Differences between integrated and non-integrated plans in Medicare Advantage

OBJECTIVE

To understand differences in financial performance, quality performance, supplemental benefits provision, and enrollee composition between integrated and non-integrated plans in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program.

DATA SOURCES

We used data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for 2015-2017. We included 156 integrated MA plans (31 unique contracts) and 2096 non-integrated MA plans (392 unique contracts).

STUDY DESIGN

We estimated linear probably models for financial performance, quality performance, supplemental benefits provision, and enrollee composition with state fixed effects and contract random effects. We adjusted for county-level market structure-related factors, cost-related factors, and demand-related factors. Our primary independent variable was an indicator of plan-provider integration.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Integrated MA plans were associated with $19.4 (95% CI: 9.2, 29.7) and $16.6 (95% CI: 10.3, 22.9) higher Part C and Part D monthly premiums, but were associated with higher star quality ratings. There were no significant differences in revenues and plan payments per enrollee between integrated and non-integrated MA plans. Integrated MA plans were associated with $40.5 (95% CI: -54.0, -26.9) lower non-claims costs than non-integrated MA plans. There was limited evidence that integrated MA plans provided more generous supplemental benefits than non-integrated MA plans. Enrollment rates in integrated MA plans were particularly low among socially marginalized groups (3.4 [95% CI: -5.9, -1.0], 4.7 [95% CI: -8.5, -0.9], and 4.4 [95% CI: -6.4, -2.4] percentage points lower among non-Hispanic Black, Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible, and the disabled).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that integrated MA plans may achieve higher efficiency and quality, but these benefits may not be experienced by all beneficiaries due to disparities in enrollment. As these models continue to spread, it is critical to develop policies to ensure that MA enrollees have equal access to integrated plans.

Is contributory health insurance indeed an addiction to a bad idea? A comment on its relevance for low- and middle-income countries

Financing of health systems is an enduring concern world wide. Yazbeck and colleagues in their paper make an important point that when there is a choice between financing in which contributions from citizens take place in the form of generalised taxes versus those in which they are in the form of insurance premiums, the overwhelming evidence suggests that tax-based financing is unambiguously superior even in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the strength of their case against contributory insurance, we suggest that the path forward may be more complex than they envisage for a number of reasons. The problem of a high proportion of informal sector workers that they argue impacts contributory approaches is also an issue with taxes because of the very low numbers of people who file returns. Taxes in most developing countries are in fact largely derived from highly regressive indirect taxes which the poor are forced to pay. Additionally, in most developing countries, including large ones like India and Nigeria, the only choice on offer is continued dependence on out-of-pocket expenditures. In such a situation exploring alternatives which are superior to out-of-pocket expenditures becomes imperative. Asking citizens to wait interminably for additional tax resources to be made available would be a grave disservice to them.

The Role of Primary Care in Improving Population Health

Policy Points Systems based on primary care have better population health, health equity, and health care quality, and lower health care expenditure. Primary care can be a boundary-spanning force to integrate and personalize the many factors from which population health emerges. Equitably advancing population health requires understanding and supporting the complexly interacting mechanisms by which primary care influences health, equity, and health costs.

Social Features of Integration in Health Systems and Their Relationship to Provider Experience, Care Quality and Clinical Integration

More is known about the structural features of health system integration than the social features-elements of normative integration (alignment of norms) and interpersonal integration (collaboration among professionals and with patients). We surveyed practice managers and 1,360 staff and physicians at 59 practice sites within 17 health systems (828 responses; 61%). Building on prior theory, we developed and established the psychometric properties of survey measures describing normative and interpersonal integration. Normative and interpersonal integration were both consistently related to better provider experience, perceived care quality, and clinical integration (e.g., a 1-point increase in a practice's normative integration was associated with 0.53-point higher job satisfaction and 0.77-point higher perceived care quality in the practice, measured on 1 to 5 scales, p < .01). Variation in social features of integration may help explain why some health systems better integrate care, pointing to normative and interpersonal integration as potential resources for improvement.

Care integration within and outside health system boundaries

OBJECTIVE

Examine care integration-efforts to unify disparate parts of health care organizations to generate synergy across activities occurring within and between them-to understand whether and at which organizational level health systems impact care quality and staff experience.

DATA SOURCES

Surveys administered to one practice manager (56/59) and up to 26 staff (828/1360) in 59 practice sites within 24 physician organizations within 17 health systems in four states (2017-2019).

STUDY DESIGN

We developed manager and staff surveys to collect data on organizational, social, and clinical process integration, at four organizational levels: practice site, physician organization, health system, and outside health systems. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and regression.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Managers and staff perceived opportunity for improvement across most types of care integration and organizational levels. Managers/staff perceived little variation in care integration across health systems. They perceived better care integration within practice sites than within physician organizations, health systems, and outside health systems-up to 38 percentage points (pp) lower (P < .001) outside health systems compared to within practice sites. Of nine clinical process integration measures, one standard deviation (SD) (7.2-pp) increase in use of evidence-based care related to 6.4-pp and 8.9-pp increases in perceived quality of care by practice sites and health systems, respectively, and a 4.5-pp increase in staff job satisfaction; one SD (9.7-pp) increase in integration of social services and community resources related to a 7.0-pp increase in perceived quality of care by health systems; one SD (6.9-pp) increase in patient engagement related to a 6.4-pp increase in job satisfaction and a 4.6-pp decrease in burnout; and one SD (10.6-pp) increase in integration of diabetic eye examinations related to a 5.5-pp increase in job satisfaction (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Measures of clinical process integration related to higher staff ratings of quality and experience. Action is needed to improve care integration within and outside health systems.