude of the impacts were different across measures and admission conditions. Differences between the 2 plan types shrank and performance across all dimensions became more comparable over time.

The Role of Dementia and Residential Service Agency Characteristics in the Care Experiences of Maryland Medicaid Home and Community-Based Service Participants and Family and Unpaid Caregivers

In Maryland, residential service agencies deliver Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) to older adults with disabilities through direct care workers (e.g., personal care aides). Leveraging survey data from residential service agency administrators, linked to interRAI Home Care assessments for 1144 participants, we describe agency characteristics, and participant and family caregiver experiences by participant dementia status. Most (61.7%) participants experienced low social engagement, and roughly 10.0% experienced a hospitalization or emergency room visit within 90 days. Few (14.4%) participants were served by agencies requiring dementia-specific direct care worker training, and most were served by agencies offering supplemental services, or in which direct care workers helped with health information technology (81.2% and 72.8%, respectively). Few caregivers reported negative care experiences. Participants with dementia and those served by agencies with training and support more often reported negative care experiences. Findings lay the foundation for future longitudinal and embedded interventions within Medicaid HCBS.

Comparing the care experiences of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

BACKGROUND

The Medicare Advantage (MA) program is rapidly growing. Limited evidence exists about the care experiences of MA beneficiaries with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD). Our objective was to compare care experiences for MA beneficiaries with and without ADRD.

METHODS

We examined MA beneficiaries who completed the Medicare Advantage Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and used inpatient, nursing home, or home health services in the past 3 years. We classified beneficiaries with ADRD using the presence of diagnosis codes in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health records. Our key measures included overall ratings of care and health plan, and indices of receiving timely care, care coordination, receiving needed care, and customer service. We compared differences between beneficiaries with and without ADRD using regression analysis adjusting for demographic, health, and plan characteristics, and stratifying by proxy response status.

RESULTS

Among beneficiaries sampled by CAHPS, 22.2% with ADRD completed the survey compared to 38.5% without ADRD. Among proxy responses, beneficiaries with ADRD were 4.2 (95% CI: 0.1-8.4) percentage points less likely to report a high score for receiving needed care, and 3.5 percentage points (95% CI: 0.2-6.9) less likely to report a high score for customer service. Among non-proxy responses, those with ADRD were 9.0 (95% CI: 5.5-12.5) percentage points less likely to report a high score for needed care, and 8.5 (95% CI: 5.4-11.5) percentage points less likely to report a high score for customer service.

CONCLUSIONS

ADRD respondents to the CAHPS were more likely to be excluded from CAHPS performance measures because they did not meet eligibility requirements and rates of non-response were higher. Among responders with or without a proxy, MA enrollees with an ADRD diagnosis reported worse care experiences in receiving needed care and in customer service than those without an ADRD diagnosis.

Prescribing of low- versus high-cost Part B drugs in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare

OBJECTIVE

Examine whether Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage is associated with more efficient prescribing of Part B drugs than traditional Medicare (TM) coverage.

DATA SOURCES

Twenty percent sample of 2016 outpatient and carrier TM claims and MA encounter records and Master Beneficiary Summary File data.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed whether MA enrollees compared to TM enrollees more often received the low-cost Part B drug in four clinical scenarios where multiple similarly effective drugs exist: (1) anti-VEGF agents to treat macular degeneration, (2) bone resorption inhibitors for osteoporosis, (3) bone resorption inhibitors for malignant neoplasms, and (4) intravenous iron for iron deficiency anemia. We then estimated differences in spending if TM prescribing aligned with MA prescribing. Finally, using linear probability models, we examined whether differences in MA and TM prescribing patterns were attributable to differences in the hospitals and clinician practices who treat MA and TM enrollees or differences in how these hospitals and clinician practices treat their MA versus TM patients.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Not applicable.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In all cases, a larger share of MA enrollees received the low-cost drug compared to TM enrollees, ranging from 8 percentage points higher for anemia to 16 percentage points higher for macular degeneration in the unadjusted analysis. Results were similar in regression analyses controlling for enrollee characteristics and market factors (5-13 percentage points). If TM prescribing matched MA prescribing, we estimated savings ranging from 6% to 20% of TM spending for each scenario. Differences in prescribing patterns were driven both by MA enrollees receiving treatment at more efficient hospitals and clinician practices and hospitals and clinician practices more often prescribing low-cost drugs to their MA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show MA enrollees were more likely than TM enrollees to receive low-cost Part B drugs in four clinical scenarios where multiple similarly or equally effective treatment options exist.

