Association of Medicare Advantage Star Ratings With Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Quality of Care

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance

Importance

Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes.

Objectives

To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method).

Exposures

Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost).

Results

Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity.

Conclusion and Relevance

A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

Medicare Advantage Enrollment and Disenrollment Among Persons With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias

Importance

Large enrollment growth has been observed in the Medicare Advantage program, but less is known about enrollment patterns among persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD).

Objective

To evaluate patterns in Medicare Advantage enrollment and disenrollment among beneficiaries with or without ADRD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 6 national data sources between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018. Analyses were performed between June 2021 and August 2022. The cohort comprised US Medicare beneficiaries with acute or postacute care utilization between 2013 and 2018.

Exposure

ADRD diagnosis from an acute or postacute care encounter Medicare data source.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage, disenrollment from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare, and contract exit (leaving a Medicare Advantage contract for traditional Medicare or a different Medicare Advantage contract).

Results

The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage among beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 24.7% (95% CI, 24.7%-24.8%) in 2013 to 33.0% (95% CI, 32.9%-33.1%) in 2018, an absolute increase of 8.3 percentage points and a 33.4% relative increase after adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and utilization and including county fixed effects. Among beneficiaries without ADRD, enrollment in Medicare Advantage increased by 8.2 percentage points from 27.6% (95% CI, 27.6%-27.6%) in 2013 to 35.8% (95% CI, 35.8%-35.8%) in 2018, a 29.7% relative increase over the study period. Beneficiaries with ADRD were 1.4 times as likely to disenroll from their Medicare Advantage contract to traditional Medicare (4.4% vs 3.2% in 2017-2018; P < .001) in adjusted analyses. Regardless of ADRD status, beneficiaries had similar rates of switching to a new Medicare Advantage contract. Differences in contract exit rates were associated with higher rates of disenrollment from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare among beneficiaries with ADRD vs those without ADRD (16.3% [95% CI, 16.2%-16.3%] vs 15.1% [95% CI, 15.1%-15.1%]). Beneficiaries with ADRD and dual eligibility for Medicaid enrollment had higher rates of contract exit than those without dual eligibility (19.7% [95% CI, 19.6%-19.7%] vs 14.9% [95% CI, 14.8%-14.9%]), and these differences were even greater than those among beneficiaries without ADRD and with and without dual-eligibility status, respectively (18.3% [95% CI, 18.2%-18.3%] vs 13.8% [95% CI, 13.7%-13.8%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. The findings highlight the need to understand the factors associated with higher disenrollment rates and determine whether such rates reflect access or quality challenges for beneficiaries with ADRD.

Effects of individual and neighborhood social risks on diabetes pay-for-performance program under a single-payer health system

BACKGROUND

Enrollment in and adherence to a diabetes pay-for-performance (P4P) program can lead to desirable processes and outcomes of diabetes care. However, knowledge is limited on the potential exclusion of patients with individual or neighborhood social risks or interruption of services in the disease-specific P4P program without mandatory participation under a single-payer health system.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of individual and neighborhood social risks on exclusion from and adherence to the diabetes P4P program of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Taiwan.

METHODS

This study used data from Taiwan's 2009-2017 population-based National Health Insurance Research Database, 2010 Population and Housing Census, and 2010 Income Tax Statistics. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, and study populations were identified from 2012 to 2014. The first cohort comprised 183,806 patients with newly diagnosed T2D, who had undergone follow up for 1 year; the second cohort consisted of 78,602 P4P patients who had undergone follow up for 2 years after P4P enrollment. Binary logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of social risks with exclusion from and adherence to the diabetes P4P program.

RESULTS

T2D patients with higher individual social risks were more likely to be excluded from the P4P program, but those with higher neighborhood-level social risks were slightly less likely to be excluded. T2D patients with the higher individual- or neighborhood-level social risks showed less likelihood of adhering to the program, and the person-level coefficient was stronger in magnitude than the neighborhood-level one.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate the importance of individual social risk adjustment and special financial incentives in disease-specific P4P programs. Strategies for improving program adherence should consider individual and neighborhood social risks.

Medicare Advantage Enrollment Among Beneficiaries With End-Stage Renal Disease in the First Year of the 21st Century Cures Act

Importance

Before 2021, most Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were unable to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The 21st Century Cures Act permitted these beneficiaries to enroll in MA plans effective January 2021.

Objective

To examine changes in MA enrollment among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD after enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act overall and by race or ethnicity and dual-eligible status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional time-trend study used data from Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD (both kidney transplant recipients and those undergoing dialysis) between January 2019 and December 2021. Data were analyzed between June and October 2022.

