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

Medicare Advantage and Home Health Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Exposure

TM vs MA plan.

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

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.

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.