Partner Plan Choices and Medicare Advantage Enrollment Decisions Among Older Adults

Lianlian Lei,Helen Levy,Claire Ankuda,Geoffrey J. Hoffman,Hyungjin Myra Kim,Julie Strominger,Donovan T. Maust

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.1773

IF: 11.816

2024-03-20

JAMA

Abstract:This study examines the association of partner Medicare Advantage plan status over 1 year with beneficiary and plan characteristics.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees

Emma L. Tucher,David J. Meyers,Amal N. Trivedi,Laura M. Gottlieb,Kali S. Thomas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15058

2024-06-07

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cohort study of Medicare Advantage enrollees examines the association between adoption of a primarily health-related benefit, Special Supplemental Benefit for the Chronically Ill, or both and changes in enrollees' overall plan ratings.

medicine, general & internal
Understanding Patient Experience With Medicare Advantage

Paul A. Fishman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38967

2024-10-18

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown from 19% of eligible seniors in 2007 to 54% in 2024, 1 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) projects continued growth in MA relative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Although most Medicare beneficiaries now choose MA plans, much of the extant evidence about health care cost, quality, and patient satisfaction for US seniors is based on data from the Medicare fee-for-service program, owing in part to the availability of patient data from CMS for traditional Medicare. The growth in MA enrollment and greater access to data from health plans participating in the program allow for more research examining potential differences among enrollees in MA vs traditional Medicare, and whether differences exist with regard to system and patient out-of-pocket costs, and both clinical quality and patient satisfaction with their care. 2 The article by Bejarano and colleagues 3 makes an important contribution to the growing literature on the patient experience and satisfaction with their care for seniors enrolled in the MA plan with a focus on 2 critical aspects of the options seniors have among MA plans. Bejarano and colleagues first distinguish between vertically integrated and nonintegrated plans and, second, between what they refer to as legacy and nonlegacy plans. Vertical integration is a common concept within industrial organization in which all the activities required to produce a good or service are conducted by a single firm, or a collection of firms contractually linked with one another. In health care, the fully vertically integrated health plan would include all of the services required for complete patient care. The authors define legacy integrated plans as those that were fully integrated before the recent growth in MA enrollment, demonstrating a long-term commitment to this care model and the ability to provide the full range of patient care services. Citing previous research, 4 Bejarano and colleagues note that nonlegacy plans may have formed more recently around MA business and lack the experience and organizational capacity of the more established legacy plans. By presenting their analysis of patient experience through the lens of integrated and legacy MA plans, Bejarano and colleagues 3 provide insights into the important heterogeneity that exists along the managed care spectrum. Their analysis reveals that a better patient experience was associated with integrated legacy plans, finding small and statistically significant results when examining the relative experience between all integrated and nonintegrated plans, with the greatest impact of legacy plans in patient experiences in customer service and getting appointments and care quickly. These results highlight the experience legacy plans have in patient engagement but may also point to the different care delivery models used by the 3 legacy plans identified in the article (Kaiser Permanente, Intermountain Health, and Geisinger). These plans have decades of experience providing integrated care using salaried clinicians practicing in owned and operated facilities. Nonlegacy, integrated MA plans are more likely to be offered by indemnity insurers using contractual relationships to achieve integration and, therefore, do not offer the same seamless experience that is offered by legacy plans. In addition to reporting clear differences in the patient experience between legacy and nonlegacy integrated MA plans, Bejarano and colleagues 3 provide important insights into the differences among the populations served by these plans, which will provide policy guidance for quality improvement efforts. The authors report that enrollees in legacy integrated plans are more likely than enrollees in nonlegacy plans to be White (77.4% vs 70.3%) and in excellent or very good health (42.1% vs 34.8%) but are less likely to dually eligible for Medicaid (6.8% vs 32.8%). These findings point to critical issues that CMS should consider when evaluating options to improve the MA program and are consistent with evidence from recent studies on MA plan enrollment showing that individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, those in poorer health, and those more likely to have disability or to be experiencing financial distress are less likely to be enrolled in the higher performing MA plans. These findings are consistent with research by Park and colleagues, 5 who found no difference in CMS star quality ratings among integrated and nonintegrated MA plans but did find that that integrated plans were less likely to enroll individuals from socially marginalized groups. 5 This aligns with previous research by Park et al 6 that individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic groups have fewer options for enrolling in higher quality MA plans. Legacy and integrated MA plans -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Enrollment Patterns of Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries by Dental, Vision, and Hearing Benefits