Exposures

21st Century Cures Act.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with prevalent ESRD who switched from traditional Medicare to MA between 2020 and 2021 and those with incident ESRD who newly enrolled in MA in 2021. Individuals who stayed in traditional Medicare were enrolled in 2020 and 2021 and those who switched to MA were enrolled in traditional Medicare in 2020 and MA in 2021.

Results

Among 575 797 beneficiaries with ESRD in 2020 or 2021 (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [14.2] years, 42.2% female, 34.0% Black, and 7.7% Hispanic or Latino), the proportion of beneficiaries enrolled in MA increased from 24.8% (December 2020) to 37.4% (December 2021), a relative change of 50.8%. The largest relative increases in MA enrollment were among Black (72.8% relative increase), Hispanic (44.8%), and dual-eligible beneficiaries with ESRD (73.6%). Among 359 617 beneficiaries with TM and prevalent ESRD in 2020, 17.6% switched to MA in 2021. Compared with individuals who stayed in traditional Medicare, those who switched to MA had modestly more chronic conditions (6.3 vs 6.1; difference, 0.12 conditions [95% CI, 0.10-0.16]) and similar nondrug spending in 2020 (difference, $509 [95% CI, -$58 to $1075]) but were more likely to be Black (difference, 19.5 percentage points [95% CI, 19.1-19.9]) and have dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility (difference, 20.8 percentage points [95% CI, 20.4-21.2]). Among beneficiaries who were newly eligible for Medicare ESRD benefits in 2021, 35.2% enrolled in MA.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results suggest that increases in MA enrollment among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD were substantial the first year after the 21st Century Cures Act, particularly among Black, Hispanic, and dual-eligible individuals. Policy makers and MA plans may need to assess network adequacy, disenrollment, and equity of care for beneficiaries who enrolled in MA.

Provider discussion of health goals and psychosocial needs: Comparing older to younger veteran experience

OBJECTIVE

To examine by age, the veterans' report on whether components of age-friendly health systems were discussed during primary care visits.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Veterans Affairs (VA) Survey of Healthcare Experience of Patients from October 2015 to September 2019.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of VA users by age group (18-44 years, 45-64 years, 65+ years; N = 1,042,318). We used weighted logistic regression models to evaluate disparities in whether veterans discussed with anyone in their provider's office: health goals, depression symptoms, stress, personal problems, and medications. Models were adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics (sex, socioeconomic status, education, rurality) and comorbidity.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD

Surveys were administered by mail and online. Additional veteran characteristics were extracted from VA administrative data.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In unadjusted analyses, VA users age 18-44 had a higher (-8.2%; CI: -9.0, -7.3) and users aged 45 to 64 had lower (4.0%; CI: 3.7, 4.3) predicted, probably discussing health goals compared to age 65+. Fewer VA users age 65+ reported discussing depression symptoms, personal problems, and stress than other age groups, whereas more VA users age 65+ discussed medications. Results were unchanged after adjusting for socio-demographics and comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of goal-concordant care relies on understanding the needs of individual patients. Lower rates of discussing what matters and mood represent potential missed opportunities to deliver age-friendly care for older veterans.

Hospital value-based payment programs and disparity in the United States: A review of current evidence and future perspectives

Beginning in the early 2010s, an array of Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) programs has been developed in the United States (U.S.) to contain costs and improve health care quality. Despite documented successes in these efforts in some instances, there have been growing concerns about the programs' unintended consequences for health care disparities due to their built-in biases against health care organizations that serve a disproportionate share of disadvantaged patient populations. We explore the effects of three Medicare hospital VBP programs on health and health care disparities in the U.S. by reviewing their designs, implementation history, and evidence on health care disparities. The available empirical evidence thus far suggests varied impacts of hospital VBP programs on health care disparities. Most of the reviewed studies in this paper demonstrate that hospital VBP programs have the tendency to exacerbate health care disparities, while a few others found evidence of little or no worsening impacts on disparities. We discuss several policy options and recommendations which include various reform approaches and specific programs ranging from those addressing upstream structural barriers to health care access, to health care delivery strategies that target service utilization and health outcomes of vulnerable populations under the VBP programs. Future studies are needed to produce more explicit, conclusive, and consistent evidence on the impacts of hospital VBP programs on disparities.

