Association of Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare With 30-Day Mortality Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

IMPORTANCE

Medicare Advantage health plans covered 37% of beneficiaries in 2018, and coverage increased to 48% in 2022. Whether Medicare Advantage plans provide similar care for patients presenting with specific clinical conditions is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 30-day mortality and treatment for Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) from 2009 to 2018.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study that included 557 309 participants with ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (STEMI) and 1 670 193 with non-ST-segment elevation [acute] MI (NSTEMI) presenting to US hospitals from 2009-2018 (date of final follow up, December 31, 2019).

EXPOSURES

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was adjusted 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included age- and sex-adjusted rates of procedure use (catheterization, revascularization), postdischarge medication prescriptions and adherence, and measures of health system performance (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and 30-day readmissions).

RESULTS

The study included a total of 2 227 502 participants, and the mean age in 2018 ranged from 76.9 years (Medicare Advantage STEMI) to 79.3 years (traditional Medicare NSTEMI), with similar proportions of female patients in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare (41.4% vs 41.9% for STEMI in 2018). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was associated with significantly lower adjusted 30-day mortality rates in 2009 (19.1% vs 20.6% for STEMI; difference, -1.5 percentage points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] and 12.0% vs 12.5% for NSTEMI; difference, -0.5 percentage points [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.1%]). By 2018, mortality had declined in all groups, and there were no longer statically significant differences between Medicare Advantage (17.7%) and traditional Medicare (17.8%) for STEMI (difference, 0.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6]) or between Medicare Advantage (10.9%) and traditional Medicare (11.1%) for NSTEMI (difference, -0.2 percentage points [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1]). By 2018, there was no statistically significant difference in standardized 90-day revascularization rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Rates of guideline-recommended medication prescriptions were significantly higher in Medicare Advantage (91.7%) vs traditional Medicare patients (89.0%) who received a statin prescription (difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2] for 2018 STEMI). Medicare Advantage patients were significantly less likely to be admitted to an ICU than traditional Medicare patients (for 2018 STEMI, 50.3% vs 51.2%; difference, -0.9 percentage points [95% CI, -1.8 to 0.0]) and significantly more likely to be discharged to home rather than to a postacute facility (for 2018 STEMI, 71.5% vs 70.2%; difference, 1.3 percentage points [95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1]). Adjusted 30-day readmission rates were consistently lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (for 2009 STEMI, 13.8% vs 15.2%; difference, -1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6]; and for 2018 STEMI, 11.2% vs 11.9%; difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.5 to 0.0]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, enrollment in Medicare Advantage, compared with traditional Medicare, was significantly associated with modestly lower rates of 30-day mortality in 2009, and the difference was no longer statistically significant by 2018. These findings, considered with other outcomes, may provide insight into differences in treatment and outcomes by Medicare insurance type.

Improving Prior Authorization in Medicare Advantage

This Viewpoint discusses the potential benefits and harms of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and the health policy implications and opportunities for improvement.

A Comparison of Home Health Utilization, Outcomes, and Cost Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare

BACKGROUND

Home health use is rising rapidly in the United States as the population ages, the prevalence of chronic disease increases, and older Americans express their desire to age at home. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare (TM) has grown as well, from 13% of total Medicare enrollment in 2004 to 39% in 2020. Despite these shifts, little is known about outcomes and costs following home health in MA as compared with TM.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to measure the association of MA enrollment with outcomes and costs for patients using home health.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients enrolled in plans offered by 1 large, national MA organization and patients enrolled in TM, with at least 1 home health visit between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018.

EXPOSURE

MA enrollment.

MAIN MEASURES

We compared the intensity of home health services and types of care delivered. The main outcome measures were hospitalization, the proportion of days in the home, and total allowed costs during the 180-day period following the first qualifying home health visit during the study period.

KEY RESULTS

Among patients who used home health, our models demonstrated enrollment in MA was associated with 14%, and 6% decreased odds of 60- and 180-day hospitalization, respectively, a 12.8% and 14.7% decrease in medical costs exclusive and inclusive of home health costs, respectively, and a 0.27% increase in the proportion of days at home during the 180-day follow-up, equivalent to an additional half-day at home. There were few differences in home health care delivered for MA and TM [mean number of visits in the first episode of care (17.1 vs. 17.3) and mean visits per week (3.2 vs. 3.3)]. The mean number of visits by visit type and percent of patients with each type was similar between MA and TM as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with enrollment in TM, enrollment in MA was associated with improved patient-centered outcomes and lower cost and utilization, despite few differences in the way home health was delivered. These findings might be explained by structural components of MA that encourage better care management, but further investigation is needed to clarify the mechanisms by which MA enrollment may lead to higher value home health care.

Medicare Plans' Adoption of Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill for Enrollees With Social Needs

This cross-sectional study assesses the extent to which Medicare plans have offered Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill for enrollees with social needs.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

IMPORTANCE

Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019.

EXPOSURES

Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars).

