Less Intense Postacute Care, Better Outcomes For Enrollees In Medicare Advantage Than Those In Fee-For-Service

Quality and utilization of surgical care among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Over half of Medicare beneficiaries are now enrolled in Medicare Advantage, but there is little understanding of how Medicare Advantage impacts care for common surgical conditions.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent appendectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy, or hernia repair from 2016 to 2020. Inverse Propensity Score-Weighted analysis was used to compare risk-adjusted rates of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and utilization.

RESULTS

Of the 1,617,490 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent one of the operations, 574,412 (36 ​%) were enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage enrollees demonstrated similar complications (29.6 % vs 29.2 ​%, aOR 1.02 [95 ​% CI, 1.01-1.03]) and 30-day mortality (5.9 % vs 6.1 ​%, aOR 0.96 [95 ​% CI, 0.94-0.98]), but were more likely to be discharged home (77.8 % vs 74.1 ​%, aOR 1.31 [95 ​% CI, 1.28-1.33]) and had fewer readmissions (12.8 % vs 15.2 ​%, OR 0.82 [95 ​% CI, 0.81-0.83]).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare Advantage may reduce post-acute care use and readmissions for common surgical procedures without compromising postoperative outcomes.

Home Health Care Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries From 2010 to 2020

Medicare home health coverage is an important resource for Medicare beneficiaries requiring health care at home. However, there have been changes in the United States health care system that might impact home health utilization such as pressures to constrain Medicare spending, growth in Medicare Advantage (MA) plan enrollment, decline in institutional long-term care and growth of Medicaid home- and community-based services. Given these changes, we examined home health care use trends among beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM) and MA from 2010 to 2020. We separately examined home health episodes that were initiated after a hospital or skilled nursing facility discharge and those initiated within the community and among dually and non-dually eligible beneficiaries. Home health use decreased among TM enrollees for both community-initiated and post-discharge needs but increased among MA enrollees for community-initiated home health use. Increases in community-initiated home health use were concentrated in non-dually eligible beneficiaries.

Do Medicare Beneficiaries Under Accountable Care or Medicare Advantage Use Lower Quality Nursing Homes?

BACKGROUND

With the growing number of Medicare beneficiaries attributed to Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) or enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) and their financial incentives to lower the cost of the cared patients, it is essential to understand how these alternative payment models affect post-acute outcomes among beneficiaries, with or without dementia diagnoses. In this study, we examined the quality of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) that beneficiaries entered after hospital discharge under different payment models.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged from hospitals and admitted to SNFs between 2013 and 2018.

KEY MEASURES

The exposure variable was a payment indicator, including ACO, MA, or non-ACO traditional Medicare (TM) fee-for-service. The dependent variable was high overall quality SNF, defined as with at least 4-star rating in the CMS Nursing Home Care Compare.

ANALYTIC PLAN

We examined the payer distribution by dementia diagnosis using ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) fixed effects and adjusted for age, gender, and race. We also estimated the probabilities of entering high-quality SNF as a function of payer status and dementia diagnosis each year using hospital and ZCTA fixed effects and accounting for beneficiary-level covariates.

RESULTS

Among SNF admissions from 2013 to 2018, the share of ACO-attributed beneficiaries increased from 7.6% to 20.2%, MA enrollees increased from 25.2% to 32.8%, and non-ACO-attributed TM enrollees decreased from 67.2% to 47.3%. Consistently, ACO-attributed beneficiaries were the most likely, while MA enrollees were the least likely to enter high-quality SNFs, regardless of dementia diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight significant differences in access to high-quality SNFs across Medicare payment models, with ACO-attributed beneficiaries consistently experiencing better access than their MA or traditional Medicare counterparts, regardless of dementia diagnosis. These results underscore the need for further investigation into how payment models influence care quality and access, particularly for vulnerable populations.

The Effect of Extending the Window to Disenroll From Medicare Advantage Among Post-Acute Users

Post-acute care users in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may seek coverage changes if facing issues with plan benefits. In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services extended the deadline to disenroll from an MA plan from February 14 to March 31 and, for the first time, permitted beneficiaries to switch to a different MA plan instead of traditional Medicare. Using 2016-2019 Medicare administrative data, we implemented a difference-in-differences approach to evaluate the impact of this policy on disenrollment from a plan within 1 month of initiating skilled nursing facility or home health services. When MA disenrollment rules became more flexible, overall rates of exiting MA plans did not change. Switching to a different MA plan increased after the policy change, but this outcome was so rare that this increase did not affect overall rates of exiting MA plans.

A model to increase care delivery in nursing homes: The role of Institutional Special Needs Plans

OBJECTIVE

To estimate differences in facility-level outcomes between nursing homes which reached Institutional Special Needs Plan (I-SNP) maturity and those which never cared for I-SNP enrollees.

STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN

We used a difference-in-differences design to estimate the effect of I-SNP maturity, defined as having at least 33.75% of Medicare long-stayers in the nursing home enrolled in any I-SNP. Our main outcome was the hospitalization rate in each nursing home-year. Secondary outcomes included the share of residents with medication use, fall, urinary tract infection, catheter insertion, pressure ulcer, physical restraint use, increased need for help with activities of daily living (ADLs), and mortality.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE

This repeated cross-sectional study used 100% Medicare claims, Minimum Data Set assessments, and publicly available Medicare Advantage (MA) plan characteristics data (2004-2021). We included all MA beneficiaries who resided in US nursing homes which reached I-SNP maturity and those without I-SNP enrollees.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified 2530 nursing homes which reached I-SNP maturity (treated) and 9830 nursing homes without I-SNP enrollees (untreated). There were some differences observed between these nursing homes, including shares of residents who were White (76.42% vs. 84.84%) and on Medicaid (66.94% vs. 55.45%). These nursing homes were also larger on average (141.76 beds vs. 87.56 beds). From the difference-in-differences model, nursing homes which reached I-SNP maturity experienced declines of 4.1 percentage points (pp) for hospitalizations, 1.0 pp for pressure ulcers, 1.3 pp for urinary tract infections (p < 0.001) alongside increases in the need for help with ADLs, use of antipsychotics, falls, and physical restraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing homes which reached I-SNP maturity experienced fewer hospitalizations and pressure ulcers but a decline in function and increase in other negative outcomes. I-SNPs may be a promising model to improve care for long-stay residents, but more research is needed to understand potential adverse consequences.

Association of Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare with Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Substance Use Disorders

BACKGROUND

Medicare Advantage (MA) includes incentives to reduce health care spending and insures over half of Medicare eligible adults. Substance use disorders (SUD) are common in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes between MA and traditional Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with SUD.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

PATIENTS

Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for alcohol withdrawal or opioid overdose from 2016 to 2021.

MEASURES

Primary outcomes included mortality and all-cause readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included use of SUD medications.