Avni Gupta,Diana Silver,David J Meyers,Genevra Murray,Sherry Glied,José A Pagán

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4936

2024-01-05

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: Most Medicare beneficiaries now choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Racial and ethnic minority group and low-income beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in MA plans. Objective: To examine whether dental, vision, and hearing supplemental benefits offered in MA plans are associated with the plan choices of traditionally underserved Medicare beneficiaries. Design, setting, and participants: This exploratory observational cross-sectional study used data from the 2018 to 2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked to MA plan benefits. The nationally representative sample comprised primarily community-dwelling MA beneficiaries enrolled in general enrollment MA plans. Data analysis was performed between April and October 2023. Exposures: Beneficiary self-identified race and ethnicity and combined individual and spouse income and educational attainment. Main outcomes and measures: Binary indicators were developed to determine whether beneficiaries were enrolled in a plan offering any dental, comprehensive dental, any vision, eyewear, any hearing, or hearing aid benefit. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were estimated to report average marginal effects adjusted for beneficiary-level demographic and health characteristics, plan attributes, and plan availability. Results: This study included 8139 (weighted N = 31 million) eligible MA beneficiaries, with a mean (SD) age of 77.7 (7.5) years. More than half of beneficiaries (54.9%) were women; 9.8% self-identified as Black, 2.0% as Hispanic, 83.9% as White, and 4.2% as other or multiple races or ethnicities. Plan choices by dental benefits were examined among 7516 beneficiaries who were not enrolled in any dental standalone plan, by vision benefits for 8026 beneficiaries not enrolled in any vision standalone plan, and by hearing benefits for 8131 beneficiaries not enrolled in any hearing standalone plan. Black beneficiaries were more likely to enroll in plans with any dental benefit (9.0 percentage points [95% CI, 3.4-14.4]; P < .001), any comprehensive dental benefit (11.2 percentage points [95% CI, 5.7-16.7]; P < .001), any eye benefit (3.0 percentage points [95% CI, 1.0 to 5.0]; P = .004), or any eyewear benefit (6.0 percentage points [95% CI, 0.6-11.5]; P = .03) compared with White beneficiaries. Lower-income individuals (earning ≤200% of the federal poverty level) were more likely to enroll in a plan with a comprehensive dental benefit (4.4 percentage-point difference [95% CI, 0.1-7.9]; P = .01) compared with higher-income beneficiaries. Beneficiaries without a college degree were more likely to enroll in a plan with a comprehensive dental benefit (4.7 percentage-point difference [95% CI, 1.4-8.0]; P = .005) compared with those with higher educational attainment. Conclusions and relevance: The results of this study suggest that racial and ethnic minority individuals and those with lower income or educational attainment are more likely to choose MA plans with dental or vision benefits. As the federal government prepares to adjust MA plan star ratings for health equity, implements MA payment cuts, and allows increasing flexibility in supplemental benefit offerings, these findings may inform benefit monitoring for MA.
Differences between integrated and non-integrated plans in Medicare Advantage

Sungchul Park,Brent A Langellier,David J Meyers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14101

Abstract: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.
Should I stay or should I go again: Multiple switching between fee‐for‐service Medicare and Medicare advantage among older beneficiaries

Geoffrey J. Hoffman,Yang Amy Jiao,Zhaohui Fan,H. Myra Kim,Lillian Min,Donovan Maust

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14398

2024-10-18

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To evaluate whether having previously disenrolled from Medicare Advantage (MA) is associated with lower hazards of future MA enrollment. Data Sources and Study Setting Secondary data from Medicare. Study Design We examined beneficiaries with baseline FFS enrollment from 2017–2019 using a 20% sample of Medicare claims. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of prior MA enrollment (in the three years prior to baseline FFS enrollment) with MA re‐enrollment, and whether this association is modified by Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD), prior nursing home use, chronic illness, dual eligible status, and availability of MA plans and quality. Data Collection Not applicable. Principal Findings Overall, 3.3% of beneficiaries switched to MA annually. Of those with prior MA enrollment, MA switching percentages were 9.0%, 4.6%, and 6.8% for those whose most recent MA enrollments were 1, 2, and 3 years prior to their baseline FFS year. Comparatively, the switching percentages was 3.2% for those with no prior MA enrollment. The hazards of switching to MA were 2.73 (p