RESULTS

Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Managed care for long-stay nursing home residents: an evaluation of Institutional Special Needs Plans

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the patterns of clinical service use for long-term nursing home residents enrolled in UnitedHealthcare's Medicare Advantage Institutional Special Needs Plans (I-SNPs), which provide on-site direct coordinated care for beneficiaries through the use of advanced practice clinicians.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational analysis of 8052 I-SNP members and 12,982 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) long-term nursing home residents across 13 states.

METHODS

Multivariate analyses were performed to compare rates of emergency department (ED), inpatient, and skilled nursing facility (SNF) use between I-SNP members and Medicare FFS long-term nursing home residents.

RESULTS

In comparison with FFS institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, I-SNP members had 51% lower ED use, 38% fewer hospitalizations, and 45% fewer readmissions, whereas their SNF use was 112% higher.

CONCLUSIONS

"At-risk" models, administered through specialized Medicare Advantage plans, that invest in clinical management in the nursing home setting have the potential to allow individuals to receive care on-site and avoid costly inpatient transfers.

Anybody There? Physicians Unfairly Penalized for AWOL Medicare Advantage Patients

You've tried and tried and tried. Phone calls, emails - nothing. A Medicare Advantage plan assigned you a patient who didn't choose you, and the patient is driving that point home - by ignoring you. Or maybe the contact information the plan gave you is out of date, and the patient's latest phone number or email is unknown. Either way, your as-yet-unseen patient is AWOL - and you can be penalized for it on health plans' quality ratings, which ultimately can affect payments. New Texas Medical Association policy takes aim at the unfairness this lack of patient response can present for physicians, while opening up an opportunity for medicine to work with health plans to solve the problem.

Will 2019 kick off a new era in person-centered care?

Medicare's star rating system for Medicare Advantage health plans is a powerful tool for driving plan behavior and, beginning in 2019, CMS is providing new weight to patient access and experience measures. As the shift begins, a recent analysis of person-centered care measures in the star rating system conducted by the Center for Consumer Engagement in Health Innovation found ample room for improving both plan performance and how the ratings measure patient-centeredness. Although from 2010 to 2017, plans performed better on person-centered measures compared with the other measures in the star rating set (3.4 vs 3.0), our analysis also shows that performance on patient-centered measures has not comparatively budged appreciably over time. This may indicate that improvement initiatives focused on non-person-centered star measures have not had a spillover effect on the person-centered measures, or that plans may feel that once a minimum threshold on person-centered measures is met, they need not focus attention on further improvements. At the same time, we need a more comprehensive assessment of person-centeredness. The CMS star measures classified as person-centered are limited in scope and do not constitute a comprehensive view of what it actually means to be person-centered. The new weighting of patient access and experience measures in the CMS star rating system will press plans to refocus their managerial attention, allocate internal assets, and improve their performance, but we also need new measures that are more closely aligned with the domains that describe person-centered care.

Assessment of the Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment Model for Measuring Veterans Affairs Hospital Performance

IMPORTANCE

Policymakers and consumers are eager to compare hospitals on performance metrics, such as surgical complications or unplanned readmissions, measured from administrative data. Fair comparisons depend on risk adjustment algorithms that control for differences in case mix.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the Medicare Advantage risk adjustment system version 21 (V21) adequately risk adjusts performance metrics for Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort analysis of administrative data from all 5.5 million veterans who received VA care or VA-purchased care in 2012 was performed from September 8, 2015, to October 22, 2018. Data analysis was performed from January 22, 2016, to October 22, 2018.

EXPOSURES

A patient's risk as measured by the V21 model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was total cost, and the key independent variable was the V21 risk score.

RESULTS

Of the 5 472 629 VA patients (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [16.1] years; 5 118 908 [93.5%] male), the V21 model identified 694 706 as having a mental health or substance use condition. In contrast, a separate classification system for psychiatric comorbidities identified another 1 266 938 patients with a mental health condition. The V21 model missed depression not otherwise specified (396 062 [31.3%]), posttraumatic stress disorder (345 338 [27.3%]), and anxiety (129 808 [10.2%]). Overall, the V21 model underestimated the cost of care by $2314 (6.7%) for every person with a mental health diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that current aspirations to engender competition by comparing hospital systems may not be appropriate or fair for safety-net hospitals, including the VA hospitals, which treat patients with complex psychiatric illness. Without better risk scores, which is technically possible, outcome comparisons may potentially mislead consumers and policymakers and possibly aggravate inequities in access for such vulnerable populations.

Relationships between provider-led health plans and quality, utilization, and satisfaction

OBJECTIVES

To compare healthcare quality, utilization, and patient satisfaction between provider-led health plans (PLHPs) and non-PLHPs.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study of 2016 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans.