RESULTS

Of 104,833 beneficiaries hospitalized for alcohol withdrawal (mean age 62.1 [SD 11.5] years, 71.8% male) and 75,463 hospitalized for opioid overdose (mean age 64.5 [SD 12.5] years, 40.8% male), 36.4% and 37.3% were enrolled in MA, respectively. Adjusted rates of 30-day mortality were lower in MA for alcohol withdrawal (unadjusted 2.5% in MA vs 2.4% in traditional Medicare; adjusted difference -0.27 pp [95% CI -0.47, -0.08]) but similar for opioid overdose (7.8% in MA vs 7.9% in traditional Medicare; adjusted difference -0.13 pp [-0.54, 0.27]). Rates of 30-day readmissions were lower in MA for both alcohol withdrawal (12.3% in MA vs 13.7% in traditional Medicare; adjusted difference -1.01 pp [95% CI -1.44, -0.59]) and opioid overdose (14.8% in MA vs 17.6% in traditional Medicare; adjusted difference -1.93 pp [95% CI -2.49, -1.37]). Enrollment in MA was associated with lower use of medications for alcohol use disorder (unadjusted 9.6% in MA vs 11.3% in traditional Medicare; adjusted difference -1.66 pp [95% CI -2.72, -0.60]) but higher use of medications for opioid use disorder (unadjusted 4.9% in MA vs 4.2% in traditional Medicare; adjusted difference, 0.82 pp [95% CI 0.08, 1.57]).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to traditional Medicare, MA was associated with modestly lower 30-day mortality after alcohol withdrawal, lower 30-day readmission rates after alcohol withdrawal and opioid overdose hospitalizations, and mixed findings on medication use.

Skilled Nursing and Home Health Policy: A Primer for the Hospital Clinician

This paper addresses the increasing challenges faced by hospital clinicians in coordinating and recommending postacute care for patients, focusing on issues related to access to the most common postacute services: skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health agencies (HHAs). In coordinating discharges, hospital clinicians have minimal information on care delivery in these settings. This knowledge gap is exacerbated by the disrupted continuum of patient care between acute care hospitals, SNFs, and HHAs. To address these challenges, hospital clinicians must understand how recent federal policies have impacted SNF and HHA care provision. The paper provides an overview of recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) policies and programs affecting SNFs and HHAs, including: (1) fee-for-service reimbursement reform (ie, Patient Driven Payment Model [PDPM] and the Patient Driven Groupings Model [PDGM]); (2) bundled payment programs; (3) accountable care organizations; (4) Medicare Advantage plans. Overall, this paper aims to help hospital clinicians stay informed about the evolving landscape of postacute care delivery by providing relevant information on how recent policy changes have impacted patient care.

Processing and validation of inpatient Medicare Advantage data for use in hospital outcome measures

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of integrating Medicare Advantage (MA) admissions into the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital outcome measures through combining Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) encounter- and hospital-submitted inpatient claims.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Beneficiary enrollment data and inpatient claims from the Integrated Data Repository for 2018 Medicare discharges.

STUDY DESIGN

We examined timeliness of MA claims, compared diagnosis and procedure codes for admissions with claims submitted both by the hospital and the MAO (overlapping claims), and compared demographic characteristics and principal diagnosis codes for admissions with overlapping claims versus admissions with a single claim.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We combined hospital- and MAO-submitted claims to capture MA admissions from all hospitals and identified overlapping claims. For admissions with only an MAO-submitted claim, we used provider history data to match the National Provider Identifier on the claim to the CMS Certification Number used for reporting purposes in CMS outcome measures.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

After removing void and duplicate claims, identifying overlapped claims between the hospital- and MAO-submitted datasets, restricting claims to acute care and critical access hospitals, and bundling same admission claims, we identified 5,078,611 MA admissions. Of these, 76.1% were submitted by both the hospital and MAO, 14.2% were submitted only by MAOs, and 9.7% were submitted only by hospitals. Nearly all (96.6%) hospital-submitted claims were submitted within 3 months after a one-year performance period, versus 85.2% of MAO-submitted claims. Among the 3,864,524 admissions with overlapping claims, 98.9% shared the same principal diagnosis code between the two datasets, and 97.5% shared the same first procedure code.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient MA data are feasible for use in CMS claims-based hospital outcome measures. We recommend prioritizing hospital-submitted over MAO-submitted claims for analyses. Monitoring, data audits, and ongoing policies to improve the quality of MA data are important approaches to address potential missing data and errors.

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare

Importance

Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers have greater financial incentives to reduce the delivery of low-value services (LVS); however, there is limited evidence at a national level on the prevalence of LVS utilization among MA vs TM beneficiaries and whether LVS utilization rates vary among the largest MA insurers.

Objective

To determine whether there are differences in the rates of LVS delivered to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA vs TM, overall and by the 7 largest MA insurers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older residing in the US in 2018 with complete demographic information. Eligible TM beneficiaries were enrolled in Parts A, B, and D, and eligible MA beneficiaries were enrolled in Part C with Part D coverage. Data analysis was conducted between February 2022 and August 2024.

Exposures

Medicare plan type.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was utlization of 35 LVS defined by the Milliman Health Waste Calculator. An overdispersed Poisson regression model was used to calculate estimated margins comparing risk-adjusted rates of LVS in TM vs MA, overall and across the 7 largest MA insurers.

Results

The study sample included 3 671 364 unique TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [7.7] years; 1 502 631 female [40.9%]) and 2 299 618 unique MA beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.3] years; 983 592 female [42.8%]). LVS utilization was lower among those enrolled in MA compared with TM (50.02 vs 52.48 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -2.46 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). Within MA, LVS utilization was lower among beneficiaries enrolled in HMOs vs PPOs (48.03 vs 52.66 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -4.63 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -5.53 to -3.74 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). While MA beneficiaries enrolled in UnitedHealth, Humana, Centene, and smaller MA insurers had lower rates of LVS compared with those in TM, beneficiaries enrolled in CVS, Cigna, and Anthem showed no differences. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plans had higher rates of LVS compared with TM.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of nearly 6 million Medicare beneficiaries, utilization of LVS was on average lower among MA beneficiaries compared with TM beneficiaries, possibly owing to stronger financial incentives in MA to reduce LVS; however, meaningful differences existed across some of the largest MA insurers, suggesting that MA insurers may have variable ability to influence LVS reduction.

Minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: an observational study of medicare advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in medicare advantage (MA) plans has been steadily increasing. Prior research has shown differences in healthcare access and outcomes based on Medicare enrollment status. This study sought to compare utilization of minimally invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and postoperative outcomes between MA and Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of beneficiaries  ≥ 65.5 years of age enrolled in FFS and MA plans was performed of patients undergoing a CRC resection from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was operative approach, defined as minimally invasive (laparoscopic) or open. Secondary outcomes included robotic assistance, hospital length-of-stay, mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission. Using balancing weights, we performed a tapered analysis to examine outcomes with adjustment for potential confounders.

RESULTS

MA beneficiaries were less likely to have lymph node (12.9 vs 14.4%, p < 0.001) or distant metastases (15.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to receive chemotherapy (6.2% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001), compared to FFS beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries had a higher risk-adjusted likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic CRC resection (OR 1.12 (1.10-1.15), p < 0.001), and similar rates of robotic assistance (OR 1.00 (0.97-1.03), p = 0.912), compared to FFS beneficiaries. There were no differences in risk-adjusted length-of-stay (β coefficient 0.03 (- 0.05-0.10), p = 0.461) or mortality at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.99 (0.95-1.04), p = 0.787; OR 1.00 (0.96-1.04), p = 0.815; OR 0.98 (0.95-1.02), p = 0.380). MA beneficiaries had a lower likelihood of non-routine disposition (OR 0.77 (0.75-0.78), p < 0.001) and readmission at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.76 (0.73-0.80), p < 0.001; OR 0.78 (0.75-0.81), p < 0.001; OR 0.79 (0.76-0.81), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MA beneficiaries had less advanced disease at the time of CRC resection and a greater likelihood of undergoing a laparoscopic procedure. MA enrollment is associated with improved health outcomes for elderly beneficiaries undergoing operative treatment for CRC.