Association between home health agency ownership status and discharge to community among Medicare beneficiaries

To investigate the association of ownership status, discharge rate and length of stay (LOS) of home health care (HH) services under the prospective payment system (PPS). We used 2016-2018 Outcome Assessment and Information Set (OASIS) data sets for Medicare beneficiaries. Two outcome variables were investigated: rate of discharge from an HH agency and LOS. Our main independent variable was ownership status: for-profit (FP) versus not-for-profit (NFP). FP agencies were 4.2% (p <.01) less likely to discharge patients to the community but more likely (7.3%; p <.001) to have longer LOS (>99 days) compared to NFPs. Findings that FP agencies were less likely to discharge patients to the community and more likely to have a longer length of stay than NFP agencies have implications for quality of care initiatives by the Medicare Post-Acute Transformation Act 2014.

Comparing Receipt of Prescribed Post-acute Home Health Care Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Medicare Advantage (MA) covers more than 1/3rd of all Medicare beneficiaries. MA plans are required to provide the same benefits as Traditional Medicare (TM), but can impose utilization management tools to control costs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences between TM and MA enrollees in the probability of receiving prescribed post-acute home health (HH) care and to describe MA plan characteristics associated with HH receipt.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of claims data, HH patient assessment data, and MA plan data from 2011 to 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older with an incident hospitalization for joint replacement, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, urinary tract infection, septicemia, acute renal failure, or congestive heart failure.

MAIN MEASURES

Receipt of prescribed HH as indicated by a HH discharge code and corresponding HH patient assessment within 14 days of hospital discharge.

KEY RESULTS

There were 2,723,245 beneficiaries prescribed HH at discharge (68% TM, 32% MA). About 75% of TM enrollees and 62% of MA enrollees received prescribed post-acute HH. In adjusted analyses, MA enrollees had an -11.7 percentage point (pp) (95% confidence interval (CI): -16.8, -6.5) lower probability of receiving HH compared with TM enrollees. In adjusted analyses, HMO enrollees in plans with cost sharing (- 8.4 pp; 95% CI: - 14.3, - 2.5), referrals (- 3.7 pp; 95% CI: - 6.1, - 1.2), and pre-authorization (- 5.1 pp; 95% CI: - 8.3, - 2.0) were less likely to receive prescribed HH. In adjusted analyses, PPO enrollees in plans with cost sharing were -7.0 pp (95% CI: - 12.7, - 1.4) less likely to receive HH, but there was no difference for those with referrals (1.1 pp; 95% CI, - 1.5, 3.7) or pre-authorization (1.6 pp; 95% CI: - 0.6, - 3.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare beneficiaries, MA enrollees were less likely to receive prescribed post-acute HH compared with TM. As enrollment in MA continues to grow, it is important to examine how differences in utilization relate to outcomes.

Comparing Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare: A Systematic Review

Medicare Advantage enrollment has almost doubled since 2010 and now accounts for more than a third of all Medicare beneficiaries. We performed a systematic review to compare Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare on key metrics. Evidence from forty-eight studies showed that in most or all comparisons, Medicare Advantage was associated with more preventive care visits, fewer hospital admissions and emergency department visits, shorter hospital and skilled nursing facility lengths-of-stay, and lower health care spending. Medicare Advantage outperformed traditional Medicare in most studies comparing quality-of-care metrics. However, the evidence on patient experience, readmission rates, mortality, and racial/ethnic disparities did not show a trend of better performance in Medicare Advantage. Evidence to date might not fully account for selection bias, unobserved differences in social determinants of health, or risk adjustment challenges, in part because of differences in data quality that limit the comparability of outcomes between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. With Medicare Advantage plans expected to grow in popularity, policy makers should support policies to improve data completeness and comparability, and health plans should focus on improving patient experience.

Home Health Use In Medicare Advantage Compared To Use In Traditional Medicare

Medicare covers home health benefits for homebound beneficiaries who need intermittent skilled care. While home health care can help prevent costlier institutional care, some studies have suggested that traditional Medicare beneficiaries may overuse home health care. This study compared home health use in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, as well as within Medicare Advantage by beneficiary cost sharing, prior authorization requirement, and plan type. In 2016 Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to use home health care than traditional Medicare enrollees were, had 7.1 fewer days per home health spell, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital during their spell. Among Medicare Advantage plans, those that imposed beneficiary cost sharing or prior authorization requirements had lower rates of home health use. Qualitative interviews suggested that Medicare Advantage payment and contracting approaches influenced home health care use. Therefore, changes in traditional Medicare home health payment policies implemented in 2020 may reduce these disparities in home health use and spell length.

Plan switching among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias

INTRODUCTION

Patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) face substantial challenges in selecting, and remaining enrolled in, health insurance. Little is known about how patients with ADRD experience the Medicare Advantage (MA) program.

METHODS

We used, hospital, outpatient, and post-acute care data to identify MA beneficiaries with and without ADRD in 2014. Multinomial logit models estimated the percentage of people who disenrolled to traditional Medicare (TM) or switched to a different MA plan in 2015.