METHODS

We included 3 quality outcomes (MA Star Rating System, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] effectiveness aggregate score, and HEDIS access aggregate score), 4 utilization outcomes (HEDIS average procedure rates, discharge rates, inpatient days, and readmission probability), and 1 patient satisfaction outcome (National Committee for Quality Assurance consumer satisfaction rating). We performed regression analysis to compare the 8 selected outcomes between PLHPs and non-PLHPs, controlling for key covariates, including region, profit status, patient risk, and patient-related and provider-related demographics.

RESULTS

Our sample included 64 contracts offered by 31 PLHPs (representing 3,197,284 enrollees) and 311 contracts offered by 55 non-PLHPs (representing 13,881,210 enrollees). Compared with non-PLHPs, in our primary multivariable model, PLHPs were associated with higher star ratings (β = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67), effectiveness scores (β = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-4.80), and patient satisfaction (β = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84), and lower procedure rates (β = -0.47; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.16). There were no significant differences in access, discharges, inpatient days, and readmission probability. The association between PLHPs and outcomes differed by plan size, nonprofit status, and region.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of care within a PLHP was associated with improved quality, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, as well as lower procedure rates. As providers bear increasing financial risk under alternative payment models, there is momentum to integrate healthcare provision and payment through PLHPs. Our results demonstrate the potential of such organizations to deliver high-quality care, although opportunities remain to optimize utilization.

Quality disclosure and the timing of insurers' adjustments: Evidence from medicare advantage

Mandatory quality disclosure often includes a period over which the quality of new entrants is unreported. This provides the opportunity for forward-looking firms to adjust product characteristics in advance of disclosure. Using comprehensive data on Medicare Advantage (MA) from 2007 to 2015, I exploit the design of the MA Star Rating program to examine the presence of forward-looking behavior among insurers. I find that high-quality insurers reduce prices leading up to quality disclosure, while low-quality insurers increase prices in advance of quality disclosure. These dynamics are consistent with firms anticipating a future change in consumer inertia and updating current-period prices accordingly.

Adjusting Medicare Advantage star ratings for socioeconomic status and disability

OBJECTIVES

Studies have identified potential unintended effects of not adjusting clinical performance measures in value-based purchasing programs for socioeconomic status (SES) factors. We examine the impact of SES and disability adjustments on Medicare Advantage (MA) plans' and prescription drug plans' (PDPs') contract star ratings. These analyses informed the development of the Categorical Adjustment Index (CAI), which CMS implemented with the 2017 star ratings.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analyses of MA and PDP performance using 2012 Medicare beneficiary-level characteristics and performance data from the Star Rating Program.

METHODS

We modeled within-contract associations of beneficiary SES (Medicaid and Medicare dual eligibility [DE] or receipt of a low-income subsidy [LIS]) and disability with performance on 16 clinical measures. We estimated variability in contract-level DE/LIS and disability disparities using mixed-effects regression models. We simulated the impact of applying the CAI to adjust star ratings for DE/LIS and disability to construct the 2017 star ratings.

RESULTS

DE/LIS was negatively associated with performance for 12 of 16 measures and positively associated for 2 of 16 measures. Disability was negatively associated with performance for 11 of 15 measures and positively associated for 3 of 15 measures. Adjusting star ratings using the CAI resulted in half-star rating increases for 8.5% of MA and 33.3% of PDP contracts that exceeded 50% DE/LIS beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in star ratings following adjustment of clinical performance for SES and disability using the CAI focused on contracts with higher percentages of DE/LIS beneficiaries. Adjustment for enrollee characteristics may improve the accuracy of quality measurement and remove incentives for providers to avoid caring for more challenging patient populations.

Medicare Advantage Ratings And Voluntary Disenrollment Among Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease

Populations with intensive health care needs and high care costs may be attracted to insurance plans that have high quality ratings, but patients may be likely to disenroll from a plan if their care needs are not met. We assessed the association between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and voluntary disenrollment of incident dialysis patients in the following year over the period 2007-13. We found that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with lower star ratings had significantly higher rates of disenrollment by incident dialysis patients in the following year. Compared to MA plans with 4.0 or more stars, adjusted disenrollment rates were 3.9 percentage points higher for plans with 3.5 stars, 5.0 percentage points higher for those with 3.0 stars, and 12.1 percentage points higher for those with 2.5 or fewer stars. These findings suggest that low plan quality may lead to increased expenditures, as this high-cost population generally must shift from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare upon disenrollment.

Medicare Advantage Enrollees More Likely To Enter Lower-Quality Nursing Homes Compared To Fee-For-Service Enrollees

Unlike fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, most Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have a preferred network of care providers that serve most of a plan's enrollees. Little is known about how the quality of care MA enrollees receive differs from that of FFS Medicare enrollees. This article evaluates the differences in the quality of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) that Medicare Advantage and FFS beneficiaries entered in the period 2012-14. After we controlled for patients' clinical, demographic, and residential neighborhood effects, we found that FFS Medicare patients have substantially higher probabilities of entering higher-quality SNFs (those rated four or five stars by Nursing Home Compare) and those with lower readmission rates, compared to MA enrollees. The difference between MA and FFS Medicare SNF selections was less for enrollees in higher-quality MA plans than those in lower-quality plans, but Medicare Advantage still guided patients to lower-quality facilities.