Physical and Cognitive Function Trends in Post-acute Care after Total Joint Arthroplasty in Medicare Beneficiaries: 2013-2018

OBJECTIVES

Physical and cognitive conditions of patients discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and home with home health agencies (HHAs) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have not been evaluated. The purpose of this study is to examine the physical and cognitive function trends of Medicare beneficiaries discharged to SNFs, HHAs, and IRFs following TJA from 2013 to 2018.

DESIGN

Observational study using Medicare enrollment, claims, and assessment data from 2013-2018.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

1,278,939 Medicare beneficiaries discharged to SNFs, HHAs, or IRFs for post-acute care following TJA from 2013 to 2018.

METHODS

Medicare data were used to examine the association between the endpoints of interest [discharge destination (SNF, HHA, or IRF) and the physical (measured using activities of daily living) and cognitive (measured using a range of setting-specific metrics) status of patients in each setting] and the year of TJA (2013-2018) by estimating multivariable models that controlled for patient- and hospital-level covariates.

RESULTS

Multivariable analysis of 1,278,939 TJAs revealed that SNF discharge decreased [44.15% (2013)-21.57% (2018), P < .001], HHA increased (46.72%-72.47%, P < .001), and IRF decreased (9.13%-5.69%, P < .001). For SNF, the mean physical function scores [14.61 (2013)-14.23 (2018), P < .001] and cognitive impairment (13.25%-12.33%, P = .01) decreased, indicating less dependence. Physical function scores (3.09-3.94, P < .001) and cognitive impairment (13.95%-16.52%, P < .001) increased for HHA patients, indicating greater dependence. For IRF, motor functional independence measure decreased (38.81-37.78, P < .001) and cognitive dependence increased (39.08%-46.36%, P < .001), indicating greater dependence.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

From 2013 to 2018, patients were increasingly discharged to HHA. Although SNF patients were less dependent over time, HHA and IRF patients were physically and cognitively more dependent. Each setting is likely to benefit from policy and fiscal supports that help them manage changes in the volume and clinical intensity of patients requiring their services.

Trends in Post-Acute Care use in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe national trends in hospitalization and post-acute care utilization rates in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health (HH) for both Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries, reaching up to the COVID-19 pandemic (2015-2019).

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational using 100% sample of Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file (MedPAR), the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File, the Minimum Data Set (MDS), and the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older enrolled in MA or TM who were hospitalized and discharged alive.

METHODS

We first calculated the proportions of MA and TM beneficiaries who were hospitalized and who used any post-acute care, as well as the total number of days of post-acute care used. We also calculated the size of the post-acute care network used by TM and MA beneficiaries within each hospital in our sample and the measured quality (star ratings) of the post-acute care providers used.

RESULTS

We found hospitalizations, SNF stays, and HH stays were all decreasing over time in both populations. Although similar proportions of MA and TM beneficiaries received SNF or HH care, MA beneficiaries received fewer days. The largest difference we found was in the number of post-acute care providers used in TM and MA, with MA using far fewer; however, quality ratings were similar among post-acute care providers used in each program.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Together, these results suggest MA beneficiaries have fewer days in post-acute care, receive care from fewer providers of similar measured quality to TM, but have a similar number of days outside the hospital or SNF in the first 100 days after hospital discharge.

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.

Medicare skilled nursing facilities' occupancy and payer source: The moderating role of financial performance

Objectives

While extensive research has focused on patient outcomes in skilled nursing facilities, a critical gap remains in understanding factors influencing their managerial performance, particularly occupancy rates. This study examines the occupancy rates of skilled nursing facilities and assesses the significance of two important drivers of managerial performance that have not received sufficient attention-the influence of payer mix and total profit margin. Specifically, we focused on the role played by a nursing home's financial performance (as assessed by profit margin) in influencing the relationship between payer mix and occupancy rate among skilled nursing facilities.

Methods

Data were extracted from the 2019 to 2020 Joint Annual Report of Nursing Homes for a sample of 612 skilled nursing facilities in Tennessee, USA. Regression analysis was performed by fitting a generalized estimating equation of occupancy rate.

Results

Compared to skilled nursing facilities in the lowest quartile of profit margin, for example, those in the highest quartile had approximately 18 percentage points higher occupancy rates per unit increase in resident days of care covered by traditional Medicare (β = 0.18, p = 0.0028). Similarly, skilled nursing facilities in the second highest quartile of profit margin had a higher occupancy rate by approximately 23 percentage points per unit increase in Medicare Advantage (β = 0.23, p = 0.0375) when compared to those in the lowest quartile of profit margin.

Conclusions

Skilled nursing facilities with stronger financial performance generally have higher occupancy rates, particularly notable in relation to an upswing in payer sources such as traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, when compared to skilled nursing facilities with weaker profitability. Given the increasingly larger role of Medicare in long-term care funding, policymakers and nursing home managers may find it useful to consider our findings when evaluating opportunities to enhance managerial performance of skilled nursing facilities.

Regional variation in length of stay for stroke inpatient rehabilitation in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

Regional variation in health care use threatens efficient and equitable resource allocation. Within the Medicare program, variation in care delivery may differ between centrally administered traditional Medicare (TM) and privately managed Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which rely on different strategies to control care utilization. As MA enrollment grows, it is particularly important for program design and long-term health care equity to understand regional variation between TM and MA plans. This study examined regional variation in length of stay (LOS) for stroke inpatient rehabilitation between TM and MA plans in 2019 and how that changed in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results showed that MA plans had larger across-region variations than TM (SD = 0.26 vs 0.24 days; 11% relative difference). In 2020, across-region variation for MA further increased, but the trend for TM stayed relatively stable. Market competition among all inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) within a region was associated with a moderate increase in within-region variation of LOS (elasticity = 0.46). Policies reducing administrative variation across MA plans or increasing regional market competition among IRFs can mitigate regional variation in health care use.

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.

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.

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.

Medicare Advantage enrollment and outcomes of post-acute nursing home care among patients with dementia

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been rapidly growing. We examined whether MA enrollment affects the outcomes of post-acute nursing home care among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). We exploited year-to-year changes in MA penetration rates within counties from 2012 through 2019. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics and county fixed effects, we found that MA enrollment was not associated with days spent at home, nursing home days, likelihood of becoming a long-stay resident, hospital days, hospital readmission, or 1-year mortality. There was a modest increase in successful discharge to the community by 0.73 percentage points (relative increase of 2.4%) associated with a 10-percentage-point increase in MA enrollment. The results are consistent among racial/ethnic subgroups and dual-eligible patients. These findings suggest an imperative need to monitor and improve quality of managed care among enrollees with ADRD.

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.

Preferences for Postacute Care at Home vs Facilities

Importance

Two in 5 US hospital stays result in rehabilitative postacute care, typically through skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) or home health agencies (HHAs). However, a lack of clear guidelines and understanding of patient and caregiver preferences make it challenging to promote high-value patient-centered care.

Objective

To assess preferences and willingness to pay for facility-based vs home-based postacute care among patients and caregivers, considering demographic variations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In September 2022, a nationally representative survey was conducted with participants 45 years or older. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants acting as patients or caregivers chose between facility-based and home-based postacute care that best met their preferences, needs, and family conditions. Survey weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Preferences and willingness to pay for various attributes of postacute care settings were assessed, examining variation based on demographic factors, socioeconomic status, job security, and previous care experiences.

