Dataset Information

The Care Span: Lower Hispanic participation in Medicare Part D may reflect program barriers.

ABSTRACT: Despite the successes of Medicare's Part D prescription drug program, an estimated 12.5 percent of Americans ages sixty-five and older do not have prescription drug coverage. It is possible that some who remain without coverage do so for rational economic reasons. However, barriers to insurance uptake, such as the program's complexity, may exist for certain elderly people. Racial and ethnic minorities may be particularly susceptible to these barriers. To investigate the role that race and ethnicity may play in Medicare Part D participation, we analyzed data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study. We found that Hispanics were 35 percent less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have coverage, after individual predictors of prescription drug demand were controlled for. There was no statistically significant difference in Part D coverage between non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites. Results of a stratified analysis suggest that the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites in Part D coverage may be driven by ethnic disparities among those eligible for the low-income Part D subsidy but not automatically enrolled in it. Further research is needed to identify both the exact mechanisms underlying the observed differential uptake in the rapidly growing elderly Hispanic population and potential policy-based solutions.

SUBMITTER: McGarry BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4104518 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Care Span: Lower Hispanic participation in Medicare Part D may reflect program barriers.

McGarry Brian E BE Strawderman Robert L RL Li Yue Y

Health affairs (Project Hope) 20140501 5

Despite the successes of Medicare's Part D prescription drug program, an estimated 12.5 percent of Americans ages sixty-five and older do not have prescription drug coverage. It is possible that some who remain without coverage do so for rational economic reasons. However, barriers to insurance uptake, such as the program's complexity, may exist for certain elderly people. Racial and ethnic minorities may be particularly susceptible to these barriers. To investigate the role that race and ethnic ...[more]

PMID: 24799584

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdvanced primary care is a team-based approach to providing higher-quality primary care. The association of advanced primary care and COVID-19 outcomes is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of advanced primary care with COVID-19 outcomes, including vaccination, case, hospitalization, and death rates during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from January 1, 2020, through January 31, 2022, and Maryland state vaccination data. All Part A and B Medicare claims for Maryland Medicare beneficiaries were included. The study population was divided into beneficiaries attributed to Maryland Primary Care Program (MDPCP) practices and a matched cohort of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met the eligibility criteria for study participation from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021. Eligibility criteria for both groups included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who were eligible for attribution to the MDPCP. A forced-match design was used to match both groups in the study population by age category, sex, race and ethnicity, Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status, COVID-19 Vulnerability Index score, Maryland county of residence, and primary care practice participation.ExposuresPrimary care practice participation in the MDPCP.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome variables included rate of vaccination, monoclonal antibody infusion uptake, and telehealth claims. Secondary outcomes included rates of COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 inpatient claims, COVID-19 emergency department claims, COVID-19 deaths, and median COVID-19 inpatient admission length of stay. Claims measures were assessed from January 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Vaccination measures were assessed from January 1, 2020, through March 31, 2022.ResultsAfter matching, a total of 208 146 beneficiaries in the MDPCP group and 37 203 beneficiaries in the non-MDPCP group were included in this study, comprising 60.10% women and 39.90% men with a median age of 76 (IQR, 71-82) years. Most participants (78.40% and 78.38%, respectively) were White. There were no significant demographic nor risk measure baseline differences between the 2 groups. The MDPCP beneficiaries had more favorable primary COVID-related outcomes than non-MDPCP beneficiaries: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated, compared with 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P < .001). COVID-19-positive beneficiaries in MDPCP also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs 6.11%; P < .001) and received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs 54.53%; P < .001) compared with nonparticipating counterparts. In terms of secondary outcomes, beneficiaries in the MDPCP had lower rates of COVID-19 cases (6.55% vs 7.09%; P < .001), lower rates of COVID-19 inpatient admissions (1.81% vs 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs 0.77%; P < .001) compared with nonparticipating beneficiaries.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that participation in the MDPCP was associated with lower COVID-19 case, hospitalization, and death rates, and advanced primary care and COVID-19 response strategies within the MDPCP were associated with improved COVID-19 outcomes for attributed beneficiaries.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery has been associated with a reduction in episode spending and stable-to-improved quality. However, BPCI may create unintended effects by prompting participating hospitals to increase the overall volume of episodes paid for by Medicare, which could potentially eliminate program-related savings or prompt them to shift case mix to lower-risk patients.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether hospital BPCI participation for LEJR was associated with changes in overall volume and case mix.Design, setting, and participantsObservational study using Medicare claims data and a difference-in-differences method to compare 131 markets (hospital referral regions) with at least 1 BPCI participant hospital (n = 322) and 175 markets with no participating hospitals (n = 1340), accounting for 580 043 Medicare beneficiaries treated before (January 2011-September 2013) and 462 161 after (October 2013-December 2015) establishing the BPCI initiative. Hospital-level case-mix changes were assessed by comparing 265 participating hospitals with a 1:1 propensity-matched set of nonparticipating hospitals from non-BPCI markets.ExposuresHospital BPCI participation.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in market-level LEJR volume in the before vs after BPCI periods and changes in hospital-level case mix based on demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors.ResultsAmong the 1 717 243 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR (mean age, 75 years; 64% women; and 95% nonblack race/ethnicity), BPCI participation was not significantly associated with a change in overall market-level volume. The mean quarterly market volume in non-BPCI markets increased 3.8% from 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.9 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. For BPCI markets, the mean quarterly market volume increased 4.4% from 3.6 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. The adjusted difference-in-differences estimate between the market types was 0.32% (95% CI, -0.06% to 0.69%; P = .10). Among 20 demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors, BPCI participation was associated with differential changes in hospital-level case mix for only 1 factor, prior skilled nursing facility use (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.96% to -0.10%; P = .01) in BPCI vs non-BPCI markets.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR, hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement was not associated with changes in market-level lower extremity joint replacement volume and largely was not associated with changes in hospital case mix. These findings may provide reassurance regarding 2 potential unintended effects associated with bundled payments for LEJR.

