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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Medicare Advantage Under Fire: Public Criticism and Implications

Daniel G Aaron,I Glenn Cohen,Eli Y Adashi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08876-7

2024-06-26

Abstract:Congressional hearings and public reports have drawn attention to problems afflicting Medicare Advantage (MA), the privatized version of Medicare. Private plans became a staple of Medicare through the passage of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Congress passed this law during a furor of privatization, when think tanks and powerful financial interests emphasized the power of corporations' profit incentive to improve the efficiency and quality of social enterprise. Yet the surging criticism of MA suggests a misalignment between the financial interest of some MA plans and the well-being of their patient populations. The criticisms range from deceptive marketing, ghost networks, and patient cherry-picking to unethical prior authorization denials and defrauding the government. In total, MA plans cost the federal government 22% more per patient than if these patients in question were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it is not clear that this additional funding is producing proportional benefits. These developments raise questions about the presence of a profit incentive in Medicare, and perhaps health care more broadly.
Addressing the Marketing Practices of Medicare Advantage Plans

Forrest Bohler,Eli Y Adashi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230384R1

Abstract:The Medicare Advantage (MA) Program, home to nearly half of the eligible Medicare population, has recently come under increased scrutiny. Recent investigations conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have uncovered marketing practices of MA insurance agents that "were not complying with current regulation and unduly pressuring beneficiaries, as well as failing to provide accurate or enough information to assist a beneficiary in making an informed enrollment decision." These findings come at a time in which MA programs are under investigation for denials of prior authorization requests that fall within Medicare guidelines for covered health services. In this Commentary we consider the backdrop for the growing scrutiny of the MA program and the implications thereof to its future trajectory.
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
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.
Boutique to Booming: Medicare Managed Care and the Private Path to Policy Change

Andrew S Kelly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-3523934

Abstract:In 2014, Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment surpassed 30 percent of eligible beneficiaries. Twenty-five years earlier, enrollment hovered at just 3 percent. The expansion of private Medicare plans presents a puzzling instance of policy change within Medicare-a program long held to be a quintessential case of policy stasis. This article investigates the policy features that made Medicare susceptible to this dramatic policy shift, as well as the processes by which the initial policy change remade the politics of Medicare and solidified the MA program. The first enrollment surge occurred in the absence of a proximate legislative or administrative change. Instead, increased spending and expanded benefits were the result of the interaction of new market dynamics with an existing legislative framework-demonstrating an expansionary form of policy drift. The 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act created a policy space that gave the new and lightly controlled managed care industry considerable operational discretion. As the interests of the government's private partners changed in response to new market dynamics, a change occurred in the output and performance of the Medicare managed care program. As enrollment and spending increased, Medicare's politics were remade by the political empowerment of the managed care industry and the creation of a new subconstituency of beneficiaries.
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.
Trends in the level and composition of supplemental benefits in Medicare Advantage

Grace McCormack,Erin Trish

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxad019

2023-06-20

Abstract:Medicare Advantage (MA) plans that bid below benchmarks (or bidding targets) receive a portion of that difference as rebates, which they then must return to beneficiaries through supplemental benefits or reduced premiums or cost-sharing. Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data, we evaluate the growth in rebates and concomitant changes in supplemental benefit composition among health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and local preferred provider organizations (PPOs) from 2011 through 2022. Average rebates grew considerably, particularly after 2015 and among PPOs. Alongside this rebate growth, the share of enrollees in plans offering dental, vision, and hearing benefits also increased, with nearly universal coverage of these benefits among both HMOs and PPOs by 2022. Medicare Advantage plans also increasingly reduced beneficiary Part D premium obligations, while increasing beneficiary financial exposure in the form of higher Part D deductibles, medical out-of-pocket maximums, and cost-sharing for inpatient stays. These findings are particularly relevant as policymakers debate the merits of various reforms to MA payment policy.
Private Medicare plans' responses to benchmark changes and competition before and after the Affordable Care Act's payment cuts