Results

A total of 2077 adults were invited to participate in the survey; 1555 (74.9%) completed the survey. In the weighted sample, 52.9% of participants were women, 6.5% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11.2% were Black or African American, 78.4% were White; the mean (SD) age was 62.6 (9.6) years; and there was a survey completion rate of 74.9%. Patients and caregivers showed a substantial willingness to pay for home-based and high-quality care. Patients and caregivers were willing to pay an additional $58.08 per day (95% CI, 45.32-70.83) and $45.54 per day (95% CI, 31.09-59.99) for HHA care compared with a shared SNF room, respectively. However, increased demands on caregiver time within an HHA scenario and socioeconomic challenges, such as insecure employment, shifted caregivers' preferences toward facility-based care. There was a strong aversion to below average quality. To avoid below average SNF care, patients and caregivers were willing to pay $75.21 per day (95% CI, 61.68-88.75) and $79.10 per day (95% CI, 63.29-94.91) compared with average-quality care, respectively. Additionally, prior awareness and experience with postacute care was associated with willingness to pay for home-based care. No differences in preferences among patients and caregivers based on race, educational background, urban or rural residence, general health status, or housing type were observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this survey study underscore a prevailing preference for home-based postacute care, aligning with current policy trends. However, attention is warranted for disadvantaged groups who are potentially overlooked during the shift toward home-based care, particularly those facing caregiver constraints and socioeconomic hardships. Ensuring equitable support and improved quality measure tools are crucial for promoting patient-centric postacute care, with emphasis on addressing the needs of marginalized groups.

Postacute Care for Medicare Advantage Enrollees Who Switched to Traditional Medicare Compared With Those Who Remained in Medicare Advantage

Importance

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans receive capitated per enrollee payments that create financial incentives to provide care more efficiently than traditional Medicare (TM); however, incentives could be associated with MA plans reducing use of beneficial services. Postacute care can improve functional status, but it is costly, and thus may be provided differently to Medicare beneficiaries by MA plans compared with TM.

Objective

To estimate the association of MA compared with TM enrollment with postacute care use and postdischarge outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cohort study using Medicare data on 4613 hospitalizations among retired Ohio state employees and 2 comparison groups in 2015 and 2016. The study investigated the association of a policy change with use of postacute care and outcomes. The policy changed state retiree health benefits in Ohio from a mandatory MA plan to subsidies for either supplemental TM coverage or an MA plan. After policy implementation, approximately 75% of retired Ohio state employees switched to TM. Hospitalizations for 3 high-volume conditions that usually require postacute rehabilitation were assessed. Data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files were used to identify all hospitalizations in short-term acute care hospitals. Difference-in-difference regressions were used to estimate changes for retired Ohio state employees compared with other 2015 MA enrollees in Ohio and with Kentucky public retirees who were continuously offered a mandatory MA plan. Data analyses were performed from September 1, 2019, to November 30, 2023.

Exposures

Enrollment in Ohio state retiree health benefits in 2015, after which most members shifted to TM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Received care in an inpatient rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, or home health, or any postacute care; the occurrence of any hospital readmission; the number of days in the community during the 30 days after hospital discharge; and mortality.

Results

The study sample included 2373 hospitalizations for Ohio public retirees, 1651 hospitalizations for other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio, and 589 hospitalizations for public retirees in Kentucky. After the 2016 policy implementation, the percentage of hospitalizations covered by MA decreased by 70.1 (95% CI, -74.2 to -65.9) percentage points (pp), inpatient rehabilitation facility admissions increased by 9.7 (95% CI, 4.7 to 14.7) pp, use of only home health or skilled nursing facility care fell by 8.6 (95% CI, -14.6 to -2.6) pp, and days in the community fell by 1.6 (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.3) days for Ohio public retirees compared with other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio. There was no change in 30-day mortality or hospital readmissions; similar results were found by comparisons using Kentucky public retirees as a control group.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study indicate that after a change in retiree health benefits, most Ohio public retirees shifted from MA to TM and received more intensive postacute care with no significant change in measured short-term postdischarge outcomes. Future work should consider additional measures of postacute functional status over a longer follow-up period.

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

OBJECTIVE

To describe common methodological problems that arise in comparisons of Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM) and within-MA studies and provide suggestions of how researchers can address these issues.

STUDY SETTING

Published research evaluating Medicare coverage options in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We considered key conceptual challenges and promising solutions that have been used thus far and suggest additional directions.

DATA COLLECTION

Not available.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Many existing studies of MA versus TM include significant limitations, such as failing to account for unobserved confounders driving both beneficiary coverage choice and health outcomes once enrolled, not accounting for variation in benefit generosity, provider networks, or plan design across MA plans, and/or having been conducted at a time when MA enrollment was less than a third of all Medicare beneficiaries. We provide a review of methods that can help researchers to overcome these weaknesses and suggest additional methods and data sources that may aid future research.

CONCLUSIONS

The MA program is becoming an essential part of the US healthcare system. By accounting for non-random movement into and out of MA and studying the heterogeneity of beneficiary experience across plan and market characteristics, researchers can provide the high-quality evidence necessary for policymakers to design the program and reform TM in ways that maximize beneficiary outcomes.

An assessment of completeness and medical coding of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations in two national data sets

OBJECTIVE

To compare the Encounter Data System (EDS) and Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) completeness and medical coding of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations.

DATA SOURCES

FY 2016-FY 2019 data limited to hospitals paid under Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary data analysis.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Completeness of EDS and MedPAR data was estimated using the total number of unique hospitalizations in both data sources as denominator. Deriving this denominator involved matching cases in the EDS and MedPAR by MA enrollee, discharge date, and hospital. The higher the match rate, the more informative the comparison of EDS and MedPAR medical coding of the same hospitalization. EDS and MedPAR codes were assessed for similarity on six measures of Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (MS-DRG) assignment and identical diagnosis and procedure codes.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

EDS hospitalizations' completeness increased steadily each year from 90% to 93%, driven by the 23 largest Medicare Advantage Organizations, which account for 83% of total cases. MedPAR completeness was relatively stable (89%) and benefited from 91% completeness among the largest hospitals, which are often teaching hospitals and account for 63% of MedPAR cases. By 2019, 97% of medical cases were assigned the same MS-DRG, indicating the high consistency of the severity level coding, since 98% were assigned the same base MS-DRGs, which include all severity levels for the same condition. Without chart reviews, medical cases with identical diagnosis codes increased from 87% to 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

The EDS has a completeness advantage over MedPAR for studies of non-teaching disproportionate share (DSH) hospitals and individual hospitals generally. MedPAR is only slightly less complete for hospitalizations of teaching DSH hospitals and large hospitals in general. A highly consistent EDS and MedPAR medical coding of matched cases is an important finding since the matched cases are 88% of EDS and 90% of MedPAR cases.

Cardiovascular hospitalizations for Medicare advantage beneficiaries in the United States, 2009 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Federal programs measuring hospital quality of care for acute cardiovascular conditions are based solely on Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, and exclude Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. In this study we characterize the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA at the time of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and ischemic stroke hospitalization.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study of short-term acute care hospitals using Medicare claims in 2009 and 2019.