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Vertical Integration and Care Experiences Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Geronimo Bejarano,Andrew Ryan,Amal Trivedi,David J. Meyers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38994

2024-10-18

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in integrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated plans share unique features that may differ from newer integrated MA plans. It is unclear whether integrated and legacy-integrated MA plans are associated with a better beneficiary care experience compared with non–legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. Objective To assess whether enrollment in integrated, legacy-integrated, non–legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated MA plans is associated with better beneficiary care experiences. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study included MA beneficiaries who responded to Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys conducted annually between 2015 and 2019. Data analysis was performed between October 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024. Exposure Medicare Advantage plan integration status, categorized as integrated, legacy-integrated, non–legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated. Main Outcomes and Measures The CAHPS surveys assessed 9 care experience measures. To assess differences in care experience measures, mixed linear regression analyses were performed, adjusting for demographic characteristics, plan random effects, and state fixed effects. Results The sample consisted of 857 695 respondents. Their mean (SD) age was 72.6 (10.3) years, and 58.1% were women. A total of 12.7% of respondents were Black, 10.7% were Hispanic, and 71.0% were White. Compared with respondents in nonintegrated MA plans, respondents in integrated MA plans were younger (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [10.3] vs 72.2 [10.3] years, respectively) and were less likely to be Black (13.1% vs 11.2%, respectively), female (58.4% vs 57.2%, respectively), and partially dual eligible (8.7% vs 6.2%, respectively). Integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings only of customer service (1.6 points [95% CI, 1.1-2.1]) and health plan (1.0 points [95% CI, 0.6-1.5]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings of drug plan (3.7 points [95% CI, 2.4-5.0]), health plan (3.1 points [95% CI, 1.7-4.5]), customer service (2.8 points [95% CI, 1.3-4.4]), getting appointments and care quickly (2.6 points [95% CI, 1.2-4.0]), health care quality (1.9 points [95% CI, 1.0-2.7]), physicians who communicate well (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.8]), and care coordination (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, integrated MA plans were not associated with better beneficiary care experiences compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with higher ratings on all care experience measures compared with both non–legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. Monitoring of integrated MA plans is needed to assess whether they are adding meaningful value to MA beneficiaries and to determine their effects on the health care system.

medicine, general & internal
Frailty in Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

Sandra M Shi,Brianne Olivieri-Mui,Chan Mi Park,Stephanie Sison,Ellen P McCarthy,Dae H Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.31067

2024-08-01

Abstract:Importance: A growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM). Objective: To determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Exposure: Enrollment in MA vs TM. Main outcomes and measures: Frailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed. Results: The final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]). Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.
Medicare Advantage plan characteristics associated with sorting their beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays

Jianhui Xu,Kelly E. Anderson,Angela Liu,Daniel Polsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14335

2024-05-30

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To examine whether certain Medicare Advantage (MA) plan characteristics are associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays. Data Sources This paper primarily used 2018–2019 MA encounter data and traditional Medicare (TM) claims data for a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Study Design For each plan design aspect—plan type, carrier, star rating, and network breadth—we estimated two adjusted Poisson regressions of avoidable hospital stays: one without clinician fixed effects and the other with. We calculated the difference between the coefficients to evaluate the extent to which patient sorting affected avoidable hospital stays relative to TM. Data Extraction Methods Our sample included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older who were continuously enrolled in either MA or TM during 2018–2019. Beneficiaries in our sample had one or more chronic, ambulatory care‐sensitive conditions. Principal Findings Patient sorting can be attributed to certain characteristics of plan design aspects. For plan type, HMOs account for 86%, with PPOs accounting for only 14%. For carriers, Humana and smaller carriers account for 89%. For star ratings, high‐star contracts account for 94%, with other stars only accounting for 6%. By network design, narrow network plan‐counties explained 20% of the patient sorting effect. Conclusions While MA plans were found to be associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays, the effect is not homogeneous across the characteristics of MA plans. HMOs and high‐star contracts are drivers of this MA phenomenon.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Senior-Focused Primary Care Organizations Increase Access For Medicare Advantage Members, Especially Underserved Groups

Kaylyn E Swankoski,Amanda Sutherland,Emily Boudreau,Yong Li,Melanie Canterberry,J Michael McWilliams,Vivek Garg,Brian W Powers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.01357