Differences In Care Between Special Needs Plans And Other Medicare Coverage For Dual Eligibles

Policy makers are pursuing strategies to integrate Medicare and Medicaid coverage for people enrolled in both programs, who are known as dual eligibles. Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) are Medicare Advantage plans that exclusively serve this population, with several features intended to enhance care and facilitate integration with Medicaid. This study compared access to, use of, and satisfaction with care among dual eligibles enrolled in D-SNPs versus those enrolled in two other forms of Medicare coverage: other Medicare Advantage (MA) plans not exclusively serving dual eligibles and traditional Medicare. Compared with those in traditional Medicare, dual eligibles generally reported greater access to care, preventive service use, and satisfaction with care in D-SNPs. However, we found fewer differences in these outcomes among dual eligibles in D-SNPs versus other MA plans. Compared with non-Hispanic White dual eligibles, dual eligibles of color (for example, those identifying as Black or Hispanic) were less likely to report receiving better care in D-SNPs versus other Medicare coverage. These findings suggest that D-SNPs altogether have not provided consistently superior or more equitable care, and they highlight areas where federal and state policy could strengthen incentives for D-SNPs to improve care.

Predicting Race And Ethnicity To Ensure Equitable Algorithms For Health Care Decision Making

Algorithms are currently used to assist in a wide array of health care decisions. Despite the general utility of these health care algorithms, there is growing recognition that they may lead to unintended racially discriminatory practices, raising concerns about the potential for algorithmic bias. An intuitive precaution against such bias is to remove race and ethnicity information as an input to health care algorithms, mimicking the idea of "race-blind" decisions. However, we argue that this approach is misguided. Knowledge, not ignorance, of race and ethnicity is necessary to combat algorithmic bias. When race and ethnicity are observed, many methodological approaches can be used to enforce equitable algorithmic performance. When race and ethnicity information is unavailable, which is often the case, imputing them can expand opportunities to not only identify and assess algorithmic bias but also combat it in both clinical and nonclinical settings. A valid imputation method, such as Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding, can be applied to standard data collected by public and private payers and provider entities. We describe two applications in which imputation of race and ethnicity can help mitigate potential algorithmic biases: equitable disease screening algorithms using machine learning and equitable pay-for-performance incentives.

Measuring Racial Inequities In The Quality Of Care Across Oncology Practices In The US

Racial inequities in clinical performance diminish overall health care system performance; however, quality assessments have rarely incorporated reliable measures of racial inequities. We studied care for more than one million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer to assess the feasibility of calculating reliable practice-level measures of racial inequities in chemotherapy-associated emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Specifically, we used hierarchical models to estimate adjusted practice-level Black-White differences in these events and described differences across practices. We calculated reliable inequity measures for 426 and 322 practices, depending on the measure. These practices reflected fewer than 10 percent of practices treating Medicare beneficiaries with chemotherapy, but they treated approximately half of all White and Black Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy and two-thirds of Black Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy. Black patients experienced chemotherapy-associated ED visits and hospitalizations at higher rates (54.2 percent and 35.8 percent, respectively) than White patients (45.7 percent and 31.9 percent, respectively). The median within-practice Black-White difference was 8.1 percentage points for chemotherapy-associated ED visits and 2.7 percentage points for chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations. Additional research is needed to identify other reliable measures of racial inequities in health care quality, measure care inequities in smaller practices, and assess whether providing practice-level feedback could improve equity.

Racial And Ethnic Disparities In Patient Experience Of Care Among Nonelderly Medicaid Managed Care Enrollees

Medicaid managed care enrollees who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups have historically reported worse care experiences than White enrollees. Few recent studies have identified disparities within and between Medicaid managed care plans. Using 2014-18 data on 242,274 nonelderly Medicaid managed care enrollees in thirty-seven states, we examined racial and ethnic disparities in four patient experience metrics. Compared with White enrollees, minority enrollees reported significantly worse care experiences. Overall adjusted disparities for Black enrollees ranged between 1.5 and 4.5 percentage points; 1.6-3.9 percentage points for Hispanic or Latino enrollees; and 9.0-17.4 percentage points for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander enrollees. Disparities were largely attributable to worse experiences by race or ethnicity within the same plan. For all outcomes, disparities were smaller in plans with the highest percentages of Hispanic or Latino enrollees, and for some outcomes, there were smaller disparities in plans with the highest percentages of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander enrollees. Interventions to mitigate racial and ethnic inequities in care experiences include collection of comprehensive race and ethnicity data, adoption of health equity performance metrics, plan-level enrollee engagement, and multisectoral initiatives to dismantle structural racism.