RESULTS

There were 2,653 hospitals in 2009 and 2,732 hospitals in 2019. Across hospitals, the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI who were enrolled in MA increased between 2009 (hospital-level median 14.4% [IQR 5.1%-26.0%]) and 2019 (33.3% [IQR 20.6%-45.2%]), with substantial variation across hospitals. Similar patterns were observed for HF (13.0% [IQR 5.3%-24.3%] to 31.0% [IQR 20.2%-42.3%]) and ischemic stroke (14.6% [IQR 5.3%-26.7%] to 33.3% [IQR 20.9%-46.0%]). Within each hospital referral region, hospital size (large 36.3% vs small 24.5%; adjusted difference 6.7%, 95% CI, 4.5%-8.8%), teaching status (teaching 34.5% vs nonteaching 28.2%; 2.8%, 1.4%-4.1%), and ownership status (private nonprofit 32.3% vs public 24.5%; 5.2%, 3.5%-6.9%) were each associated with a higher hospital MA proportion.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI, HF, and ischemic stroke enrolled in MA doubled between 2009 and 2019, with substantial variation across hospitals. These findings have implications for federal efforts to measure and improve quality, which currently focus only on FFS beneficiaries.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of race/ethnicity coding in Medicare data and whether misclassification errors lead to biased outcome reporting by race/ethnicity among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

In this national study of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, we analyzed individual-level data from the Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS), race/ethnicity codes from the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF), and outcomes from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) files from 2015 to 2017.

STUDY DESIGN

We used self-reported beneficiary race/ethnicity to validate the Medicare Enrollment Database (EDB) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) race/ethnicity codes. We measured the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Medicare EDB and RTI codes compared to self-report. For outcomes, we compared annualized hospital admission, 30-day, and 90-day readmission rates.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who completed either the HOS or CAHPS survey were linked to MBSF and MedPAR files. Validity was assessed for both self-reported multiracial and single-race beneficiaries.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

For beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the EDB and RTI race/ethnicity codes have high validity for identifying non-Hispanic White or Black beneficiaries, but lower sensitivity for beneficiaries self-reported Hispanic any race (EDB: 28.3%, RTI: 85.9%) or non-Hispanic Asian American or Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (EDB: 56.1%, RTI: 72.1%). Only 8.7% of beneficiaries self-reported non-Hispanic American Indian Alaska Native are correctly identified by either Medicare code, resulting in underreported annualized hospitalization rates (EDB: 31.5%, RTI: 31.6% vs. self-report: 34.6%). We find variation in 30-day readmission rates for Hispanic beneficiaries across race categories, which is not measured by Medicare race/ethnicity coding.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Medicare race/ethnicity codes misclassify and bias outcomes for non-Hispanic AIAN beneficiaries, who are more likely to select multiple racial identities. Revisions to race/ethnicity categories are needed to better represent multiracial/ethnic identities among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

Postacute Care Services Use and Outcomes Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Importance

Better evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes.

Objective

To compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design.

Exposures

Enrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Postacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services.

Results

Included in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.

State Regulations and Assisted Living Residents' Potentially Burdensome Transitions at the End of Life

Background: Potentially burdensome transitions at the end of life (e.g., repeated hospitalizations toward the end of life and/or health care transitions in the last three days of life) are common among residential care/assisted living (RC/AL) residents, and are associated with lower quality of end-of-life care reported by bereaved family members. We examined the association between state RC/AL regulations relevant to end-of-life care delivery and the likelihood of residents experiencing potentially burdensome transitions. Methods: Retrospective cohort study combining RC/AL registries of states' regulations with Medicare claims data for residents in large RC/ALs (i.e., 25+ beds) in the United States on the 120th day before death (N = 129,153), 2017-2019. Independent variables were state RC/AL regulations relevant to end-of-life care, including third-party services, staffing, and medication management. Analyses included: (1) separate logistic regression models for each RC/AL regulation, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates; (2) separate logistic regression models with a Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) subgroup to control for comorbidities, and (3) multivariable regression analysis, including all regulations in both the overall sample and the Medicare FFS subgroup. Results: We found a lack of associations between potentially burdensome transitions and regulations regarding third-party services and staffing. There were small associations found between regulations related to medication management (i.e., requiring regular medication reviews, permitting direct care workers for injections, requiring/not requiring licensed nursing staff for injections) and potentially burdensome transitions. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, the associations of RC/AL regulations with potentially burdensome transitions were either small or not statistically significant, calling for more studies to explain the wide variation observed in end-of-life outcomes among RC/AL residents.

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.

Medicare Advantage Patterns of Poststroke Discharge to an Inpatient Rehabilitation or Skilled Nursing Facility: A Consideration of Demographic, Functional, and Payer Factors

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the factors influencing the discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) or a skilled nursing facility (SNF) of people poststroke with Medicare Advantage plans.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted with data from naviHealth, a company that manages postacute care discharge placement on behalf of Medicare Advantage organizations. The dependent variable was discharge destination (IRF or SNF). Variables included age, sex, prior living setting, functional status (Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care [AM-PAC]), acute hospital length of stay, comorbidities, and payers (health plans). Analysis estimated relative risk (RR) of discharge to SNF, while controlling for regional variation.

RESULTS

Individuals discharged to an SNF were older (RR = 1.17), women (RR = 1.05), lived at home alone or in assisted living (RR = 1.13 and 1.39, respectively), had comorbidities impacting their function "some" or "severely" (RR = 1.43 and 1.81, respectively), and had a length of stay greater than 5 days (RR = 1.16). Individuals with better AM-PAC Basic Mobility (RR = 0.95) went to an IRF, and individuals with better Daily Activity (RR = 1.01) scores went to an SNF. There was a substantial, significant variation in discharge of individuals to SNF by payer group (RR range = 1.12-1.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that individuals poststroke are more likely to be discharged to an SNF than to an IRF. This study did not find a different discharge decision-making picture for those with Medicare Advantage plans than previously described for other insurance programs.

IMPACT

Medicare Advantage payers have varied patterns in discharge placement to an IRF or SNF for patients poststroke.

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to and enrollment in high-quality Medicare Advantage plans

OBJECTIVE

Racial and ethnic minority enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans tend to be in lower-quality plans, measured by a 5-star quality rating system. We examine whether differential access to high-rated plans was associated with this differential enrollment in high-rated plans by race and ethnicity among MA enrollees.

DATA SOURCES

The Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File and MA Landscape File for 2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We first examined county-level MA plan offerings by race and ethnicity. We then examined the association of racial and ethnic differences in enrollment by star rating by controlling for the following different sets of covariates: (1) individual-level characteristics only, and (2) individual-level characteristics and county-level MA plan offerings.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Not applicable PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Racial and ethnic minority enrollees had, on average, more MA plans available in their counties of residence compared to White enrollees (16.1, 20.8, 20.2, vs. 15.1 for Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and White enrollees), but had fewer number of high-rated plans (4-star plans or higher) and/or more number of low-rated plans (3.5-star plans or lower). While racial and ethnic minority enrollees had lower enrollment in 4-4.5 star plans than White enrollees, this difference substantially decreased after accounting for county-level MA plan offerings (-9.1 to -0.5 percentage points for Black enrollees, -15.9 to -5.0 percentage points for Asian/Pacific Islander enrollees, and -12.7 to 0.6 percentage points for Hispanic enrollees). Results for Black enrollees were notable as the racial difference reversed when we limited the analysis to those who live in counties that offer a 5-star plan. After accounting for county-level MA plan offerings, Black enrollees had 3.2 percentage points higher enrollment in 5-star plans than White enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in enrollment in high-rated MA plans by race and ethnicity may be explained by limited access and not by individual characteristics or enrollment decisions.