Project description:BackgroundThe Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions, especially Medicaid expansion, are believed to have "spillover effects," such as boosting participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) among eligible individuals in the United States (US). However, little empirical evidence exists about the impact of the ACA, with its focus on the dual eligible population, on SNAP participation. The current study investigates whether the ACA, under an explicit policy aim of enhancing the interface between Medicare and Medicaid, has improved participation in the SNAP among low-income older Medicare beneficiaries.MethodsWe extracted 2009 through 2018 data from the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for low-income (≤ %138 Federal Poverty Level [FPL]) older Medicare beneficiaries (n = 50,466; aged ≥ 65), and low-income (≤ %138 FPL) younger adults (aged 20 to < 65 years, n = 190,443). MEPS respondents of > %138 FPL incomes, younger Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and older adults without Medicare were excluded from this study. Using a quasi-experimental comparative interrupted time-series design, we examined (1) whether ACA's support for the Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible program, through facilitating the online Medicaid application process, was associated with an increase in SNAP uptake among low-income older Medicare beneficiaries, and (2) in the instance of an association, to assess the magnitude of SNAP uptake that can be explicitly attributed to the policy's implementation. The outcome, SNAP participation, was measured annually from 2009 through 2018. The year 2014 was set as the intervention point when the Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office started facilitating Medicaid applications online for eligible Medicare beneficiaries.ResultsOverall, the change in the probability of SNAP enrollment from the pre- to post-intervention period was 17.4 percentage points higher among low-income older Medicare enrollees, compared to similarly low-income, SNAP-eligible, younger adults (β = 0.174, P < .001). This boost in SNAP uptake was significant and more apparent among older White (β = 0.137, P = .049), Asians (β = 0.408, P = .047), and all non-Hispanic adults (β = 0.030, P < .001).ConclusionsThe ACA had a positive, measurable effect on SNAP participation among older Medicare beneficiaries. Policymakers should consider additional approaches that link enrollment to multiple programs to increase SNAP participation. Further, there may be a need for additional, targeted efforts to address structural barriers to uptake among African Americans and Hispanics.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of public payment policy may extend to private populations through "spillover" effects. If cost-saving efforts in Medicare also reduce costs among commercially insured patients, Medicare payment systems could be a versatile policy tool in future reform efforts.ObjectivesTo determine whether physicians who participated in a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) reduced spending among their commercial patients.DesignThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study which was conducted using Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) claims data from 2010 to 2015. We compared patients seen by physicians who participated in a Medicare ACO to patients whose physicians were not part of an ACO. We used a difference-in-differences (DIDs) design to test whether physician participation in an ACO was associated with reduced spending among their commercially insured patients. We also tested for heterogeneous effects: we assessed whether spillovers were larger among patients with clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure) that have previously been targeted by Medicare payment programs.SettingThis was a population-based study of commercially insured patients in Michigan.ParticipantsPatients who experienced a significant clinical episode (eg, labor and delivery, acute myocardial infarction) between 2010 and 2015.ExposureOur patient-level exposure is treatment by a Medicare ACO-affiliated physician.Main outcomes and measuresMedical spending of 0-90 days and 91-365 days after a clinical episode.ResultsPatients in the exposure group (n=54,750) and in the control group (n=137,883) were similar in demographic characteristics of age, sex, and type of clinical episodes. Adjusted mean 90-day spending in the preexposure period was $21,292 among the exposure group and $21,157 among the comparison group; these means declined to $21,250 and $20,995 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of $119 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$170 to $408]. Adjusted means for 91-365 days spending in the preperiod were $4258 among the exposure group and $4251 among the comparison group; these means rose to $4338 and $4421 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of -$90 (95% CI, -$312 to $132). We also separately examined patients with conditions that have been targeted by other Medicare payment programs. Among these patients, 90-day spending did not differ between exposure and comparison groups (DIDs, -$223; 95% CI, -$2037 to $1591), although 91-365 days spending decreased among the exposure group with marginal statistical significance (DIDs, -$1160; 95% CI, -$2459 to $140).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians who participated in Medicare ACOs did not reduce spending among most of their commercially insured patients. Medicare policy is unlikely to confer significant spillover benefits to the commercially insured population.

Dataset Information

The Care Span: Lower Hispanic participation in Medicare Part D may reflect program barriers.

Publications

The Care Span: Lower Hispanic participation in Medicare Part D may reflect program barriers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets