Implications of Variation in the Relationships between Beneficiary Characteristics and Medicare Advantage CAHPS Measures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hatfield LA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5517680 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Implications of Variation in the Relationships between Beneficiary Characteristics and Medicare Advantage CAHPS Measures.
Hatfield Laura A LA Zaslavsky Alan M AM
Health services research 20160808 4
<h4>Objective</h4>To study how differences in quality score adjustments across Medicare Advantage contracts change comparisons for individuals and contracts.<h4>Data sources</h4>Responses to the Medicare Advantage implementation of the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey from 2010 to 2014.<h4>Study design</h4>We fit national-and state-level hierarchical models to predict CAHPS scores for individuals and contracts, adjusted for self-reported education, general ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate the relative health risk of Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries compared to those in Traditional Medicare (TM). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Medicare claims and enrollment records for the sample of beneficiaries enrolled in Part D between 2008 and 2015. STUDY DESIGN:We assigned therapeutic classes to Medicare beneficiaries based on their prescription drug utilization. We then regressed nondrug health spending for TM beneficiaries in 2015 on demographic and therapeutic class identifiers for 2014 and used coefficients from this regression to predict relative risk of both MA and TM beneficiaries. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Based on prescription drug utilization data, beneficiaries enrolled in MA in 2015 had 6.9 percent lower health risk than beneficiaries in TM, but differences based on coded diagnoses suggested MA beneficiaries were 6.2 percent higher risk. The relative health risk based on drug usage of MA beneficiaries compared to those in TM increased by 3.4 p.p. from 2008 to 2015, while the relative risk using diagnoses increased 9.8 p.p. CONCLUSIONS:Our results add to a growing body of evidence suggesting MA receives favorable, or, at worst, neutral selection. If MA beneficiaries are no healthier and no sicker than similar beneficiaries in TM, then payments to MA plans exceed what is warranted based on their health status.
| S-EPMC6232441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether black-white patient experience disparities vary by geography and within-county contextual factors.Data sources321 300 Medicare beneficiaries responding to the 2015-2016 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) Surveys; 2010 Census data for several within-county contextual factors.Study designMixed-effects regression models predicted three MCAHPS patient experience measures for black and white beneficiaries from geographic random effects, contextual fixed effects, and beneficiary-level case-mix adjustors.Principal findingsBlack-white disparities in patient experiences were smaller in counties with higher average patient experiences. Black-white disparities in patient experiences were not associated with county-level poverty or racial segregation. However, county racial segregation and some measures of poverty were significantly associated with all beneficiaries' level of health care access. Getting Needed Care scores were higher with greater racial segregation, while Getting Care Quickly scores were lower with higher poverty and racial segregation.ConclusionsEfforts to reduce black-white disparities in patient experiences should focus on areas with low average patient experiences. Attempts to reduce disparities in timely access to health care should target primarily black, low-income, and racially and economically segregated areas. Positive associations of racial segregation with accessing needed care were unexpected.
| S-EPMC6341209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo complement the previously illustrated method to measure resource use in Medicare Advantage (MA) using Encounter data and provide technical details and SAS code to validate Encounter data and implement resource use measures in MA.Data sources2015-2018 MA Encounter, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information System (HEDIS), and Traditional Medicare (TM) claims data.Study designSecondary data analysis.Data collection/extraction methodsWe select MA contracts with high data completeness (≤10% missing hospital stays in Encounter data and ≤±10% difference in ambulatory and emergency department visits between Encounter and HEDIS data). We randomly sample TM beneficiaries with a similar geographic distribution as MA enrollees in the selected contracts. We develop standardized prices of services using TM payments, and we measure MA resource use for inpatient, outpatient, Part D, and hospice services.Principal findingsWe report identifiers/names of contracts with high data completeness. We provide SAS code to manage Encounter data, develop standardized prices, and measure MA resource use.ConclusionsGreater use and validation of Encounter data can help improve data quality. Our results can be used to inform studies using Encounter data to learn about MA performance.
