Complex Patients and Quality of Care in Medicare Advantage

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.

Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients.

METHODS

This systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups.

RESULTS

The search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types.

DISCUSSION

We identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.