Daria Pelech,Zirui Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14392

2024-10-23

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To examine how private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans responded to slower growth in federal payments after the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Data Sources and Study Setting We used publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on MA plan subsidies ("benchmarks"), asking prices ("bids"), plan premiums, cost‐sharing, and covered benefits. Data covered all counties with MA plans between 2006 through 2019. Study Design We examined plan responses to changes in benchmark subsidies by comparing changes in bids, rebates, and other outcomes between counties experiencing larger changes in benchmarks and counties with smaller changes, pre‐ and post‐ACA. We used longitudinal fixed effects regression models to assess heterogeneity in how plans adjusted premiums and benefits across more and less competitive markets. Data Collection Analyses included all counties with at least one MA plan available to individual beneficiaries. Plans targeting special populations were excluded. Principal Findings Average plan benchmarks fell by ‐ ‐ 0.07, 95% CI: from − 0.06). Plans in more competitive markets responded less to payment changes than plans did in less competitive markets, suggesting the former are operating closer to marginal costs. Finally, payments to plans declined far less than projected due in part to other changes in MA policy. Conclusions Plans used partial pass‐through of benchmark subsidy decreases to shield beneficiaries from cuts and allocated benchmark decreases to benefits that were less salient to the average enrollee. These findings, combined with higher‐than‐projected payments post‐ACA, may explain the continued growth in MA enrollment.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The Promise and Perils of Oncology Care in Medicare Advantage

Michael Anne Kyle,Nancy L. Keating

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34650

2024-09-21

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:The design of the traditional Medicare benefit has changed very little since its inception in the 1960s. Enrollees in traditional Medicare can seek care from any clinicians, practices, or health care organizations (hereafter, providers) enrolled in the Medicare program and have unrestricted access to Medicare's covered services. While these benefits are appealing, beneficiary cost sharing is often high. Medicare Advantage addresses limitations of traditional Medicare by reducing cost sharing and setting maximum out-of-pocket cost caps, while also offering additional services (eg, vision, dental). Medicare Advantage plans can provide more generous benefits because they apply strong benefit design policies, including constraining their provider networks and imposing coverage restrictions (such as prior authorization). As enrollment in Medicare Advantage increases—now more than 50% of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage—researchers have sought to understand the strengths and weaknesses of traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage and their implications for patients. Elsewhere in JAMA Network Open , Kalidindi and colleagues 1 compared resource use and quality of care for Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare enrollees who were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. They found lower resource use in Medicare Advantage that was primarily associated with savings on physician-administered chemotherapy due to using less expensive chemotherapy regimens and fewer chemotherapy administration visits. The very high and rising spending on oncology drugs relative to other drugs 2 may provide an opportunity to improve the value of care, particularly given the substantial variation in prices for different oncology drugs. Research has demonstrated that plan and patient spending for different guideline-concordant regimens of similar efficacy differs by orders of magnitude. 3 In recent years, spending on infused and oral anticancer drugs accounted for approximately two-thirds of all spending for patients undergoing chemotherapy. 4 If Medicare Advantage plans can prompt the use of lower-priced drugs, they may realize substantial savings. 5 Under fee-for-service compensation models, oncologists are reimbursed for physician-administered drugs based on a percentage of the drug's cost (6% of the average sales price for Medicare). To counteract this incentive to use higher-priced drugs, Medicare Advantage is equipped with utilization management tools. Medicare Advantage plans can—and do—require prescribers to submit prior authorization requests before the plan will approve treatment coverage. They also may implement step therapy and quantity limits. Plans' use of utilization management is increasing, in part due to limited alternatives to control the high prices of drugs and other services. Carefully considered prior authorization policies may be an important tool in improving cancer care value given the extraordinarily high cost of cancer drugs, the wide variation in costs of guideline-supported treatment, and the urgent problem of financial toxicity for cancer patients. Utilization management can reduce resource use, but at a cost. Prior authorization processes impose administrative burdens that may limit access to potentially important medications (not assessed in this study, which included patients already receiving chemotherapy), and it leads to delayed or discontinued care among patients already taking cancer drugs. 6 ,7 Moreover, clinician burnout is a worsening challenge, and physicians are distressed by the rising administrative burden of prior authorization. This dynamic is concerning for patient care in the longer term. Innovation in the design of Medicare coverage for all beneficiaries remains a policy priority. For example, alternative payment models, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), have incorporated incentives to use less expensive drugs. OCM practices saw swifter uptake of biosimilar therapies and higher-value use of supportive care drugs, 4 suggesting there may be tools to influence prescribing that are more clinician-friendly than prior authorization. The fewer chemotherapy administration visits for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries observed by Kalindi and colleagues 1 raise questions as to whether plans required less frequent dosing schedules or prioritized chemotherapy regimens with less frequent administration schedules; this is an important question for future study. Another important strategy used by Medicare Advantage plans to lower resource use is defined provider networks. Medicare Advantage plans may seek to steer patients to providers with less-resource intensive practice styles. Alternatively, such networks could result if providers find the utilization management practices of Medicare Advantage plans too onerous. Evidence from Medi -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Do Medicare Advantage Plans Minimize Costs? Investigating the Relationship Between Benchmarks, Costs, and Rebates

