Aligning Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Managed Care Plans for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries

Quality, Spending, Utilization, and Outcomes Among Dual-Eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries in Integrated Care Programs: A Systematic Review

Importance

Most dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in bifurcated insurance programs that pay for different components of care. Therefore, policymakers are prioritizing expansion of integrated care plans (ICPs) that manage both Medicare and Medicaid benefits and spending.

Objective

To review evidence of the association between ICPs and health care spending, quality, utilization, and patient outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Evidence Review

A search was conducted of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2010, through November 1, 2023) and Google Scholar (January 1, 2010, through October 1, 2023) and augmented with reports from US federal and state government websites. Three categories of ICPs were evaluated: Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicare-Medicaid Plans (MMPs), and Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (FIDE-SNPs) and related models aligning Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The review included studies that evaluated beneficiaries dually eligible for and enrolled in full Medicaid; compared an ICP to a nonintegrated arrangement; and evaluated utilization, spending, care coordination, patient experience, or health for 100 or more beneficiaries.

Findings

In all, 26 ICP evaluations met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 5 of PACE, 13 of MMPs, and 8 of FIDE-SNPs and other aligned models. Evidence generally showed associated reductions in long-term nursing home stays in PACE (3 of 4 studies) and FIDE-SNPs and related aligned models (3 of 5 studies) but was mixed in evaluations of MMPs. Four of 9 studies of MMPs and 2 of 3 studies of FIDE-SNPs found higher outpatient use, although other studies showed no difference. Evidence on Medicaid spending was limited, whereas 8 of 10 studies of MMPs showed an association between these plans and higher Medicare spending. Evidence was mixed or inconclusive regarding care coordination and hospitalizations, and it was insufficient to evaluate patient satisfaction, health, and outcomes in beneficiary subgroups (eg, those with serious mental illness). Furthermore, studies had limited ability to control for bias from unmeasured differences between enrollees of ICPs compared with nonintegrated models.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review found variability and gaps in evidence regarding ICPs and spending, quality, utilization, and outcomes. Studies found some ICPs were associated with reductions in long-term nursing home admissions, and several identified increases in outpatient care. However, MMPs were primarily associated with higher Medicare spending. Evidence for other outcomes was limited or inconclusive. Research addressing these evidence gaps is needed to guide ongoing efforts to integrate coverage and care for dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Beneficiary Experience of Care by Level of Integration in Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans

Importance

Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) are private managed care plans designed to promote Medicare and Medicaid integration for full-benefit, dually eligible beneficiaries. Currently, the highest level of D-SNP integration occurs in plans with exclusively aligned enrollment (EAE).

Objective

To compare patient experience of care, out-of-pocket spending, and satisfaction among dually enrolled Medicaid beneficiaries in D-SNPs with EAE, those in D-SNPs without EAE, and those with traditional Medicare.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included respondents to a mail survey fielded to a stratified random sample of full-benefit, community-dwelling, dual-eligible Medicaid beneficiaries who qualified for receipt of home and community-based services in the Virginia Medicaid Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus program between March and October 2022.

Exposure

Enrollment in a D-SNP with EAE or a D-SNP without EAE vs traditional Medicare.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were self-reported measures of access and delays in receiving plan approvals, out-of-pocket spending, and satisfaction with health plans' customer service and choice of primary care and specialist physicians.

Results

Of 7200 surveys sent, 2226 were completed (response rate, 30.9%). The analytic sample consisted of 1913 Medicaid beneficiaries with nonmissing data on covariates (mean [SD] age, 70.8 [15.6] years; 1367 [71.5%] female). Of these, 583 (30.5%) were enrolled in D-SNPs with EAE, 757 (39.6%) in D-SNPs without EAE, and 573 (30.0%) in traditional Medicare. Compared with respondents enrolled in D-SNPs without EAE, those in D-SNPs with the highest level of integration (EAE) were 6.77 percentage points (95% CI, 8.81-12.66 percentage points) more likely to report being treated with courtesy and respect and 5.83 percentage points (95% CI, 0.21-11.46 percentage points) more likely to know who to call when they had a health problem. No statistically significant differences were found between members in either type of D-SNP and between those in D-SNPs and traditional Medicare in terms of their difficulty accessing care, delays in care, and satisfaction with care coordination and physician choice.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found some benefits of integrating administrative processes under Medicare and Medicaid but suggests that care coordination and access improvements under full integration require additional time and/or efforts to achieve.

