Dataset Information

The impact of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare Advantage plan availability and enrollment.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) changes in Medicare Advantage (MA) payment rates on the availability of and enrollment in MA plans.

Data sources

Secondary data on MA plan offerings, contract offerings, and enrollment by state and county, in 2010-2011.

Study design

We estimated regression models of the change in the number of plans, the number of contracts, and enrollment as a function of quartiles of FFS spending and pre-ACA MA payment generosity. Counties in the lowest quartile of spending are treated most generously by the ACA.

Principal findings

Relative to counties in the highest quartile of spending, the number of plans in counties in the first, second, and third quartiles rose by 12 percent, 7.6 percent, and 5.4 percent, respectively. Counties with more generous MA payment rates before the ACA lost significantly more plans. We did not find a similar impact on the change in contracts or enrollment.

Conclusions

The ACA-induced MA payment changes reduced the number of plan choices available for Medicare beneficiaries, but they have yet affected enrollment patterns.

SUBMITTER: Afendulis CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3419768 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHealth insurance literacy helps individuals make informed choices. However, evidence suggests that Medicare beneficiaries experience low health insurance literacy, leading to high-cost or poor-quality coverage choices.ObjectiveTo examine how health insurance literacy was associated with coverage choices between traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA), as well as within MA.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included 6627 TM and MA enrollees, using data from the 2015-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Data analyses were conducted between May 1 and June 30, 2021.ExposuresThree self-reported measures of health insurance literacy (presence of information to make an informed comparison, ease in reviewing and comparing coverage options, and annual review and comparison of coverage options).Main outcomes and measuresEnrollment in TM vs MA and enrollment in an MA plan with different characteristics (star rating, monthly plan premium, in-network maximum out-of-pocket limit, plan type, and provision of supplemental benefits).ResultsWe included 6627 Medicare beneficiaries (3578 women [54.0%]; mean [SD] age, 75.13 [7.12] years). A total of 77 individuals were Asian (1.2%), 696 were Black (10.5%), 488 were Hispanic (7.4%), 5277 were non-Hispanic White (79.6%), and 225 (3.4%) were single races not of Hispanic origin (including American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian) or were 2 or more races. Medicare Advantage enrollment was higher among individuals with higher health insurance literacy than those with lower health insurance literacy, especially for those who reviewed or compared coverage options annually than among those who did not (38.0%; 95% CI, 36.0%-40.1% vs 27.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-29.7%). Among MA beneficiaries, those who reviewed or compared coverage options annually were more likely to enroll in plans with 4 to 4.5 stars and plans with monthly premiums of $1 to $50 by 4.6 percentage points (95% CI, 0.1-9.2 percentage points) and 4.8 percentage points (95% CI, 0.6-9.0 percentage points), respectively. However, enrollment in plans with 5 stars was 3.8 percentage points lower (95% CI, -5.8 to -1.9 percentage points) among individuals who reviewed or compared coverage options annually than among those who did not. Among individuals with low socioeconomic status, the likelihood of reviewing or comparing coverage options annually was lower for those with Medicare and Medicaid dual eligibility than for those without it (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that higher health insurance literacy-particularly, annual review and comparison of coverage choices-is associated with higher MA enrollment and choice of a particular MA plan. Policy makers should develop programs to encourage frequent review and comparison of coverage options for informed decision making.

Project description:ImportanceThe passage of the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act in 2018 allows Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which enroll more than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries, greater flexibility to address members' social determinants of health (SDOH) through supplemental benefits.ObjectiveTo understand MA plan representatives' perspectives on the importance of addressing members' SDOH and their responses to the passage of the CHRONIC Care Act.Design, setting, and participantsThis semistructured qualitative interview study conducted via telephone from July 6, 2018, to November 7, 2018, included participants from 17 MA plans that collectively enrolled more than 13 million MA members (>65% of the total MA market). Data analysis was conducted from September 18, 2018, to December 13, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAudio-recorded interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using a modified content analysis approach to identify major themes and subthemes.ResultsThirty-eight participants representing 17 MA plans varying in region, star rating, and size were interviewed. Analysis of interviews revealed 3 key themes. The first theme was that participants increasingly recognize the value of addressing members' SDOH. The second theme was that participants had different perspectives on whether MA plans should directly address SDOH and how to do so. While some reported that they were taking advantage of the increased flexibility provided by the CHRONIC Care Act to design new benefits or partner with community-based organizations, others indicated that it was outside of their purview to directly address members' SDOH. The third theme was that participants described complex decision-making around how to provide supplemental benefits, including a need for evidence, return on investment, strong community partnerships, and guidance from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the changes in MA plans' benefit packages in response to the CHRONIC Care Act and their efforts to address SDOH will vary. Therefore, it is likely that MA enrollees will be differentially affected by the implementation of the CHRONIC Care Act.