RESULTS

Among non-dually eligible beneficiaries, 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.0, 9.1) with ADRD disenrolled while 19.7% (95% CI: 19.6, 19.9) switched plans within MA compared to a disenrollment rate of 4.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 4.2) and switching rate of 22.8% (95% CI: 22.9, 22.8) for persons without ADRD.

DISCUSSION

MA enrollees with ADRD tend to disenroll at substantially higher rates than those without ADRD. This may be indicative of their care needs not being met in the program.

Family and Friend Perceptions of Quality of End-of-Life Care in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare

IMPORTANCE

Medicare Advantage (MA) insures an increasing proportion of Medicare beneficiaries, but evidence is lacking on patient or family perceptions of the quality of end-of-life care in MA vs traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is a difference in quality of care reported by family and friends of individuals who died while insured by MA vs traditional Medicare at the end of life.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used the 2011 to 2017 Medicare-linked National Health and Aging Trends Study to conduct population-based survey research representing 8 668 829 Medicare enrollees. Included individuals were 2119 enrollees who died when aged 65 years or older, with quality of care reported by a family member or close friend familiar with the individual's last month of life. Analysis was conducted in July 2020.

EXPOSURES

MA enrollment at the time of death or before hospice enrollment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Perception of end-of-life care was measured with 9 validated items, with the primary outcome variable being overall care rated not excellent. We conducted a propensity score-weighted multivariable model to examine the association of each item with MA vs traditional Medicare enrollment. The propensity score and multivariable model included covariates capturing demographic and socioeconomic factors, function and health, and relationship of the respondent to the individual who died. The sample was then stratified by hospice enrollment and setting of care in the last month.

RESULTS

Of 2119 people in the sample, 670 individuals were enrolled in MA at the time of death or prior to hospice (32.7%) and 1449 were enrolled in traditional Medicare (67.3%). In survey-weighted percentages, 53.6% (95% CI, 51.0% to 56.1%) were women and 43.4% (95% CI, 41.5% to 45.3%) were older than 85 years at the time of death. In the adjusted model, family and friends of individuals in MA were more likely to report that care was not excellent (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.61; P = .04) and that they were not kept informed (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.05; P = .02). For those in nursing homes, there was an estimated probability of 57.2% of respondents reporting that care was not excellent for individuals with traditional Medicare, compared with 77.9% of respondents for individuals with MA (marginal increase for those in MA, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.32; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of people who died while enrolled in Medicare, friends and family of those in MA reported lower-quality end-of-life care compared with friends and family of those enrolled in traditional Medicare. These findings suggest that, given the rapid growth of MA, Medicare should take steps to ensure that MA plans are held accountable for quality of care at the end of life.

Switching Between Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare Before And After The Onset Of Functional Disability

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have increasing flexibility to provide nonmedical services to support older adults aging in place in the community. However, prior research has suggested that enrollees with functional disability (hereafter, "disability") were more likely than those without disability to leave MA plans. This indicates that MA plans might not meet the needs of older adults with disability. We used data for 2011-16 from the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to Medicare claims to measure and characterize switches in either direction between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in the twelve months before and after onset of disability. While the rate of switches from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare increased slightly after disability onset, people with greater levels of disability were more likely to switch to traditional Medicare, compared to those with lower levels: 36 percent of those who switched from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare needed help with two or more activities of daily living, compared to 14.3 percent of those who switched from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage. This indicates the potential benefit of including functional measures in MA plan risk adjustment and quality measures. Furthermore, the highest-need older adults with disability may experience lower-quality care in Medicare Advantage and thus leave before accessing the program's expanded benefits.

Home Health Use Following a Cancer Diagnosis Among Patients Enrolled in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: Findings From the Newly Linked SEER-Medicare and Home Health OASIS Data

BACKGROUND

This article describes characteristics of patients receiving home health following an initial cancer diagnosis, comparing those enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM), using the newly linked 2010-2014 National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and home health Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) data.

METHODS

We identified SEER-Medicare beneficiaries with at least one OASIS assessment within 3 months of cancer diagnosis in 2010-2014, and summarized their demographic and clinical characteristics. Demographic and diagnostic data were obtained from the SEER-Medicare data, while further details about cognitive status, mood, function, and medical history were obtained from OASIS. We assessed differences between MA and TM beneficiaries using chi-square tests for independence, t-tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESUTLS

We identified 104 023 patients who received home health within 3 months of cancer diagnosis: 81 587 enrolled in TM and 22 436 enrolled in MA. TM cancer patients had higher unadjusted rates of home health use than MA patients (16.3% vs 10.3%, P < .001). TM cancer patients receiving home health had more limitations in their cognitive function than their MA counterparts and longer lengths of service (mean = 42.2 days vs 39.4 days, P < .001; median = 27 vs 26 days, interquartile range = 42).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the large number of cancer patients in the SEER-Medicare-OASIS data and describes characteristics for TM and MA patients. These newly linked data can be used to assess home health care among older patients with cancer.