Linking Medicare-Medicaid Claims for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of Medicare-Medicaid integration models' effects on patient-centered outcomes and costs requires multiple data sources and validated processes for linkage and reconciliation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the opportunities and limitations of linking state-specific Medicaid and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative claims data to measure patient-centered outcomes for North Carolina dual-eligible beneficiaries.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We developed systematic processes to (1) validate the beneficiary ID linkage using sex and date of birth in a beneficiary ID crosswalk, (2) verify dates of dual enrollment, and (3) reconcile Medicare-Medicaid claims data to support the development and use of patient-centered outcomes in linked data.

PARTICIPANTS

North Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries with full Medicaid benefits and concurrent Medicare enrollment (FBDE) between 2014 and 2017.

MEASURES

We identified need-based subgroups based on service use and eligibility program requirements. We calculated utilization and costs for Medicaid and Medicare, matched Medicaid claims to Medicare service categories where possible, and reported outcomes by the payer. Some services were covered only by Medicaid or Medicare, including Medicaid-only covered home and community-based services (HCBS).

RESULTS

Of 498,030 potential dual enrollees, we verified the linkage and FBDE eligibility of 425,664 (85.5%) beneficiaries, including 281,174 adults enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare fee-for-service. The most common need-based subgroups were intensive behavioral health service users (26.2%) and HCBS users (10.8%) for adults under age 65, and HCBS users (20.6%) and nursing home residents (12.4%) for adults age 65 and over. Medicaid funded 42% and 49% of spending for adults under 65 and adults 65 and older, respectively. Adults under 65 had greater behavioral health service utilization but less skilled nursing facility, HCBS, and home health utilization compared with adults 65 and older.

CONCLUSIONS

Linkage of Medicare-Medicaid data improves understanding of patient-centered outcomes among FBDE by combining Medicare-funded acute and ambulatory services with Medicaid-funded HCBS. Using linked Medicare-Medicaid data illustrates the diverse patient experience within FBDE beneficiaries, which is key to informing patient-centered outcomes, developing and evaluating integrated Medicare and Medicaid programs, and promoting health equity.

Changes in Care Associated With Integrating Medicare and Medicaid for Dual-Eligible Individuals

Importance

There is growing interest in expanding integrated models, in which 1 insurer manages Medicare and Medicaid spending for dually eligible individuals. Fully integrated dual-eligible special needs plans (FIDE-SNPs) are one of the largest integrated models, but evidence about their performance is limited.

Objective

To evaluate changes in care associated with integrating Medicare and Medicaid coverage in a FIDE-SNP in Pennsylvania.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study using a difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in care between 2 cohorts of dual-eligible individuals: (1) an integration cohort composed of Medicare Dual Eligible Special Needs Plan enrollees who joined a companion Medicaid plan following a 2018 state reform mandating Medicaid managed care (leading to integration), and (2) a comparison cohort with nonintegrated coverage before and after the start of Medicaid managed care. Analyses were conducted between February 2022 and June 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Analyses examined outcomes in 4 domains: use of home- and community-based services (HCBS), care management and coordination, hospital stays and postacute care, and long-term nursing home stays.