Effect of Medicare Advantage on Hospital Readmission and Mortality Rankings

BACKGROUND

Medicare links hospital performance on readmissions and mortality to payment solely on the basis of outcomes among fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Whether including Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, who account for nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, in the evaluation of hospital performance affects rankings is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the inclusion of MA beneficiaries in readmission and mortality measures reclassifies hospital performance rankings compared with current measures.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Population-based.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitals participating in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program or Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program.

MEASUREMENTS

Using the 100% Medicare files for FFS and MA claims, the authors calculated 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia on the basis of only FFS beneficiaries and then both FFS and MA beneficiaries. Hospitals were divided into quintiles of performance based on FFS beneficiaries only, and the proportion of hospitals that were reclassified to a different performance group with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries was calculated.

RESULTS

Of the hospitals in the top-performing quintile for readmissions and mortality based on FFS beneficiaries, between 21.6% and 30.2% were reclassified to a lower-performing quintile with the inclusion of MA beneficiaries. Similar proportions of hospitals were reclassified from the bottom performance quintile to a higher one across all measures and conditions. Hospitals with a higher proportion of MA beneficiaries were more likely to improve in performance rankings.

LIMITATION

Hospital performance measurement and risk adjustment differed slightly from those used by Medicare.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 1 in 4 top-performing hospitals is reclassified to a lower performance group when MA beneficiaries are included in the evaluation of hospital readmissions and mortality. These findings suggest that Medicare's current value-based programs provide an incomplete picture of hospital performance.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Does prospective payment influence quality of care? A systematic review of the literature

In the light of rising health expenditures, the cost-efficient provision of high-quality inpatient care is on the agenda of policy-makers worldwide. In the last decades, prospective payment systems (PPS) for inpatient care were used as an instrument to contain costs and increase transparency of provided services. It is well documented in the literature that prospective payment has an impact on structure and processes of inpatient care. However, less is known about its effect on key outcome indicators of quality of care. In this systematic review, we synthesize evidence from studies investigating how financial incentives induced by PPS affect indicators of outcome quality domains of care, i.e. health status and user evaluation outcomes. We conduct a review of evidence published in English, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish language produced since 1983 and synthesize results of the studies narratively by comparing direction of effects and statistical significance of different PPS interventions. We included 64 studies, where 10 are of high, 18 of moderate and 36 of low quality. The most commonly observed PPS intervention is the introduction of per-case payment with prospectively set reimbursement rates. Abstracting evidence on mortality, readmission, complications, discharge disposition and discharge destination, we find the evidence to be inconclusive. Thus, claims that PPS either cause great harm or significantly improve the quality of care are not supported by our findings. Further, the results suggest that reductions of length of stay and shifting treatment to post-acute care facilities may occur in the course of PPS implementations. Accordingly, decision-makers should avoid low capacity in this area.

Validation of the Standardized Function Data Elements among Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Residents

OBJECTIVE

To examine the distribution of admission and discharge functional abilities among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay. Further, to assess the validity of the standardized discharge self-care and mobility data by examining their association to community discharge.

DESIGN

Observational study of SNF Medicare fee-for-service residents' self-care and mobility scores at admission and discharge.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries with Medicare Part A SNF stays in 2017 from 15,127 Medicare-certified SNFs.

METHODS

We calculated self-care and mobility score frequencies and percentages at admission and discharge to describe the functional abilities of SNF residents; we examined discharge scores by percentage discharge to the community to evaluate item construct validity.

RESULTS

Between admission and discharge, SNF resident scores showed overall improvements in function for all self-care and most mobility activities. For example, between admission and discharge the percentage of residents independent with toileting hygiene and sit to lying increased from 3.7% and 8.2%, to 25.3% and 32.7%, respectively. For all but 2 data elements, residents with lower functional abilities had a lower percentage of being discharged into the community, and the percentage of residents discharged into the community increased as residents performed functional activities of self-care and mobility at higher score ratings. There was a consistent monotonic relationship between residents' discharge self-care and mobility scores and community discharge rates for all but 2 data elements.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our study found measurable improvements for each self-care and mobility function item for SNF Medicare Part A resident stays in 2017. The results also demonstrated a positive association between higher discharge self-care and mobility scores and higher discharge to community rates. These findings support the validity of the data elements in measuring functional abilities among SNF Medicare Part A residents.

Comparison of the Pathway to Hospice Enrollment Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare

Importance

Older adults in Medicare Advantage (MA) enroll in hospice at higher rates than those in traditional Medicare (TM), but it is unclear whether the pathway of care prior to hospice use differs between MA and TM.

Objective

To examine the site of care prior to hospice enrollment for MA beneficiaries compared with those in TM.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare claims data for decedents in calendar years 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2018 who enrolled in hospice in the last 90 days of life. Data were analyzed from February 11, 2022, to October 24, 2022.

Exposures

Enrollment in MA or TM in the last month of life.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the site of care prior to hospice enrollment, defined as hospital, nursing home, and home with or without home health, dichotomized as community vs hospital in a logistic regression model. Covariates included decedent demographics, hospice primary diagnosis, and county-level MA penetration. Differences in hospice length of stay between MA beneficiaries and TM beneficiaries were assessed using linear and logistic regression models.

Results

In this study of 3 164 959 decedents, mean (SD) age was 83.1 (8.6) years, 55.8% were female, and 28.8% were enrolled in MA. Decedents in MA were more likely to enroll in hospice from a community setting than were those in TM, although the gap narrowed over time from an unadjusted 11.1% higher rate of community enrollment in MA vs TM in 2011 (50.1% vs 39.0%) to 8.1% in 2018 (46.4% vs 38.3%). In the primary adjusted analysis over the entire study period, MA enrollment was associated with an 8.09-percentage point (95% CI, 7.96-8.21 percentage points) higher rate of hospice enrollment from the community vs all other sites. This association remained in multiple sensitivity analyses to account for potential differences in the populations enrolled in MA vs TM. The mean overall hospice length of stay was 0.29 days (95% CI, 0.24-0.34 days) longer for MA decedents compared with TM decedents.

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in MA were more likely to enroll in hospice from community settings vs following inpatient stays. However, hospice length of stay was not substantially different between MA and TM. Further research is needed to understand how MA plans influence hospice use and the direct association with quality of end-of-life care as reported by older adults and their families.

Prevalence of use and characteristics of users of home-based medical care in Medicare Advantage

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Home-based medical care (HBMC) is longitudinal medical care provided by physicians, advanced practice providers, and, often, inter-professional care teams to patients in their homes. Our objective is to determine the prevalence of HBMC among older adults (≥65) insured by a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan and compare characteristics of those who receive HBMC to those who do not.

METHODS

Study used de-identified medical claims and enrollment records for MA beneficiaries during calendar years 2017 and 2018 linked with socioeconomic status data in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. We defined a cohort of MA beneficiaries age ≥65 receiving HBMC for at least 2 months during 2017-2018, described the cohort using demographic, utilization, and comorbidity data and compared it to a 5% random sample of a population of MA beneficiaries age ≥65 not receiving HBMC (No HBMC).