| S-EPMC10501335 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8814909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite substantial geographic variation in Medicare per beneficiary spending in the US, little is known about the extent to which social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with this variation.ObjectiveTo determine the associations between SDoH and county-level price-adjusted Medicare per beneficiary spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used county-level data on 2017 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age and gender) and clinical risk score, supply of health care resources (eg, number of hospital beds), and SDoH measures (eg, median income and unemployment rate) from multiple sources. Multivariable regressions were used to estimate the association of the variation in spending across quintiles with SDoH.Main outcomes and measures2017 county-level price-adjusted Medicare Parts A and B spending per beneficiary. SDoH measures included socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, social relationships, and residential and community context.ResultsAmong 3038 counties with 33 495 776 Medicare FFS beneficiaries (18 352 336 [54.8%] women; mean [SD] age, 72 [1.5] years), mean Medicare price-adjusted per beneficiary spending for counties in the highest spending quintile was $3785 (95% CI, $3706-$3862) higher, or 49% higher, than spending for bottom-quintile counties (mean [SD] spending per beneficiary, $11 464 [735] vs $7679 [522]; P < .001). The total contribution (including through both direct and indirect pathways) of SDoH was 37.7% ($1428 of $3785) of this variation, compared with 59.8% ($2265 of $3785) by patient clinical risk, 14.5% ($549 of $3785) by supply of health care resources, and 19.8% ($751 of $3785) by patient demographic characteristics. When all factors were included within the same model, the direct contribution of SDoH was associated with 5.8% of the variation, compared with 4.6% by supply, 4.7% by patient demographic characteristics, and 62.0% by patient clinical risk.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest social determinants of health are associated with considerable proportions of geographic variation in Medicare spending. Policies addressing SDoH for disadvantaged patients in certain regions have the potential to contain health care spending and improve the value of health care; patient SDoH may need to be accounted for in publicly reported physician performance, and in value-based purchasing incentive programs for health care professionals.
| S-EPMC8193453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether disparities in health care experiences of Medicare beneficiaries differ between managed care (Medicare Advantage [MA]) and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.Data sources132,937 MA and 201,444 FFS respondents to the 2007 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.Study designWe defined seven subgroup characteristics: low-income subsidy eligible, no high school degree, poor or fair self-rated health, age 85 and older, female, Hispanic, and black. We estimated disparities in CAHPS experience of care scores between each of these groups and beneficiaries without those characteristics within MA and FFS for 11 CAHPS measures and assessed differences between MA and FFS disparities in linear models.Principal findingsThe seven subgroup characteristics had significant (p<.05) negative interactions with MA (larger disparities in MA) in 27 of 77 instances, with only four significant positive interactions.ConclusionManaged care may provide less uniform care than FFS for patients; specifically there may be larger disparities in MA than FFS between beneficiaries who have low incomes, are less healthy, older, female, and who did not complete high school, compared with their counterparts. There may be potential for MA quality improvement targeted at the care provided to particular subgroups.
| S-EPMC3165177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine between-state differences in the socioeconomic and health characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicaid, focusing on characteristics not observable to or used by policy makers for risk adjustment.Data source2010-2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.Study designRetrospective analyses of survey-reported health and socioeconomic status (SES) measures among low-income Medicare beneficiaries and low-income dual enrollees. We used hierarchical linear regression models with state random effects to estimate the between-state variation in respondent characteristics and linear models to compare the characteristics of dual enrollees by state Medicaid policies.Principal findingsBetween-state differences in health and socioeconomic risk among low-income Medicare beneficiaries, as measured by the coefficient of variation, ranged from 17.5 percent for an index of socioeconomic risk to 20.3 percent for an index of health risk. Between-state differences were comparable among the subset of low-income beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Dual enrollees with incomes below the Federal Poverty Level were in better health and had higher SES in states that offered Medicaid to individuals with relatively higher incomes. Duals' average incomes were higher in states with Medically Needy programs.ConclusionsCharacteristics of dual enrollees differ substantially across states, reflecting differences in states' low-income Medicare populations and Medicaid policies. Risk-adjustment methods using dual enrollment to proxy for poor health and low SES should account for this state-level heterogeneity.
| S-EPMC6863237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We ascertain the degree of service-level selection in Medicare Advantage (MA) using individual level data on the 100 most frequent HCC's or combination of HCC's from two national insurers in 2012-2013. We find differences in the distribution of beneficiaries across HCC's between TM and MA, principally in the smaller share of MA enrollees with no coded HCC, consistent with greater coding intensity in MA. Among those with an HCC code, absolute differences between MA and TM shares of beneficiaries are small, consistent with little service-level selection. Variation in HCC margins does not predict differences between an HCC's share of MA and TM enrollees, although one cannot a priori sign a relationship between margin and service-level selection. Margins are negatively associated with the importance of post-acute care in the HCC. Margins among common chronic disease classes amenable to medical management and typically managed by primary care physicians are larger than among diseases typically managed by specialists. These margin differences by disease are robust against a test for coding effects and suggest that the average technical efficiency of MA relative to TM may vary by diagnosis. If so, service-level selection on the basis of relative technical efficiency could be welfare enhancing.
| S-EPMC6481953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrivate 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.ObjectiveTo examine differences in home health service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.ExposureTM vs MA plan.Main outcomes and measuresHome 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceThe 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.
| S-EPMC10907922 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9938424 | biostudies-literature