Impact of Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan Star Ratings on Enrollment before and after Implementation of Quality-Related Bonus Payments in 2012

OBJECTIVE

Since 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have published 5-star quality rating measures to aid consumers in choosing Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans (MAPDs). We examined the impact of these star ratings on Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) enrollment before and after 2012, when star ratings became tied to bonus payments for MAPDs that could be used to improve plan benefits and/or reduce premiums in the subsequent year.

METHODS

A longitudinal design and multivariable hybrid models were used to assess whether star ratings had a direct impact on concurrent year MAPD contract enrollment (by influencing beneficiary choice) and/or an indirect impact on subsequent year MAPD contract enrollment (because ratings were linked to bonus payments). The main analysis was based on contract-year level data from 2009-2015. We compared effects of star ratings in the pre-bonus payment period (2009-2011) and post-bonus payment period (2012-2015). Extensive sensitivity analyses varied the analytic techniques, unit of analysis, and sample inclusion criteria. Similar analyses were conducted separately using stand-alone PDP contract-year data; since PDPs were not eligible for bonus payments, they served as an external comparison group.

RESULT

The main analysis included 3,866 MAPD contract-years. A change of star rating had no statistically significant effect on concurrent year enrollment in any of the pre-, post-, or pre-post combined periods. On the other hand, star rating increase was associated with a statistically significant increase in the subsequent year enrollment (a 1-star increase associated with +11,337 enrollees, p<0.001) in the post-bonus payment period but had a very small and statistically non-significant effect on subsequent year enrollment in the pre-bonus payment period. Further, the difference in effects on subsequent year enrollment was statistically significant between the pre- and post-periods (p = 0.011). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the findings were robust. No statistically significant effect of star ratings was found on concurrent or subsequent year enrollment in the pre- or post-period in the external comparison group of stand-alone PDP contracts.

CONCLUSION

Star ratings had no direct impact on concurrent year MAPD enrollment before or after the introduction of bonus payments tied to star ratings. However, after the introduction of these bonus payments, MAPD star ratings had a significant indirect impact of increasing subsequent year enrollment, likely via the reinvestment of bonuses to provide lower premiums and/or additional member benefits in the following year.

The Roles of Cost and Quality Information in Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment Decisions: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

To facilitate informed decision-making in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes plan information on the Medicare Plan Finder website, including costs, benefits, and star ratings reflecting quality. Little is known about how beneficiaries weigh costs versus quality in enrollment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess associations between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan attributes (i.e., costs, quality, and benefits) and brand market share and beneficiaries' enrollment decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

We performed a nationwide, beneficiary-level cross-sectional analysis of 847,069 beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage for the first time in 2011.

MAIN MEASURES

Matching beneficiaries with their plan choice sets, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate associations between plan attributes and enrollment to assess the proportion of enrollment variation explained by plan attributes and willingness to pay for quality.

KEY RESULTS

Relative to the total variation explained by the model, the variation in plan choice explained by premiums (25.7 %) and out-of-pocket costs (11.6 %) together explained nearly three times as much as quality ratings (13.6 %), but brand market share explained the most variation (35.3 %). Further, while beneficiaries were willing to pay more in total annual combined premiums and out-of-pocket costs for higher-rated plans (from $4,154.93 for 2.5-star plans to $5,698.66 for 5-star plans), increases in willingness to pay diminished at higher ratings, from $549.27 (95 %CI: $541.10, $557.44) for a rating increase from 2.5 to 3 stars to $68.22 (95 %CI: $61.44, $75.01) for an increase from 4.5 to 5 stars. Willingness to pay varied among subgroups: beneficiaries aged 64-65 years were more willing to pay for higher-rated plans, while black and rural beneficiaries were less willing to pay for higher-rated plans.

CONCLUSIONS

While beneficiaries prefer higher-quality and lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans, marginal utility for quality diminishes at higher star ratings, and their decisions are strongly associated with plans' brand market share.

An Assessment of Performance Between Medicare Advantage and Stand-Alone Prescription Drug Plans on Two Quality Assurance Measures

The purpose of our study was to compare performance between Medicare Advantage and stand-alone prescription drug plans on the two quality assurance measures of drug-disease interaction and drug-drug interaction for elderly heart failure beneficiaries. Performance on the drug-disease interaction measure appeared more problematic for stand-alone plan enrollees compared with Medicare Advantage plan enrollees. No statistical difference existed between the plans regarding drug-drug interactions. It appears there may be considerable room for more sophisticated use of disease profiling in the processing of drug claims. The provision of richer clinical data is an essential step to improving performance on the drug-disease interaction measure.

Is there an association between the high-risk medication star ratings and member experience CMS star ratings measures?