Abstract:Population-based payment in Medicare Advantage (MA) can foster innovation in care delivery by giving risk-bearing providers flexibility and strong incentives to enhance care and engage patients. This may particularly benefit historically underserved groups for whom payments often exceed costs. In this study, using data from Humana MA plans, we examined "senior-focused" primary care organizations that are supported predominantly by population-based payments in contracts with MA plans. We explored whether such organizations supported by such payment are associated with better care and improved equity compared with other primary care organizations receiving other forms of payment in MA. Analyses of data from 462,872 MA beneficiaries in 2021 showed that senior-focused primary care organizations served more Black and dually eligible beneficiaries than other primary care organizations serving MA beneficiaries, and regression-adjusted analysis showed that senior-focused primary care patients received 17 percent more primary care visits. Differences were largest among Black and dual-eligible beneficiaries. These findings suggest that risk-bearing organizations in MA are responding to current payment dynamics and providing enhanced care and access to patients, particularly historically underserved populations.
A Study of Healthcare Services Received under Alternative Medicare Insurance Plans

Douglas Smith,Steven Stout,Michael Wieck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37808/jhhsa.44.4.4

2021-01-01

Journal of Health and Human Services Administration

Abstract:An analysis of detailed medical encounter records for a random sample of one million Missouri Medicare beneficiaries reveals dramatically lower usage of medical services by individuals enrolled in Medicare Advantage Organization health maintenance programs (HMO plans) than by individuals enrolled in traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) plans. Differences in usage and mix of services in five major venues (hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, general carrier services, home health, and skilled nursing facilities) persist when we control statistically for medical condition and demographic characteristics of insured individuals, availability of medical services in the counties where they reside, and reimbursement arrangements for beneficiaries’ primary-care providers. Continuing growth in enrollment for Medicare Advantage plans is therefore expected to have a substantial impact on the resources required for delivery of healthcare services and upon the venues in which medical services for the elderly will be provided.
Partnering managed care and community-based services for frail elders: the care advocate program

Kathleen H Wilber,Douglas Allen,George R Shannon,Sam Alongi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51257.x

Abstract:Objectives: To describe a demonstration program that uses master's-level care managers (care advocates) to link Medicare managed care enrollees to home- and community-based services, testing whether referrals to noninsured services can reduce service usage and increase member satisfaction and retention. Design: Using an algorithm designed to target frail, high-cost users of Medicare insured healthcare services, the program partners PacifiCare's Secure Horizons and four of its medical groups with two social service organizations. Setting: Three care advocates located in two community-based social services agencies using telephone interviews to interact with targeted elders living in the community. Participants: Three hundred ninety PacifiCare members aged 69 to 96 receiving care from four PacifiCare-contracted medical groups. Intervention: The 12-month intervention provides telephone assessment, links to eight types of home- and community-based services, and monthly follow-up contacts. Measurements: Sociodemographic characteristics of intervention participants, types of service referrals, and acceptance rates. Results: Lessons learned included the importance of building a shared vision among partners, building on existing relationships between members and providers, and building trust without face-to-face interactions. Conclusion: The program builds on current insured case management services and offers a practical bridge to community-based services.
Association of Medicare Advantage Enrollment With Financial Burden of Care : A Retrospective Cohort Study

Sungchul Park,David J Meyers,Amal N Trivedi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-2480

Abstract:Background: Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans typically offer supplemental benefits and lower copayments for in-network services and must include an out-of-pocket spending limit. Objective: To examine whether the financial burden of care decreased for persons switching from TM to MA (TM-to-MA switchers) relative to those remaining in TM (TM stayers). Design: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study comparing changes in financial outcomes between TM-to-MA switchers and TM stayers. Setting: Population-based. Participants: 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2014 to 2021. Measurements: Individual health care costs (out-of-pocket spending and cost sharing), financial burden (high and catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills, paying medical bills over time, and inability to pay medical bills). Results: Compared with TM stayers, TM-to-MA switchers had small differences in out-of-pocket spending ($168 [95% CI, -$133 to $469]) and proportions of total health expenses paid out of pocket (cost sharing) (0.2 percentage point [CI, -1.3 to 1.7 percentage points]), families with out-of-pocket spending greater than 20% of their income (high financial burden) (0.3 percentage point [CI, -2.5 to 3.0 percentage points]), families reporting out-of-pocket spending greater than 40% of their income (catastrophic financial burden) (0.7 percentage point [CI, -0.1 to 1.6 percentage points]), families reporting paying medical bills over time (-0.2 percentage point [CI, -1.7 to 1.4 percentage points]), families having problems paying medical bills (-0.4 percentage point [CI, -2.7 to 1.8 percentage points]), and families reporting being unable to pay medical bills (0.4 percentage point [CI, -1.3 to 2.0 percentage points]). Limitation: Inability to account for all medical care and cost needs and variations across MA plans, small baseline differences in out-of-pocket spending, and potential residual confounding. Conclusion: Differences in financial outcomes between beneficiaries who switched from TM to MA and those who stayed with TM were small. Differences in financial burden ranged across outcomes and did not have a consistent pattern. Primary funding source: The National Research Foundation of Korea.
County-Level Enrollment in Medicare Advantage Plans Offering Expanded Supplemental Benefits