Stephen Zuckerman,Laura Skopec,Stuart Guterman

2017-12-01

Abstract:Issue: Medicare Advantage (MA), the program that allows people to receive their Medicare benefits through private health plans, uses a benchmark-and-bidding system to induce plans to provide benefits at lower costs. However, prior research suggests medical costs, profits, and other plan costs are not as low under this system as they might otherwise be. Goal: To examine how well the current system encourages MA plans to bid their lowest cost by examining the relationship between costs and bonuses (rebates) and the benchmarks Medicare uses in determining plan payments. Methods: Regression analysis using 2015 data for HMO and local PPO plans. Findings: Costs and rebates are higher for MA plans in areas with higher benchmarks, and plan costs vary less than benchmarks do. A one-dollar increase in benchmarks is associated with 32-cent-higher plan costs and a 52-cent-higher rebate, even when controlling for market and plan factors that can affect costs. This suggests the current benchmark-and-bidding system allows plans to bid higher than local input prices and other market conditions would seem to warrant. Conclusion: To incentivize MA plans to maximize efficiency and minimize costs, Medicare could change the way benchmarks are set or used.
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
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
Fostering Flexibility: How Medicare Advantage Potentially Accelerated Telehealth Benefits

Lisa M. Grabert,Grace McCormack,Erin Trish,Kathryn L. Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580241238671

2024-01-01

Abstract:In 2018, the US Congress enacted a policy permitting Medicare Advantage (MA) plans to cover telehealth services in a beneficiary’s home and through audio-only means as part of the basic benefit package of services, where prior to the policy change such benefits were only allowed to be covered as a supplemental benefit. MA plans were afforded 2 years of lead time for strategizing, negotiating, and capital investment prior to the start date (January 1, 2020) of the new coverage option. Our data analysis found basic benefit telehealth was offered by plans comprising 71% of enrollment in 2020 and increased to 95% in 2021. At the same time, remote access telehealth was offered as a supplemental benefit for 69% of enrollees in 2020, a decrease of 23% compared to 2019. These efforts by MA plans may have enabled traditional Medicare (TM) to leverage an existing telehealth infrastructure as a solution to the access issues created by public health policies requiring sheltering in place and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The success of this MA policy prompts consideration of additional flexibility beyond the standard basic benefit package, and whether such benefits reduce costs while improving access and/or outcomes in the context of a managed care environment like MA. Subject to oversight, such flexibility could potentially improve value in MA, and facilitate future changes in TM, as appropriate.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Potential “Savings” of Medicare: The Analysis of Medicare Advantage and Accountable Care Organizations

Patrick L. Brockett,Linda L. Golden,Charles C. Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10920277.2018.1436445