BACKGROUND

Methods to achieve high star ratings for the High-Risk Medication (HRM) measure are thought to result in unintended consequences and to compromise several member experience measures that ultimately put at risk the plan sponsor's Medicare Part D Centers for Medicare Medicaid (CMS) star rating. 

OBJECTIVE

To determine if HRM scores are associated with relevant member experience measure scores. 

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional analysis utilizing CMS 2013 and 2014 plan star ratings reports (2011 and 2012 benefit year data) for Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MA-PD) plans and prescription drug plans (PDPs). Medicare contracts with complete data for all measures of interest in 2013 and 2014 star ratings reports were included (N = 443). Bivariate linear regressions were performed for each of 2 independent variables: (1) 2014 HRM score and (2) 2013 to 2014 change in HRM score. Dependent variables were the 2014 scores for "Getting Needed Prescription Drugs," "Complaints about Drug Plan," "Rating of Drug Plan," and "Members Choosing to Leave the Plan."

RESULTS

The bivariate linear regressions demonstrated weak positive associations between the 2014 HRM score and each of the 2014 member experience measures that explained 0.5% to 4% (R2) of variance of these measures. The bivariate regressions for the 2013 to 2014 change in the HRM score and 2014 member experience measures of interest demonstrated associations accounting for 1% to 8% of variance (R2). The greatest associations were observed between each independent variable and the 2014 "Getting Needed Prescription Drugs" score with correlation coefficients of 0.21 and 0.29. 

CONCLUSIONS

HRM star ratings and change in HRM star ratings are weakly correlated with member experience measures in concurrent measurement periods. Plan sponsors may be more aggressive in HRM utilization management, since it is unlikely to negatively impact CMS summary star ratings. 

How successful is Medicare Advantage?

CONTEXT

Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage (MA), now almost 30 years old, has generally been viewed as a policy disappointment. Enrollment has vacillated but has never come close to the penetration of managed care plans in the commercial insurance market or in Medicaid, and because of payment policy decisions and selection, the MA program is viewed as having added to cost rather than saving funds for the Medicare program. Recent changes in Medicare policy, including improved risk adjustment, however, may have changed this picture.

METHODS

This article summarizes findings from our group's work evaluating MA's recent performance and investigating payment options for improving its performance even more. We studied the behavior of both beneficiaries and plans, as well as the effects of Medicare policy.

FINDINGS

Beneficiaries make "mistakes" in their choice of MA plan options that can be explained by behavioral economics. Few beneficiaries make an active choice after they enroll in Medicare. The high prevalence of "zero-premium" plans signals inefficiency in plan design and in the market's functioning. That is, Medicare premium policies interfere with economically efficient choices. The adverse selection problem, in which healthier, lower-cost beneficiaries tend to join MA, appears much diminished. The available measures, while limited, suggest that, on average, MA plans offer care of equal or higher quality and for less cost than traditional Medicare (TM). In counties, greater MA penetration appears to improve TM's performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare policies regarding lock-in provisions and risk adjustment that were adopted in the mid-2000s have mitigated the adverse selection problem previously plaguing MA. On average, MA plans appear to offer higher value than TM, and positive spillovers from MA into TM imply that reimbursement should not necessarily be neutral. Policy changes in Medicare that reform the way that beneficiaries are charged for MA plan membership are warranted to move more beneficiaries into MA.

Association between Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and enrollment

IMPORTANCE

The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes star ratings reflecting Medicare Advantage plan quality to inform enrollment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan quality ratings and enrollment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of 2011 Medicare Advantage enrollments among 952,352 first-time enrollees and 322,699 enrollees switching plans.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Association between star ratings and enrollment was modeled using conditional logit regression, controlling for beneficiary and plan characteristics.

RESULTS

Among the 952,352 included first-time enrollees, a 1-star higher rating was associated with a 9.5 (95% CI, 9.3-9.6) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. The highest rating available to a beneficiary was associated with a 1.9 (95% CI, 1.8-2.1) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. Among the 322,699 enrollees switching plans, a 1-star higher rating was associated with a 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.7) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. A rating at least as high as a beneficiary's prior plan was associated with a 6.3 (95% CI, 6.0-6.6) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. Star ratings were less strongly associated with enrollment for black, rural, low-income, and the youngest beneficiaries.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Medicare's 5-star rating program for Medicare Advantage is associated with beneficiaries' enrollment decisions.

Efforts to reduce racial disparities in Medicare managed care must consider the disproportionate effects of geography

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of geographic variation on racial differences in 7 of 15 Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures that assess the quality of the Medicare managed care program (also known as Medicare+Choice).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis using the 2004 individual-level HEDIS for Medicare managed care plans and 2003 Medicare enrollment and demographic (ie, denominator) data for more than 5.1 million Medicare+Choice enrollees.

METHODS

Individual-level HEDIS data were linked with Medicare enrollment data. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to assess statistical significance of region and race. Direct standardization was used to estimate the rate of meeting each HEDIS standard while controlling for differences in age and sex.