Zhiyou Yang,Emily Zhu,David Cheng,Mary Price,Margarita Alegria,John Hsu,Joseph P Newhouse,Vicki Fung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.33972

2024-09-03

Abstract:Importance: Since 2019 and 2020, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have been able to offer supplemental benefits that address long-term services and supports (LTSS) and social determinants of health (SDOH). Objective: To examine the temporal trends and geographic variation in enrollment in MA plans offering LTSS and SDOH benefits. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data to examine changes in beneficiary enrollment and plan offerings of LTSS and SDOH benefits from the benefits data from the second quarter of each year and other data from April of each year except 2024, for which the first quarter was the latest for benefits data and January the latest for other data at the time of analysis. Multivariable linear regression models for each type of benefit were used to investigate associations between county characteristics and enrollment in 2024. Analyses were stratified for (1) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) that exclusively enroll dual-eligible beneficiaries and (2) non-D-SNPs. Main outcomes and measures: The percentage of MA enrollees in plans offering LTSS or SDOH benefits at the county level. Results: This study included 2 631 697 D-SNP and 20 114 506 non-D-SNP enrollees in 2020, which increased to 5 494 426 and 25 561 455, respectively, in 2024. From 2020 to 2024, the percentage of D-SNP enrollees in plans offering SDOH benefits increased from 9% to 46%, whereas the percentage fluctuated between 23% and 39% for LTSS benefits. There was an increase in non-D-SNP enrollees with LTSS (from 9% to 22%) and SDOH (from 4% to 20%) benefits from 2020 to 2023, which decreased in 2024. In 2024, the most offered LTSS benefit was in-home support services, and the most offered SDOH benefit was food and produce. The percentage of enrollees with these benefits varied across counties in 2024. In multivariable linear regression models, among D-SNPs, enrollment in plans offering any SDOH benefits was higher in counties with greater MA penetration (coefficient, 5.0 percentage points [pp] per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.1-7.9 pp), in urban counties (coefficient, 7.2 pp vs rural counties; 95% CI, 3.8-10.6 pp), in counties with greater enrollment in fully integrated D-SNPs (coefficient, 3.0 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.2-3.9 pp), and in counties in states with approved Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers for individuals 65 years or older or those with disabilities (coefficient, 10.8 pp; 95% CI, 4.0-17.6 pp). Enrollment in D-SNPs offering LTSS benefits was also higher in counties with greater MA penetration (coefficient, 5.9 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5 pp), urban vs rural counties (coefficient, 4.6 pp; 95% CI, 1.1-8.1 pp), and counties with greater enrollment in fully integrated D-SNPs (coefficient, 3.0 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 pp) in addition to counties with greater social vulnerability scores (coefficient, 1.4 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5 pp). Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of MA plans and enrollees, an increase in enrollment was most consistent in D-SNPs offering SDOH benefits compared with LTSS benefits and in D-SNPs compared with non-D-SNPs. Geographic variation in enrollment patterns highlights potential gaps in access to LTSS and SDOH benefits for rural MA beneficiaries and dual-eligible enrollees living in counties with lower enrollment in fully integrated D-SNPs and states with more limited Medicaid home- and community-based services coverage.
Epidemiology of Homebound Population Among Beneficiaries of a Large National Medicare Advantage Plan

Bruce Leff,Christine Ritchie,Sarah Szanton,Oren Shapira,Amanda Sutherland,Andrew Lynch,Brian W Powers,Mona Siddiqui,Katherine A Ornstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M24-0011