Project description:BackgroundTo facilitate informed decision-making in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes plan information on the Medicare Plan Finder website, including costs, benefits, and star ratings reflecting quality. Little is known about how beneficiaries weigh costs versus quality in enrollment decisions.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess associations between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan attributes (i.e., costs, quality, and benefits) and brand market share and beneficiaries' enrollment decisions.Design, setting, participantsWe performed a nationwide, beneficiary-level cross-sectional analysis of 847,069 beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage for the first time in 2011.Main measuresMatching beneficiaries with their plan choice sets, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate associations between plan attributes and enrollment to assess the proportion of enrollment variation explained by plan attributes and willingness to pay for quality.Key resultsRelative to the total variation explained by the model, the variation in plan choice explained by premiums (25.7 %) and out-of-pocket costs (11.6 %) together explained nearly three times as much as quality ratings (13.6 %), but brand market share explained the most variation (35.3 %). Further, while beneficiaries were willing to pay more in total annual combined premiums and out-of-pocket costs for higher-rated plans (from $4,154.93 for 2.5-star plans to $5,698.66 for 5-star plans), increases in willingness to pay diminished at higher ratings, from $549.27 (95 %CI: $541.10, $557.44) for a rating increase from 2.5 to 3 stars to $68.22 (95 %CI: $61.44, $75.01) for an increase from 4.5 to 5 stars. Willingness to pay varied among subgroups: beneficiaries aged 64-65 years were more willing to pay for higher-rated plans, while black and rural beneficiaries were less willing to pay for higher-rated plans.ConclusionsWhile beneficiaries prefer higher-quality and lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans, marginal utility for quality diminishes at higher star ratings, and their decisions are strongly associated with plans' brand market share.

Project description:ObjectiveSince 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have published 5-star quality rating measures to aid consumers in choosing Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans (MAPDs). We examined the impact of these star ratings on Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) enrollment before and after 2012, when star ratings became tied to bonus payments for MAPDs that could be used to improve plan benefits and/or reduce premiums in the subsequent year.MethodsA longitudinal design and multivariable hybrid models were used to assess whether star ratings had a direct impact on concurrent year MAPD contract enrollment (by influencing beneficiary choice) and/or an indirect impact on subsequent year MAPD contract enrollment (because ratings were linked to bonus payments). The main analysis was based on contract-year level data from 2009-2015. We compared effects of star ratings in the pre-bonus payment period (2009-2011) and post-bonus payment period (2012-2015). Extensive sensitivity analyses varied the analytic techniques, unit of analysis, and sample inclusion criteria. Similar analyses were conducted separately using stand-alone PDP contract-year data; since PDPs were not eligible for bonus payments, they served as an external comparison group.ResultThe main analysis included 3,866 MAPD contract-years. A change of star rating had no statistically significant effect on concurrent year enrollment in any of the pre-, post-, or pre-post combined periods. On the other hand, star rating increase was associated with a statistically significant increase in the subsequent year enrollment (a 1-star increase associated with +11,337 enrollees, p<0.001) in the post-bonus payment period but had a very small and statistically non-significant effect on subsequent year enrollment in the pre-bonus payment period. Further, the difference in effects on subsequent year enrollment was statistically significant between the pre- and post-periods (p = 0.011). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the findings were robust. No statistically significant effect of star ratings was found on concurrent or subsequent year enrollment in the pre- or post-period in the external comparison group of stand-alone PDP contracts.ConclusionStar ratings had no direct impact on concurrent year MAPD enrollment before or after the introduction of bonus payments tied to star ratings. However, after the introduction of these bonus payments, MAPD star ratings had a significant indirect impact of increasing subsequent year enrollment, likely via the reinvestment of bonuses to provide lower premiums and/or additional member benefits in the following year.

Project description: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. To examine the insurance destinations of MA enrollees and the characteristics of enrollees who switch into traditional Medicare (TM) after a contract termination. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Project description:ImportanceVarious policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program.ObjectiveTo quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month.ResultsAmong 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001).Conclusion and relevanceThis cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.

Project description:ImportanceOlder adults in Medicare Advantage (MA) enroll in hospice at higher rates than those in traditional Medicare (TM), but it is unclear whether the pathway of care prior to hospice use differs between MA and TM.ObjectiveTo examine the site of care prior to hospice enrollment for MA beneficiaries compared with those in TM.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare claims data for decedents in calendar years 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2018 who enrolled in hospice in the last 90 days of life. Data were analyzed from February 11, 2022, to October 24, 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or TM in the last month of life.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the site of care prior to hospice enrollment, defined as hospital, nursing home, and home with or without home health, dichotomized as community vs hospital in a logistic regression model. Covariates included decedent demographics, hospice primary diagnosis, and county-level MA penetration. Differences in hospice length of stay between MA beneficiaries and TM beneficiaries were assessed using linear and logistic regression models.ResultsIn this study of 3 164 959 decedents, mean (SD) age was 83.1 (8.6) years, 55.8% were female, and 28.8% were enrolled in MA. Decedents in MA were more likely to enroll in hospice from a community setting than were those in TM, although the gap narrowed over time from an unadjusted 11.1% higher rate of community enrollment in MA vs TM in 2011 (50.1% vs 39.0%) to 8.1% in 2018 (46.4% vs 38.3%). In the primary adjusted analysis over the entire study period, MA enrollment was associated with an 8.09-percentage point (95% CI, 7.96-8.21 percentage points) higher rate of hospice enrollment from the community vs all other sites. This association remained in multiple sensitivity analyses to account for potential differences in the populations enrolled in MA vs TM. The mean overall hospice length of stay was 0.29 days (95% CI, 0.24-0.34 days) longer for MA decedents compared with TM decedents.Conclusions and relevanceCompared with TM beneficiaries, those in MA were more likely to enroll in hospice from community settings vs following inpatient stays. However, hospice length of stay was not substantially different between MA and TM. Further research is needed to understand how MA plans influence hospice use and the direct association with quality of end-of-life care as reported by older adults and their families.