RESULTS

Quality of care for white Medicare+Choice enrollees was strongly correlated with the racial composition of the geographic area. Except for cholesterol management after an acute cardiac event, between-region racial variation was consistently greater than within-region racial variation.

CONCLUSION

Removing within-region racial variation while ignoring geographic differences will not equalize the experiences of black and white elders. Rather, both racial and geographic components of healthcare quality must be addressed if the Medicare managed care program is to provide care of equal quality to all elders regardless of race.

Composite health plan quality scales

This study employs exploratory factor analysis and scale construction methods with commercial Health Plan Employers Data Information Set (HEDISS) process of care and outcome measures from 1999 to uncover evidence for a unidimensional composite health maintenance organization (HMO) quality scale. Summated scales by categories of care are created and are then used in a factor analysis that has a single factor solution. The category of care scales were used to construct a summated composite scale which exhibits strong evidence of internal consistency (alpha= 0.90). External validity of the composite quality scale was checked by regressing the composite scale on Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey results for 1999.

The effect of benefits, premiums, and health risk on health plan choice in the Medicare program

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of Medicare+Choice (M+C) plan premiums and benefits and individual beneficiary characteristics on the probability of enrollment in a Medicare+Choice plan.

DATA SOURCE

Individual data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey were combined with plan-level data from Medicare Compare.

STUDY DESIGN

Health plan choices, including the Medicare+Choice/Fee-for-Service decision and the choice of plan within the M+C sector, were modeled using limited information maximum likelihood nested logit.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Premiums have a significant effect on plan selection, with an estimated out-of-pocket premium elasticity of -0.134 and an insurer-perspective elasticity of -4.57. Beneficiaries are responsive to plan characteristics, with prescription drug benefits having the largest marginal effect. Sicker beneficiaries were more likely to choose plans with drug benefits and diabetics were more likely to pick plans with vision coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Plan characteristics significantly impact beneficiaries' decisions to enroll in Medicare M+C plans and individuals sort themselves systematically into plans based on individual characteristics.

The Medicare Health Outcomes Survey program: overview, context, and near-term prospects

In 1996, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS). It is the first national survey to measure the quality of life and functional health status of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care. The program seeks to gather valid and reliable health status data in Medicare managed care for use in quality improvement activities, public reporting, plan accountability and improving health outcomes based on competition. The context that led to the development of the HOS was formed by the convergence of the following factors: 1) a recognized need to monitor the performance of managed care plans, 2) technical expertise and advancement in the areas of quality measurement and health outcomes assessment, 3) the existence of a tested functional health status assessment tool (SF-36)1, which was valid for an elderly population, 4) CMS leadership, and 5) political interest in quality improvement. Since 1998, there have been six baseline surveys and four follow up surveys. CMS, working with its partners, performs the following tasks as part of the HOS program: 1) Supports the technical/scientific development of the HOS measure, 2) Certifies survey vendors, 3) Collects Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set(HEDIS)2 HOS data, 4) Cleans, scores, and disseminates annual rounds of HOS data, public use files and reports to CMS, Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs), Medicare+Choice Organizations (M+COs), and other stakeholders, 5) Trains M+COs and QIOs in the use of functional status measures and best practices for improving care, 6) Provides technical assistance to CMS, QIOs, M+COs and other data users, and 7) Conducts analyses using HOS data to support CMS and HHS priorities.CMS has recently sponsored an evaluation of the HOS program, which will provide the information necessary to enhance the future administration of the program. Information collected to date reveals that the HOS program is a valuable tool that provides a rich set of data that is useful for quality monitoring and improvement efforts. To enhance the future of the HOS program, many stakeholders recommend the implementation of incentives to encourage the use of the data, while others identify the need to monitor the health status of plan disenrollees.Overall, the HOS program represents an important vehicle for collecting outcomes data from Medicare beneficiaries. The new Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (2003) mandates the collection and use of data for outcomes measurement. Consequently, it is important to improve HOS to most effectively meet the mandate.

Does Medicare Managed Care Provide Equal Treatment for Mental IllnessAcross Races?

BACKGROUND

While disparities in access to care are well documented, little is known about the quality of mental health care received by racial and ethnic minorities. We examined the quality of mental health care received by elderly enrollees in Medicare + Choice plans.

METHODS

An observational study was performed using individual-level Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data. From 4182 to 5,016,028 individuals 65 years or older and enrolled in Medicare + Choice plans in 1999 were involved in different measures. Rates of mental health inpatient discharges, average length of stay, percentage of members receiving mental health services, rates of follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness, optimal practitioner contacts for antidepressant medication management, and effective acute- and continuation-phase treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

Compared with whites, minorities received substantially less follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness. The 30-day follow-up rates for whites, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics were 60.2%, 42.4%, 54.1%, and 52.6%, respectively. Minorities also had lower rates of antidepressant medication management for newly diagnosed episodes of depression. The rates of optimal practitioner contacts for whites, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics were 12.5%, 12.0%, 11.1%, and 10.6%; the rates of effective acute-phase treatment were 60.1%, 48.5%, 40.7%, and 57.6%; and the rates of effective continuation-phase treatment were 46.7%, 32.7%, 31.9%, and 39.6%, respectively. The statistically significant disparities persisted after adjusting for effects of age, sex, income, plan model, profit status, and region of the country.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of mental health care for people enrolled in Medicare + Choice managed care plans is far from optimal. There are large and persistent racial differences that merit further attention to better understand their underlying causes and solutions.

The salience of choice for Medicare beneficiaries

The MedicareChoice program was created to expand choice and encourage beneficiaries to more actively consider the choices they have. This article assesses how "salient" choice is to Medicare beneficiaries. More than half of all Medicare beneficiaries in 2000 reported that they either have never considered their options to join a Medicare HMO or get supplemental coverage (44 percent) or did so last when they first became Medicare eligible (14 percent). Overall, 14 percent of Medicare beneficiaries found choice salient in 2000. Those new to Medicare or forced to switch because their plan left the program were more likely to consider choice, as expected. The multi-variate analysis shows that existing HMO enrollment is most strongly associated with salience of choice and also that this effect operates especially in the individual market. The findings of this research are consistent with the literature in highlighting the limited salience of choice to Medicare beneficiaries and the even more limited extent of actual switching that occurs in that market. There is little reason to believe that choice is more salient now than when the study was done. Policymakers who seek to encourage market-based solutions confront a dilemma: How to create incentives for a choice that most beneficiaries do not find particularly salient.

Beneficiary reported experience and voluntary disenrollment in Medicare managed care

Disenrollment rates have often been used as indicators of health plan quality, because they are readily available and easily understood by purchasers, health plans, and consumers. Over the past few years, however, indicators that more directly measure technical quality and consumer experiences with care have become available. In this observational study, we examined the relationship between voluntary disenrollment rates from Medicare managed care (MMC) plans and other measures of health plan quality. The results demonstrate that voluntary disenrollment rates are strongly related to direct measures of patient experiences with care and are an important complement to other measures of health plan performance.

Confronting The Barriers To Chronic Care Management In Medicare

This paper examines the ability of the current Medicare program--both traditional fee-for-service and risk-based contracting--to address the needs of beneficiaries with chronic conditions, who represent almost 80 percent of program enrollment. Grounded in indemnity insurance principles, including concerns about "moral hazard," the traditional Medicare program faces difficulty evolving to support of a chronic care model of health care practice. Although capitation may be the most desirable platform to support provision of care to beneficiaries with chronic conditions, the current structural limitations and problems faced in the Medicare+Choice program limit capitation's use at this time.

Racial variation in quality of care among Medicare+Choice enrollees

This paper examines racial variation in quality of and access to care experienced by elderly persons enrolled in Medicare+Choice plans. We used eight individual-level Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures to compare whites with blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Across all measures, black enrollees received lower-quality care. Hispanics and Native Americans were less likely to receive some types of care but were as likely or more likely to receive other types of care. Asians received equal or better care for all measures. It is important that studies of health care quality include all racial subgroups since the black/white patterns may not apply.

Racial disparities in the quality of care for enrollees in medicare managed care

CONTEXT

Substantial racial disparities in the use of some health services exist; however, much less is known about racial disparities in the quality of care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess racial disparities in the quality of care for enrollees in Medicare managed care health plans.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational study, using the 1998 Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS), which summarized performance in calendar year 1997 for 4 measures of quality of care (breast cancer screening, eye examinations for patients with diabetes, beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction, and follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 305 574 (7.7%) beneficiaries who were enrolled in Medicare managed care health plans had data for at least 1 of the 4 HEDIS measures and were aged 65 years or older.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of breast cancer screening, eye examinations for patients with diabetes, beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction, and follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness.

RESULTS

Blacks were less likely than whites to receive breast cancer screening (62.9% vs 70.9%; P<.001), eye examinations for patients with diabetes (43.6% vs 50.4%; P =.02), beta-blocker medication after myocardial infarction (64.1% vs 73.8%; P<.005), and follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness (33.2 vs 54.0%; P<.001). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, racial disparities were still statistically significant for eye examinations for patients with diabetes, beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction, and follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness.

CONCLUSION

Among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care health plans, blacks received poorer quality of care than whites.

Health insurance knowledge among Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of new consumer information materials about the Medicare program on beneficiary knowledge of their health care coverage under the Medicare system.

DATA SOURCE

A telephone survey of 2,107 Medicare beneficiaries in the 10-county Kansas City metropolitan statistical area.