2018-04-27

North American Actuarial Journal

Abstract:Medicare faces significant financial challenges because of rising health care costs. In response, Medicare reform efforts have been testing various payment and service delivery models, including accountable care organizations (ACOs), aiming to reduce expenditures while preserving or enhancing the coordination of quality care. The idea behind ACOs is to form an organizational network to coordinate all care for Medicare beneficiaries and in so doing, at least theoretically, improve quality of care and hopefully reduce medical costs. The purpose of this research is to apply Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to assess the potential savings of Medicare obtainable through optimally efficient implementation of ACOs and Medicare Advantage plans. DEA comparisons across plans achieve this purpose by identifying which Medicare plans operate relatively more efficiently and which are inefficient, and additionally, for inefficient plans, the DEA analysis generates target levels of “inputs” and “outputs” required to bring the plan into efficient operation. Knowing sources of inefficiency can also provide insights into Medicare reform, such as Medicare privatization and innovation models. Our results show that Medicare Advantage plans are more efficient in reducing health expenditures but incur higher administrative costs. Health expenditure savings can also be achievable by promoting government-sponsored managed Medicare such as ACOs. Finally, compared to the profit efficiency of Medicaid managed care plans, Medicare Advantage should have the potential for more Medicare market penetration from the supply (insurer) side.
Cost-Associated Unmet Dental, Vision, And Hearing Needs Among Low-Income Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Avni Gupta,Kenton J Johnston,Diana Silver,David J Meyers,Sherry A Glied,José A Pagán

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00210

Abstract:Medicare Advantage (MA) supplemental benefits offered at no or low premiums are a key value proposition for low-income beneficiaries. Despite nearly $20 billion in rebate payments to MA plans for funding supplemental benefits, their quality or enrollee access is not monitored. Using 2018-19 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked to MA plan data, we found that regardless of plan benefit generosity, low-income beneficiaries were more likely to report dental, vision, and hearing unmet needs because of cost. Enrollment in plans with higher corresponding-year (that is, the same year as unmet need measurement) star ratings was associated with lower dental unmet need. Income-related disparities in dental unmet needs were lower in the highest-rated plans. However, prior-year star ratings that determined plan payments were not associated with unmet needs or disparities in those needs. Policy makers should consider monitoring supplemental benefits for equity and access, and they should assess the value added by quality bonus payments to high-rated plans for beneficiaries' access.
Profiling Social Needs Activities in Publicly Traded Medicare Advantage Organizations

Khyathi Gadag,Fred Ullrich,Keith J Mueller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2024.0045

2024-08-27

Abstract:The objective was to examine Medical Advantage (MA) organizations' commitment toward addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) through their health-related social benefit offerings, and the perceived impact of providing supplemental benefits associated with SDOH in their plans. Public reporting documents were reviewed from six of the largest MA firms: Humana, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, Elevance Health, CVS Health, and Centene. Public reports were obtained from each company's website (eg, from the "Investor Relations" page). Quarterly reports for Q1 2023, annual reports for 2022, and proxy statements for 2023 for all companies were examined. Content analysis of the public reports was conducted under three constructs: (1) Growth of MA in the company, (2) SDOH-related activities in the company, and (3) SDOH-related activities in the MA plans of the company. Each of the three constructs was further analyzed for recurring themes and elements. The findings from content analysis suggests that plans are providing tailored benefits that may address the social needs of vulnerable and underserved populations. Companies that offered supplemental benefits and value-based arrangements that addressed social needs reported beneficiary clinical outcomes resulting in cost savings and increased revenue. Health insurance companies identify MA as a significant growth opportunity and a strategically important market for overall membership and revenue growth. Moreover, companies providing innovative social benefits through their MA plans reported witnessing increased value propositions by underserved and vulnerable populations, leading to increased revenue and cost containment.
Physician Reimbursement in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare and Commercial Health Insurance