RESULTS

Overall, 1.45% of the study cohort age ≥65 received HBMC. Compared to No HBMC (n = 132,147), those receiving HBMC (n = 38,800) were more likely to be: older (46.6% vs. 11.9% age 85+); female (70.8% vs. 58.5%); Black (12.3% vs. 11.3%); urban (90.3% vs. 81.3%); experience hospitalization (38.0% vs. 13.3%), emergency department visit (58.3% vs. 26.9%), ambulance trip (44.1% vs. 9.6%), skilled nursing facility (37.6% vs. 6.4%), or hospice care admission (21.1% vs. 3.5%). They also were more likely to experience a wide range of chronic conditions including dementia (58.1% vs. 5.2%), morbidity burden (Charlson score 3.4 vs. 1.8), and serious illness (77.1% vs. 29.5%). All comparisons p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

MA beneficiaries who received HBMC are older, experience greater chronic and serious illness burden, and higher levels of facility-based care than those who did not receive HBMC. MA plans need strategies to identify patients that would benefit from HBMC and develop approaches to deliver such care to this impactful, often invisible population.

Impact of Medicare eligibility on informal caregiving for surgery and stroke

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the intensity of family and friend care changes after older individuals enroll in Medicare at age 65.

DATA SOURCES

Health and Retirement Study survey data (1998-2018).

STUDY DESIGN

We compared informal care received by patients hospitalized for stroke, heart surgery, or joint surgery and who were stratified into propensity-weighted pre- and post-Medicare eligibility cohorts. A regression discontinuity design compared the self-reported likelihood of any care receipt, weekly hours of overall informal care, and intensity of informal care (hours among those receiving any care) at Medicare eligibility.

DATA COLLECTION

Not applicable.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

A total of 2270 individuals were included; 1674 (73.7%) stroke, 240 (10.6%) heart surgery, and 356 (15.7%) joint surgery patients. Mean (SD) care received was 20.0 (42.1) weekly hours. Of the 1214 (53.5%) patients who received informal care, the mean (SD) care receipt was 37.4 (51.7) weekly hours. Mean (SD) overall weekly care received was 23.4 (45.5), 13.9 (35.8), and 7.8 (21.6) for stroke, heart surgery, and joint surgery patients, respectively. The onset of Medicare eligibility was associated with a 13.6 percentage-point decrease in the probability of informal care received for stroke patients (p = 0.003) but not in the other acute care cohorts. Men had a 16.8 percentage-point decrease (p = 0.002) in the probability of any care receipt.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare coverage was associated with a substantial decrease in family and friend caregiving use for stroke patients. Informal care may substitute for rather than complement restorative care, given that Medicare is known to expand the use of postacute care. The observed spillover effect of Medicare coverage on informal caregiving has implications for patient function and caregiver burden and should be considered in episode-based reimbursement models that alter professional rehabilitative care intensity.

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 of Medicare Advantage Star Ratings With Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions

BACKGROUND

Enrollment in high-quality Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, measured by a 5-star quality rating system, was lower among racial and ethnic minority enrollees than White enrollees partly due to fewer high-quality plans available in their counties of residence. This may contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether there were racial and ethnic disparities in ACSC hospitalizations among MA enrollees overall and by star rating.

METHODS

Using the Medicare enrollment and claims data for 2016, we identified White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollees in MA plans. We estimated racial and ethnic disparities in ACSC hospitalizations (per 10,000 enrollees) overall and by star rating.

RESULTS

We found that the adjusted rates of ACSC hospitalizations were significantly higher among Black enrollees than White enrollees overall [39.4 (95% confidence interval: 36.3-42.5)]. However, no significant disparities were found among Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollees. The adjusted rates of ACSC hospitalizations were higher in lower-rated plans than higher-rated plans in all racial and ethnic groups. The significant disparities in ACSC hospitalizations by star rating were the most pronounced between White and Black enrollees. We found suggestive evidence that enrollment in lower-rated plans was associated with higher disparities in ACSC hospitalizations between White and Black enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial disparities in ACSC hospitalizations exist between White and Black enrollees in MA plans, especially for lower-rated plans. Policies aimed at reducing racial disparities in ACSC hospitalizations could include improving access to high-rated plans.

Medicaid Expansion and Medicare-Financed Hospitalizations Among Adult Patients With Incident Kidney Failure

Importance

Although Medicare provides health insurance coverage for most patients with kidney failure in the US, Medicare beneficiaries who initiate dialysis without supplemental coverage are exposed to substantial out-of-pocket costs. The availability of expanded Medicaid coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) for adults with kidney failure may improve access to care and reduce Medicare-financed hospitalizations after dialysis initiation.

Objective

To examine the implications of the ACA's Medicaid expansion for Medicare-financed hospitalizations, health insurance coverage, and predialysis nephrology care among Medicare-covered adults aged 19 to 64 years with incident kidney failure in the first year after initiating dialysis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach to assess Medicare-financed hospitalizations among adults aged 19 to 64 years who initiated dialysis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, while covered by Medicare Part A (up to 5 years postexpansion). Data on patients were obtained from the Renal Management Information System's End Stage Renal Disease Medical Evidence Report, which includes data for all patients initiating outpatient maintenance dialysis regardless of health insurance coverage, treatment modality, or citizenship status, and these data were linked with claims data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review. Data were analyzed from January to August 2022.

Exposure

Living in a Medicaid expansion state.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were number of Medicare-financed hospitalizations and hospital days in the first 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes included dual Medicare and Medicaid coverage at 91 days after dialysis initiation and the presence of an arteriovenous fistula or graft at dialysis initiation for patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Results

The study population included 188 671 adults, with 97 071 living in Medicaid expansion states (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [9.4] years; 58 329 men [60.1%]) and 91 600 living in nonexpansion states (mean [SD] age, 53.0 [9.6] years; 52 677 men [57.5%]). In the first 3 months after dialysis initiation, Medicaid expansion was associated with a significant decrease in Medicare-financed hospitalizations (-4.24 [95% CI, -6.70 to -1.78] admissions per 100 patient-years; P = .001) and hospital days (-0.73 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.39] days per patient-year; P < .001), relative reductions of 8% for both outcomes. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 2.58-percentage point (95% CI, 0.88-4.28 percentage points; P = .004) increase in dual Medicare and Medicaid coverage at 91 days after dialysis initiation and a 1.65-percentage point (95% CI, 0.31-3.00 percentage points; P = .02) increase in arteriovenous fistula or graft at initiation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study with a difference-in-differences analysis, the ACA's Medicaid expansion was associated with decreases in Medicare-financed hospitalizations and hospital days and increases in dual Medicare and Medicaid coverage. These findings suggest favorable spillover outcomes of Medicaid expansion to Medicare-financed care, which is the primary payer for patients with kidney failure.

Pathway to Hospice: How Has Place of Care before Hospice Changed with the Growth of Hospice in the United States?