STUDY DESIGN

Beneficiaries were randomly assigned to a control group and three treatment groups each receiving a different set of Medicare informational materials. The "handbook-only" group received the Health Care Financing Administration's new Medicare & You 1999 handbook. The "bulletin" group received an abbreviated version of the handbook, and the "handbook + CAHPS" group received the Medicare & You handbook plus the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans (CAHPS) survey report comparing the quality of health care provided by Medicare HMOs. Beneficiaries interested in receiving information were oversampled.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Data were collected during two separate telephone surveys of Medicare beneficiaries: one survey of new beneficiaries and another survey of experienced beneficiaries. The intervention materials were mailed to sample members in advance of the interviews. Knowledge for the treatment groups was measured shortly after beneficiaries received the intervention materials.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Respondents' knowledge was measured using a psychometrically valid and reliable 15-item measure. Beneficiaries who received the intervention materials answered significantly more questions correctly than control group members. The effect on beneficiary knowledge of providing the information was modest for all intervention groups but varied for experienced beneficiaries only, depending on the intervention they received.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that all of the new materials had a positive effect on beneficiary knowledge about Medicare and the Medicare + Choice program. While the absolute gain in knowledge was modest, it was greater than increases in knowledge associated with traditional Medicare information sources.

Medicare health maintenance organization benefits packages and plan performance measures

This article reports the results of an analysis of the relationship between supplemental benefits offered by Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans and their plan performance ratings. We examined two measures of plan performance: (1) plan ratings as reported in the Medicare Managed Care (MMC) Consumer Assessment of Health Care Study (CAHPS), and (2) disenrollment rates. The results of our analysis indicated that variations in plan supplemental offerings have little impact on enrollees' plan performance ratings--both overall ratings and access to care measures. Furthermore, disenrollment rates were found to be more sensitive to the availability of alternative M+C plans, either in general, or for specific benefits than to variations in benefit offerings.

Combining health plan performance indicators into simpler composite measures

We investigated how the Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Study (CAHPS) survey and the Health Plan Employer Data Information System (HEDIS) measures from Medicare managed care (MMC) plans could be combined into fewer summary performance scores. Four scores summarize most of the variability in these measures, representing (1) care at the doctor's office, (2) customer service and access, (3) vaccinations, and (4) clinical quality measures. These summaries are substantively interpretable, internally consistent, and describe the majority of variation among units in the performance scores analyzed.

Functional health outcomes as a measure of health care quality for Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS), a new quality measure in the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set, is designed to assess physical and mental functional health outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare+Choice organizations. We discuss the rationale for the HOS measure together with methodologic challenges in its use and interpretation, using descriptive data from the baseline Medicare HOS to illustrate some of these challenges.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY DESIGN

The 1999 Cohort 2 Medicare HOS baseline data were used for a cross-sectional descriptive analysis. A random sample of 1,000 beneficiaries from each health plan with a Medicare+Choice contract was surveyed (N = 156,842; 282 organizations included in these analyses) .

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The HOS measure is designed to assess a previously unmeasured dimension of quality. Plan-level variation was seen across all baseline measures of sociodemographic characteristics and illness burden. At the individual level socioeconomic position as measured by educational attainment was strongly associated with functional status. The least educated beneficiaries had the highest burden of illness on all measures examined, and there was a consistent and significant gradient in health and functional status across all levels of education. In analyses stratified by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic gradients in f un ct ion persist ed. CONCLUSIONS Despite limitations, by focusing at t en t ion on the need to improve functional health out comes among elderly Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare+Choice, the HOS can serve as an important new tool to support efforts to improve health care quality. The HOS provides valuable information at the federal, state, and health plan levels that can be used to identify, prioritize, and evaluate quality improvement interventions and monitor progress for the program overall as well as for vulnerable subgroups. To interpret the HOS as a quality measure individual-and plan-level differences in functional status and illness burden, as well as methodologic issues in health status measurement, need to be recognized and addressed.

National quality monitoring of Medicare health plans: the relationship between enrollees' reports and the quality of clinical care

BACKGROUND

The clinical quality of health plans varies. The associations between different measures of health plan quality are incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationships between enrollee reports on the quality of health plans as measured by the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS 2.0) survey and the clinical quality of care measured by the Medicare Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SAMPLE

National sample of 233 Medicare health plans that reported data using the CAHPS 2.0 survey and Medicare HEDIS during 1998.

MEASURES

Five composite measures and four ratings derived from the CAHPS survey and six measures of clinical quality from Medicare HEDIS.

RESULTS

Two composite measures ("getting needed care" and "health plan information and customer service") were significantly associated with most of the HEDIS clinical quality measures. The proportion of enrollees having a personal doctor was also significantly associated with rates of mammography, eye exams for diabetics, beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction, and follow-up after mental health hospitalization. Enrollees' ratings of health plan care were less consistently associated with HEDIS performance. In multivariable analyses, the measure of health plan communication ("health plan information and customer service") was the most consistent predictor of HEDIS performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of associations we observed among some of the measures suggests that the CAHPS survey and HEDIS are complementary quality monitoring strategies. Our results suggest that health plans that provide better access and customer service also provide better clinical care.