Erin Trish,Paul Ginsburg,Laura Gascue,Geoffrey Joyce

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2679

2017-09-01

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:Importance: Nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, yet little is known about the prices that MA plans pay for physician services. Medicare Advantage insurers typically also sell commercial plans, and the extent to which MA physician reimbursement reflects traditional Medicare (TM) rates vs negotiated commercial prices is unclear.Objective: To compare prices paid for physician and other health care services in MA, traditional Medicare, and commercial plans.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of claims data evaluating MA prices paid to physicians and for laboratory services and durable medical equipment between 2007 and 2012 in 348 US core-based statistical areas. The study population included all MA and commercial enrollees with a large national health insurer operating in both markets, as well as a 20% sample of TM beneficiaries.Exposures: Enrollment in an MA plan.Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean reimbursement paid to physicians, laboratories, and durable medical equipment suppliers for MA and commercial enrollees relative to TM rates for 11 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding Systems (HCPCS) codes spanning 7 sites of care.Results: The sample consisted of 144 million claims. Physician reimbursement in MA was more strongly tied to TM rates than commercial prices, although MA plans tended to pay physicians less than TM. For a mid-level office visit with an established patient (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 99213), the mean MA price was 96.9% (95% CI, 96.7%-97.2%) of TM. Across the common physician services we evaluated, mean MA reimbursement ranged from 91.3% of TM for cataract removal in an ambulatory surgery center (CPT 66984; 95% CI, 90.7%-91.9%) to 102.3% of TM for complex evaluation and management of a patient in the emergency department (CPT 99285; 95% CI, 102.1%-102.6%). However, for laboratory services and durable medical equipment, where commercial prices are lower than TM rates, MA plans take advantage of these lower commercial prices, ranging from 67.4% for a walker (HCPCS code E0143; 95% CI, 66.3%-68.5%) to 75.8% for a complete blood cell count (CPT 85025; 95% CI, 75.0%-76.6%).Conclusions and Relevance: Traditional Medicare's administratively set rates act as a strong anchor for physician reimbursement in the MA market, although MA plans succeed in negotiating lower prices for other health care services for which TM overpays. Reforms that transition the Medicare program toward some premium support models could substantially affect how physicians and other clinicians are paid.

medicine, general & internal
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.
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
Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry

Utibe R Essien,Yuanyuan Tang,Jose F Figueroa,Terrence Michael A Litam,Fengming Tang,Philip G Jones,Ravi Patel,Rishi K Wadhera,Nihar R Desai,Sanjeev N Mehta,Mikhail N Kosiborod,Muthiah Vaduganathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-1178

2022-07-07

Diabetes Care

Abstract:Objective: Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. Research design and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease. Conclusions: While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage “Affinity Plans”

Medicare Advantage Under Fire: Public Criticism and Implications

Addressing the Marketing Practices of Medicare Advantage Plans

Understanding Patient Experience With Medicare Advantage

A Study of Healthcare Services Received under Alternative Medicare Insurance Plans

Boutique to Booming: Medicare Managed Care and the Private Path to Policy Change

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

Trends in the level and composition of supplemental benefits in Medicare Advantage

Private Medicare plans' responses to benchmark changes and competition before and after the Affordable Care Act's payment cuts

The Promise and Perils of Oncology Care in Medicare Advantage

Do Medicare Advantage Plans Minimize Costs? Investigating the Relationship Between Benchmarks, Costs, and Rebates

Vertical Integration and Care Experiences Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees

Fostering Flexibility: How Medicare Advantage Potentially Accelerated Telehealth Benefits

Potential “Savings” of Medicare: The Analysis of Medicare Advantage and Accountable Care Organizations

Cost-Associated Unmet Dental, Vision, And Hearing Needs Among Low-Income Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Profiling Social Needs Activities in Publicly Traded Medicare Advantage Organizations

Physician Reimbursement in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare and Commercial Health Insurance

Differences between integrated and non-integrated plans in Medicare Advantage

Partner Plan Choices and Medicare Advantage Enrollment Decisions Among Older Adults

Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry