Burden Of Health-Related Social Needs Among Dual- And Non-Dual-Eligible Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With and Without Food Insecurity

BACKGROUND

Compared to traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans impose out-of-pocket cost limits and offer extra benefits, potentially providing financial relief for MA enrollees, especially for those with food insecurity.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the prevalence of food insecurity differs between TM and MA enrollees at baseline and then examine whether MA enrollment in a baseline year is associated with less financial hardships in the following year, relative to TM enrollment, especially for those experiencing food insecurity.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Our analysis included 2807 Medicare beneficiaries (weighted sample size, 23,963,947) who maintained continuous enrollment in either TM or MA in both 2020 and 2021 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed outcomes related to financial hardships in health care and non-health care domains (measured in 2021). Our primary independent variables were food insecurity and MA enrollment (measured in 2020).

RESULTS

The point estimate of food insecurity prevalence was greater among MA enrollees than TM enrollees, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.1 percentage points [95% CI, - 1.0, 3.4]). Furthermore, there is evidence that compared to TM enrollment, MA enrollment did not mitigate the risk of financial hardship, particularly for food-insecure enrollees. Rather, food-secure MA enrollees faced greater financial hardship in the following year than food-secure TM enrollees (11.2% [8.9-13.6] and 7.6% [6.9-8.3] for problems paying medical bills and 5.5% [4.6-6.4] and 2.8% [2.1-3.6] for paying medical bills over time). Moreover, the point estimate of financial hardship was higher among food-insecure MA enrollees than food-insecure TM enrollees (21.5% [5.4-37.5] and 11.2% [4.1-18.4] and 23.7% [9.6-37.9] and 6.9% [0.5-13.3]) despite the lack of statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the promise of financial protection offered by MA plans has not been fully realized, particularly for those with food insecurity.

Prevalence and Correlates of Unmet Medical and Social Needs in Virginia's Medicaid Managed Long Term Services and Supports Program

BACKGROUND

Medicaid Long Term Services and Support (LTSS) programs serve individuals with complex medical and social needs. Increasingly, state Medicaid programs are contracting with managed care organizations to administer LTSS programs.

OBJECTIVES

Understand the prevalence of and risk factors for unmet medical and social needs among a sample of patients within a Medicaid managed LTSS program.

METHODS

We surveyed a cross-sectional random sample of 798 community-residing individuals over 21 in Virginia who were served by the state Medicaid managed LTSS program. Outcomes of interest include 3 distinct medical needs: medical appointments, medical transportation, and prescriptions; 4 distinct social needs: housing security, food security, utility bills, and nonmedical transportation, and composite measures of unmet social and medical needs.

RESULTS

We found that 12.5% of our sample had any unmet medical need, while far more (62.2%) of our sample had any unmet social needs, with food insecurity being the most common. We found that members of color had almost 2 times the odds of having both unmet social and medical needs [social: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.21; 95% confidence Interval (CI): (1.59, 3.09); medical aOR: 2.25 ; 95% CI: (1.34, 3.8)].

CONCLUSION

Medicaid members may not be fully realizing the potential of LTSS programs and would benefit from both Medicaid agency and managed care organizations' strategies aimed at addressing social drivers of health. To achieve health equity for LTSS members of color, Medicaid agencies may consider policies specifically targeting racial disparities.

The Effect of COVID-19 on Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of COVID-19 on clinical health outcomes and health-related social needs among Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligible beneficiaries.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Dual eligibles during COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive scoping review including observational studies, clinical trials, and original empirical research studies of PubMed and CINAHL. We generated a list of terms related to programs that both serve dual eligibles and address our desired outcomes. With the assistance of a medical librarian, we identified relevant abstracts published during COVID-19 meeting our inclusion criteria. We performed full-text reviews of relevant abstracts and selected the final studies. We extracted the study population, design, and major findings, then conducted thematic analysis.

RESULTS

1100 articles were identified, with 439 deemed relevant. On full text-review, 15 articles met inclusion criteria representing more than 86 million Medicare beneficiaries. No studies were specific only to dual eligibles. Topic areas included in this review include COVID-19 case counts (2 articles), mortality (8 articles), hospitalizations (7 articles), food insecurity (1 article), self-reported mental health (1 article), and social connectedness (2 articles). Dual eligibles had disparate COVID-19-related outcomes from Medicare-only enrollees in 12 of 15 studies. Studies show higher mortality for dual eligibles overall, but this was not true for dual eligibles in nursing homes and assisted living communities. Dual eligibles were more likely to experience food insecurity. More favorably, dual eligibles reported greater social connectedness.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Dual eligibles had different outcomes from Medicare-only recipients in multiple health outcomes and health-related social needs during COVID-19, but studies are limited, particularly in terms of health-related social needs. Future work focusing on outcomes only among dual-eligible beneficiaries, integrated care programs, and fiscal alignment between Medicare and Medicaid plans may help stakeholders address health needs specific to dual eligibles.