Abstract:Background: Interest in home-based care is increasing among Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The epidemiology of homebound MA beneficiaries is unknown. Objective: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, predictors, health service use, and mortality outcomes of homebound beneficiaries of a large national MA plan. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: National MA plan. Participants: Humana MA beneficiaries in 2022 (n = 2 435 519). Measurements: Homebound status was assessed via in-home assessment using previously defined categories: homebound (never or rarely left home in the past month), semihomebound (left home with assistance, had difficulty, or needed help leaving home), and not homebound. Demographic, clinical, health service use, and mortality outcomes were compared by homebound status. Results: In 2022, the overall prevalence of homebound beneficiaries was 22.0% (8.4% of beneficiaries were homebound, and 13.6% were semihomebound). In adjusted models, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.36 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.37), low-income status or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid (OR, 1.56 [CI, 1.55 to 1.57]), dementia (OR, 2.36 [CI, 2.33 to 2.39]), and moderate to severe frailty (OR, 4.32 [CI, 4.19 to 4.45]) were predictive of homebound status. In multivariable logistic regression, homebound status was associated with increased odds of any emergency department visit (OR, 1.14 [ CI, 1.14 to 1.15]), any inpatient hospital admission (OR, 1.44 [CI, 1.42 to 1.46]), any skilled-nursing facility admission (OR, 2.18 [CI, 2.13 to 2.23]), and death (OR, 2.55 [CI, 2.52 to 2.58]). Limitation: The study period overlapped the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and data were derived from a single national MA plan, which limits generalizability. Conclusion: Overall homebound prevalence in a national MA plan was 22.0% and was independently associated with increased health service use and mortality. Study findings can inform strategic initiatives to identify and manage care for homebound beneficiaries. Primary funding source: Humana, under a collaborative research agreement with Johns Hopkins University.
Gender and couple status differences in advance care planning: a cross-sectional study

Kristin R Baughman,Ruth Ludwick,Ashley Audi,Laura Harlan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/26323524241287221

2024-10-07

Abstract:Background: Past studies have shown mixed results on how gender and living with a spouse or partner impact advance care planning (ACP). Few if any have tested for the interaction between these two variables. Objective: We examined how gender and couple status interact to impact the use of ACP practices including written instructions, designating a durable power of attorney for healthcare (DPOAHC), and discussing one's decisions with others. Design: We used cross-sectional data taken from the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal study of adults over the age of 50 in the United States. Methods: Data are from 632 respondents who died between the 2016 core survey and the 2018 exit survey. Participants had completed the 2016 survey and had a proxy informant complete the 2018 exit survey after their death. Generalized linear mixed models were used to test for main effects and interactions. Results: Women were more likely than men to designate a DPOAHC and to discuss their wishes with others. Women living without a partner were more likely than men living without a partner and coupled households to discuss their wishes with family or others. Conclusion: Both gender and couple status are important variables associated with ACP practices. Healthcare providers may want to reach out to women living within a coupled household and men living without a partner to ensure that they know the benefits of ACP.
The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage “Affinity Plans”

Adam L. Beckman,Andrew M. Ryan,Jose F. Figueroa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.1703

IF: 11.816

2024-03-20

JAMA

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.

medicine, general & internal
COMPANION CARE ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCTION IN ADMISSIONS AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT USE AMONG OLDER ADULTS

Kelsey McNamara,Ellen Rudy,Anne Armao,Kerri Towsley,Samantha Lang,Carla Perissinotto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac059.2927

2022-11-01

Innovation in Aging

Abstract:Abstract Older adults with unmet social needs, including social isolation and loneliness, have higher rates of hospital readmission and emergency department (ED) use. Our objective was to determine if Papa Inc., a nationwide service that pairs older adults with “Papa Pals” for companionship and assistance, was associated with reductions in readmissions and ED visits. SummaCare, a Medicare Advantage Organization in Ohio, partnered with Papa to offer free companion care to their members. We explored changes in inpatient admission rates and ED high-utilizers (defined as members with 4+ ED visits in a calendar year) from 2018 through 2021 using a claims-based analysis. Analysis included members who used 30+ minutes of Papa services in 2021 and had historical claims data from 2019 (n=1,420), matched 1:1 to a non-Papa comparison group (n=1,420) using a validated risk scoring model. Overall, average age was 78, 62% were female, 2% were ED high-utilizers in 2021. Increased enrollment in Papa occurred post hospitalization. The case-mix adjusted 30-day readmission rate in 2021 was 12.6% for Papa users (compared to 14.1% for non-Papa; and 14.5% for Papa users before enrollment), revealing a 1.5% to 2% decline in readmission rate after enrollment in Papa. Using case-mix adjusted relativities, Papa members had 0.89 readmissions for every 1.00 readmission for non-Papa users. Compared to the matched cohort, the Papa cohort had 34% fewer ED high-utilizers during the intervention year. Results provide preliminary evidence that a social companionship service may reduce readmissions and frequent ED use, and can inform future trials on companion-based interventions.
Care-Partner Support and Hospitalization in Assisted Living During Transitional Home Health Care