Results

The study included 7967 individuals in the integration cohort and 3832 individuals in the comparison cohort. In the integration cohort, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 63.3 (14.7) years, and 5268 individuals (66.1%) were female and 2699 (33.9%) were male. In the comparison cohort, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 64.8 (18.6) years, and 2341 individuals (61.1%) were female and 1491 (38.9%) were male. At baseline, integration cohort members received a mean (SD) of 2.83 (8.70) days of HCBS per month and 3.34 (3.56) medications for chronic conditions per month, and the proportion with a follow-up outpatient visit after a hospital stay was 0.47. From baseline through 3 years after integration, HCBS use increased differentially in the integration vs comparison cohorts by 0.61 days/person-month (95% CI, 0.28-0.94; P < .001). However, integration was not associated with changes in care management and coordination, including medication use for chronic conditions (-0.02 fills/person-month; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.06; P = .65) or follow-up outpatient care after a hospital stay (-0.01 visits/hospital stay; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.03; P = .61). Hospital stays did not change differentially between the cohorts. Unmeasured factors contributing to differential mortality limited the ability to identify changes in long-term nursing home stays associated with integration.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis of 2 cohorts of individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, integration was associated with greater HCBS use but not with other changes in care patterns. The findings highlight opportunities to strengthen how integrated programs manage care and a need to further evaluate their performance.

Publicly Reported Quality Performance for Dual-eligible Special Needs Plans, 2010-2019

As enrollment increases in Dual-eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) that exclusively enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries with Medicaid coverage, better evidence is needed about quality of care in these managed care plans. Using 2010-2019 publicly reported Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures, we found that median HEDIS performance scores were usually slightly worse for D-SNPs than the overall MA program with some reductions in quality performance gaps between 2010 and 2019. D-SNPs had more incomplete performance reporting than MA contracts, especially for measures focused on clinical conditions. Medicare Advantage reporting requirements should require greater transparency about performance in D-SNPs.

Health Care Use and Spending Among Need-Based Subgroups of Medicare Beneficiaries With Full Medicaid Benefits

Importance

Beneficiaries dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid account for a disproportionate share of expenditures due to their complex care needs. Lack of coordination between payment programs creates misaligned incentives, resulting in higher costs, fragmented care, and poor health outcomes.

Objective

To inform the design of integrated programs by describing the health care use and spending for need-based subgroups in North Carolina's full benefit, dual-eligible population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study using Medicare and North Carolina Medicaid 100% claims data (2014-2017) linked at the individual level included Medicare beneficiaries with full North Carolina Medicaid benefits. Data were analyzed between 2021 and 2022.

Exposure

Need-based subgroups: community well, home- and community-based services (HCBS) users, nursing home (NH) residents, and intensive behavioral health (BH) users.

Measures

Medicare and Medicaid utilization and spending per person-year (PPY).

Results

The cohort (n = 333 240) comprised subgroups of community well (64.1%, n = 213 667), HCBS users (15.0%, n = 50 095), BH users (15.2%, n = 50 509), and NH residents (7.5%, n = 24 927). Overall, 61.1% reported female sex. The most common racial identities included Asian (1.8%), Black (36.1%), and White (58.7%). Combined spending for Medicare and Medicaid was $26 874 PPY, and the funding of care was split evenly between Medicare and Medicaid. Among need-based subgroups, combined spending was lowest among community well at $19 734 PPY with the lowest portion (38.5%) of spending contributed by Medicaid ($7605). Among NH residents, overall spending ($68 359) was highest, and the highest portion of spending contributed by Medicaid (70.1%). Key components of spending among HCBS users' combined total of $40 069 PPY were clinician services on carrier claims ($14 523) and outpatient facility services ($9012).

Conclusions and relevance

Federal and state policy makers and administrators are developing strategies to integrate Medicare- and Medicaid-funded health care services to provide better care to the people enrolled in both programs. Substantial use of both Medicare- and Medicaid-funded services was found across all need-based subgroups, and the services contributing a high proportion of the total spending differed across subgroups. The diversity of health care use suggests a tailored approach to integration strategies with comprehensive set benefits that comprises Medicare and Medicaid services, including long-term services and supports, BH, palliative care, and social services.

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.

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.