Background: Hospice use among Medicare decedents increased from 21.6% in 2000 to 51.6% in 2019. Whether this growth has been accompanied by more referrals to hospice directly from the community is not known. Objective: To assess trends in place of care before hospice enrollment. Design: Retrospective cohort from 2011 to 2018. Subjects: Medicare decedents age ≥66 years. Measure: Location of care before hospice enrollment in the last 90 days of life, defined as: the community with and without home health, short- or long-term nursing facility, or inpatient hospital. A county-level random effects model examined changes in enrollment from the community after adjusting for admitting diagnosis, age, race/ethnicity, sex, and Medicaid participation. Results: Among hospice enrollees (N = 7,650,933), 27.7% transitioned to hospice from the community, 31.8% transitioned from the hospital, and 10.1% transitioned after short- or long-term nursing facility stay. Rates of enrollment to hospice from the community remained stable from 35.1% in 2011 to 34.3% in 2018. After adjustment, the proportion enrolling in hospice from the community decreased by 1.2% (95% confidence interval -1.0% to 1.4%). Place of care before hospice enrollment in 2018 varied by hospice admitting diagnosis, with patients with cancer more likely to enroll from the community (39.5%) and patients with cerebrovascular accidents from the hospital (53.2%). Prior place of care varied by state, with Florida having the highest rate of the enrollment following hospitalization (47.8%). Conclusion: Despite the growth of hospice, the site of care before hospice enrollment has remained relatively stable and was strongly influenced by region.

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.

Effects of Medicare advantage on patterns of end-of-life care among Medicare decedents

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment on patterns of end-of-life care.

DATA SOURCES

We used data from the Master Beneficiary Summary File, the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review, hospice claims, the Minimum Data Set, the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, the Area Health Resources File, and Geographic Variation Public Use File for 2012-2014.

STUDY DESIGN

To address selective enrollment into MA, we exploited a discontinuity in payment rates by county population (urban floor payments) as an instrument.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified Medicare beneficiaries continuously enrolled in MA or TM during their last year of life between 2012 and 2014 using Medicare administrative data.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We did not find evidence that MA enrollment led to a change in hospital admissions in the last 30 days of life, but MA enrollment decreased hospital as the site of death by 11.0 (95% CI: -13.9 to -8.1) percentage points. Once hospitalized, however, MA enrollment increased use of intensive care by 6.7 (95% CI: 0.3 to 13.1) percentage points and non-invasive mechanical ventilation by 9.2 (95% CI: 5.5 to 12.9) percentage points. MA enrollment increased hospice use by 6.2 (95% CI: 2.3 to 10.1) percentage points at time of death and 7.7 (95% CI: 3.8 to 11.6) percentage points in the last 30 days of life. Particularly, MA enrollment increased hospice admissions among those who were admitted to the hospital within 30 days prior to hospice admission by 18.8 (95% CI: 13.8 to 23.8) percentage points. However, MA enrollment decreased hospice admissions among those who were admitted to home health within 30 days prior to hospice admission by 18.6 (95% CI: -21.9 to -15.2) percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

MA plans may improve end-of-life care by reducing hospital death while also improving access to hospice, especially among recently hospitalized persons.

Implementation of resource use measures in Medicare Advantage

OBJECTIVE

To complement the previously illustrated method to measure resource use in Medicare Advantage (MA) using Encounter data and provide technical details and SAS code to validate Encounter data and implement resource use measures in MA.

DATA SOURCES

2015-2018 MA Encounter, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information System (HEDIS), and Traditional Medicare (TM) claims data.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary data analysis.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We select MA contracts with high data completeness (≤10% missing hospital stays in Encounter data and ≤±10% difference in ambulatory and emergency department visits between Encounter and HEDIS data). We randomly sample TM beneficiaries with a similar geographic distribution as MA enrollees in the selected contracts. We develop standardized prices of services using TM payments, and we measure MA resource use for inpatient, outpatient, Part D, and hospice services.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We report identifiers/names of contracts with high data completeness. We provide SAS code to manage Encounter data, develop standardized prices, and measure MA resource use.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater use and validation of Encounter data can help improve data quality. Our results can be used to inform studies using Encounter data to learn about MA performance.

Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry

OBJECTIVE

Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

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.

Mechanical Ventilation and Survival in Patients With Advanced Dementia in Medicare Advantage

CONTEXT

Medicare Advantage (MA) cares for an increasing proportion of traditional Medicare (TM) patients although, the association of MA on low-value care among hospitalized patients is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) use or mortality differs among hospitalized patients with advanced dementia (AD) enrolled in MA vs. TM and the influence of hospital MA concentration.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of hospitalized Medicare patients from 2016 to 2017 who were ≥66 years old with AD (n=147,153) and had a hospitalization with an assessment completed during a nursing home stay ≤120 days prior to that hospitalization indicating AD and severe cognitive/functional impairment. MA enrollment was ascertained at hospitalization; IMV use and 30- and 365-day mortality were determined via Medicare data. Multivariable logistic regression models clustered by hospital were used.

RESULTS

Among hospitalized Medicare patients with AD, 27,253 (19%) were enrolled in MA, mean age was 84 (95% CI: 83.9-84.0) and 92,736 (63%) were female. Enrollment in MA was associated with increased IMV use (Adjusted Odds Ratio(AOR)=1.11, 95% CI: 1.04-1.18), 30- (Adjusted Hazard Ratio(AHR)=1.09, 95% CI: 1.05-1.12) and 365-day mortality (AHR=1.12, 95% CI: 1.08-1.16) compared to TM. Use of IMV was not different based on concentration of MA at the hospital level.

CONCLUSION

MA may reduce hospitalizations, however, once hospitalized, patients with AD enrolled in MA experience higher rates of IMV use and worse 30- and 365-day mortality compared to TM patients. Higher hospital concentration of MA did not reduce use of IMV. MA may not offer significant benefits in reducing low-value care among patients hospitalized with serious illness, questioning the benefits of this care model.

Relationship of neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status on mortality among older adults: Evidence from cross-level interaction analyses

Background

The influence of community context and individual socioeconomic status on health is widely recognized. However, the dynamics of how the relationship of neighborhood context on health varies by individual socioeconomic status is less well understood.

Objective

To examine the relationship between neighborhood context and mortality among older adults and examine how the influence of neighborhood context on mortality differs by individual socioeconomic status, using two measures of income-level and homeownership.

Research design and subjects

A retrospective study of 362,609 Medicare Advantage respondents to the 2014–2015 Medicare Health Outcomes Survey aged 65 and older.

Measures

Neighborhood context was defined using the deciles of the Area Deprivation Index. Logistic regression was used to analyze mortality with interaction terms between income/homeownership and neighborhood deciles to examine cross-level relationships, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, number of chronic conditions, obese/underweight, difficulties in activities of daily living, smoking status, and survey year. Predicted mortality rates by group were calculated from the logistic model results.

Results

Low-income individuals (8.9%) and nonhomeowners (9.1%) had higher mortality rates compared to higher-income individuals (5.3%) and homeowners (5.3%), respectively, and the differences were significant across all neighborhoods even after adjustment. With regression adjustment, older adults residing in less disadvantaged neighborhoods showed lower predicted 2-year mortality among high-income (4.86% in the least disadvantaged neighborhood; 6.06% in the most disadvantaged neighborhood; difference p-value<0.001) or homeowning individuals (4.73% in the least disadvantaged neighborhood; 6.25% in the most disadvantaged neighborhood; difference p-value<0.001). However, this study did not observe a significant difference in predicted mortality rates among low-income individuals by neighborhood (8.7% in the least disadvantaged neighborhood; 8.61% in the most disadvantaged neighborhood; difference p-value = 0.825).

Conclusions

Low-income or non-homeowning older adults had a higher risk of mortality regardless of neighborhood socioeconomic status. While living in a less disadvantaged neighborhood provided a protective association for higher-income or homeowning older adults, low-income older adults did not experience an observable benefit.