Jinjiao Wang,Meiling Ying,Helena Temkin-Greener,Thomas V Caprio,Fang Yu,Adam Simning,Yeates Conwell,Yue Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17005

Abstract:Background/objectives: Care-partner support affects outcomes among assisted living (AL) residents. Yet, little is known about care-partner support and its effects on hospitalization during post-acute care transitions. This study examined the variation in care-partner support and its impact on hospitalizations among AL residents receiving Medicare home health (HH) services. Design: Analysis of national data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare claims, Area Health Resources File, and the Social Deprivation Index File. Setting: AL facilities and Medicare HH agencies in the United States. Participants: 741,926 Medicare HH admissions of AL residents in 2017. Measurements: Care-partner support during the HH admission was measured based on the type and frequency of assistance from AL staff in seven domains (i.e., activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental ADLs, medication administration, treatment, medical equipment, home safety, and transportation). Care-partner support in each domain was measured as "assistance not needed" (reference group), "Care-partner currently provides assistance," "care-partner need additional training/support to provide assistance" (i.e., inadequate care-partner support), and "care-partner unavailable/unlikely to provide assistance" (i.e., unavailable care-partner support). Outcome was time-to-hospitalization during the HH admission. Results: Among the 741,926 Medicare HH admissions of AL residents, inadequate care-partner support was identified for all seven domains that ranged from 13.1% (for transportation) to 49.8% (for treatment), and care-partner support was unavailable from 0.9% (for transportation) to 11.0% (for treatment). In Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for patient covariates and geography, compared with "assistance not needed", having inadequate and unavailable care-partner support was related to increased risk of hospitalization by 8.9% (treatment (hazard ratio (HR) =1.089, P < .001)) to 41.3% (medication administration (HR =1.413, P < .001)). Conclusion: For AL residents receiving HH services, having less care-partner support was related to increased risk of hospitalization, particularly regarding medication administration, medical equipment, and transportation/advocacy.
Differences in Home Health Services and Outcomes Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

Rachel A Prusynski,Anthony D'Alonzo,Michael P Johnson,Tracy M Mroz,Natalie E Leland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.5454

2024-03-01

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: Private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans recently surpassed traditional Medicare (TM) in enrollment. However, MA plans are facing scrutiny for burdensome prior authorization and potential rationing of care, including home health. MA beneficiaries are less likely to receive home health, but recent evidence on differences in service intensity and outcomes among home health patients is lacking. Objective: To examine differences in home health service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 in 102 home health locations in 19 states and included 178 195 TM and 107 102 MA patients 65 years or older with 2 or fewer 60-day home health episodes. It included a secondary analysis of standardized assessment and visit data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting regression compared service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM episodes, accounting for differences in demographic characteristics, medical complexity, functional and cognitive impairments, social environment, caregiver support, and local community factors. Models included office location, year, and reimbursement policy fixed effects. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and July 2024. Exposure: TM vs MA plan. Main outcomes and measures: Home health length of stay and number of visits from nursing, physical, occupational, and speech therapy, social work, and home health aides. Patient outcomes included improvement in self-care and mobility function, discharge to the community, and transfer to an inpatient facility during home health. Results: Of 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. MA patients had shorter home health length of stay by 1.62 days (95% CI, -1.82 to 1.42) and received fewer visits from all disciplines except social work. There were no differences in inpatient transfers. MA patients had 3% and 4% lower adjusted odds of improving in mobility and self-care, respectively (mobility odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; self-care OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). MA patients were 5% more likely to discharge to the community compared with TM (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08). Conclusions and relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that MA patients receive shorter and less intensive home health care vs TM patients with similar needs. Differences may be due to the administrative burden and cost-limiting incentives of MA plans. MA patients experienced slightly worse functional outcomes but were more likely to discharge to the community, which may have negative implications for MA patients, including reduced functional independence or increased caregiver burden.
Contract Termination and Insurance Enrollment Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Meehir N Dixit,Amal N Trivedi,David J Meyers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.28267

2024-08-01

Abstract:Importance: Approximately one-fifth of Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts terminated their participation in the MA program between 2011 and 2020. Little is known about subsequent insurance choices following a termination. Objective: To examine the insurance destinations of MA enrollees and the characteristics of enrollees who switch into traditional Medicare (TM) after a contract termination. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study examined MA program data of MA beneficiaries in the Medicare Master Beneficiary File from 2016 to 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Exposures: Beneficiary characteristics, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual eligibility; hospital, nursing home, and home health utilization; and contract characteristics, including plan type, vertical integration, premium, and MA star rating. Main outcome and measures: The main outcome was switching to TM in the year immediately after termination. We also evaluated the characteristics of contracts among those who remained in MA. Results: A total of 117 681 beneficiaries were included in this analysis (64 654 [54.9%] female; 409 [0.4%] American Indian or Alaska Native; 2817 [2.4%] Asian; 76 725 [16.8%] Black; 11 131 [9.5%] Hispanic; 81 226 [69.0%] White; and 2373 [2.0%] other race or ethnicity; 27 078 [23.0%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age, 71.2 [10.4] years). Following a contract termination, 20.1% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%) of enrollees switched to TM, including 32.7% (95% CI, 32.4%-33.1%) of dual-eligible beneficiaries and 16.4% (95% CI, 16.2%-16.5%) of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In nonterminated contracts, the concurrent switch rate was 6.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-6.2%) for all, 10.4% (95% CI, 10.4%-10.4%) for dual-eligible beneficiaries and 5.1% (95% CI, 5.1%-5.1%) for non-dual-eligible enrollees. The highest switch rates to TM were among Black enrollees (32.3% [95% CI, 31.7%-32.8%]) and those with prior use of hospital (31.3% [95% CI, 30.7%-31.9%], nursing home, 41.4% [95% CI, 40.4%-42.4%], or home health care (28.3% [95% CI, 27.4%-29.2%]). Beneficiaries who stayed in MA selected higher-rated star plans (mean posttermination contract star rating of 3.8 [95% CI, 3.8-3.8] stars compared with 3.3 [95% CI, 3.3-3.3] stars in the terminated year), but did not pay more in monthly premiums with 66.5% (95% CI, 66.2%-66.8%) paying the same or lower premiums. Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 MA beneficiaries switched to TM after a contract termination, with Black beneficiaries and those with more intensive health needs having the highest switch rates. These findings highlight the need to examine consequences of contract terminations and subsequent insurance destinations on access to care and health outcomes, especially among those with marginalized race and ethnicity, those who are dual-eligible, and beneficiaries with higher health care needs.

Partner Plan Choices and Medicare Advantage Enrollment Decisions Among Older Adults

New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees

Understanding Patient Experience With Medicare Advantage

Enrollment Patterns of Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries by Dental, Vision, and Hearing Benefits

Differences between integrated and non-integrated plans in Medicare Advantage

Should I stay or should I go again: Multiple switching between fee‐for‐service Medicare and Medicare advantage among older beneficiaries

Vertical Integration and Care Experiences Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Frailty in Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

Medicare Advantage plan characteristics associated with sorting their beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays

Senior-Focused Primary Care Organizations Increase Access For Medicare Advantage Members, Especially Underserved Groups

A Study of Healthcare Services Received under Alternative Medicare Insurance Plans

Partnering managed care and community-based services for frail elders: the care advocate program

Association of Medicare Advantage Enrollment With Financial Burden of Care : A Retrospective Cohort Study

County-Level Enrollment in Medicare Advantage Plans Offering Expanded Supplemental Benefits

Epidemiology of Homebound Population Among Beneficiaries of a Large National Medicare Advantage Plan

Gender and couple status differences in advance care planning: a cross-sectional study

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage “Affinity Plans”

COMPANION CARE ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCTION IN ADMISSIONS AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT USE AMONG OLDER ADULTS

Care-Partner Support and Hospitalization in Assisted Living During Transitional Home Health Care

Differences in Home Health Services and Outcomes Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

Contract Termination and Insurance Enrollment Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries