Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Performance on Clinical Quality and Patient Experience Measures: Comparisons from Three Large States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Timbie JW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5682140 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Performance on Clinical Quality and Patient Experience Measures: Comparisons from Three Large States.
Timbie Justin W JW Bogart Andy A Damberg Cheryl L CL Elliott Marc N MN Haas Ann A Gaillot Sarah J SJ Goldstein Elizabeth H EH Paddock Susan M SM
Health services research 20171201 6
<h4>Objective</h4>To compare performance between Medicare Advantage (MA) and Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare during a time of policy changes affecting both programs.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Performance data for 16 clinical quality measures and 6 patient experience measures for 9.9 million beneficiaries living in California, New York, and Florida.<h4>Study design</h4>We compared MA and FFS performance overall, by plan type, and within service areas associated with contracts between CMS a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.
| S-EPMC7970337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which all-cause 30-day readmission rate varies by Medicare program within the same hospitals.Study designWe used conditional logistic regression clustered by hospital and generalized estimating equations to compare the odds of unplanned all-cause 30-day readmission between Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA).Data collectionWisconsin Health Information Organization collects claims data from various payers including private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, twice a year.Principal findingsFor 62 of 66 hospitals, hospital-level readmission rates for MA were lower than those for Medicare FFS. The odds of 30-day readmission in MA were 0.92 times lower than Medicare FFS within the same hospital (odds ratio, 0.93; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.89-0.98). The adjusted overall readmission rates of Medicare FFS and MA were 14.9 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively.ConclusionThese findings provide additional evidence of potential variations in readmission risk by payer and support the need for improved monitoring systems in hospitals that incorporate payer-specific data. Further research is needed to delineate specific care delivery factors that contribute to differential readmission risk by payer source.
| S-EPMC7375992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.
| S-EPMC7489427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Medicare annual wellness visit-a preventive care visit free to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B-requires detection of cognitive impairment. We surveyed an internet panel of adults ages sixty-five and older who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare or Medicare Advantage to measure the use of that benefit and the receipt of structured cognitive assessment by 2019. Overall, approximately one-half of beneficiaries surveyed reported having an annual wellness visit, and fewer than one-third reported having a structured cognitive assessment. Compared with fee-for-service enrollees, Medicare Advantage enrollees were nearly 20 percentage points more likely to report that they had an annual wellness visit and 8.6 percentage points more likely to report that it included a structured cognitive assessment. The difference suggests that the rate of structured cognitive assessment in fee-for-service Medicare might be increased by offering financial and other incentives for take-up that are similar to those in Medicare Advantage.
| S-EPMC9517732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prices that private insurers pay hospitals have received considerable attention in recent years, but most of that literature has focused on the commercially insured population. Although nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, little is known about the prices paid to hospitals by the private insurers that administer such plans. More information on the hospital prices paid by MA plans would provide additional insights into whether MA prices are more closely tied to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) prices or commercial prices. Moreover, information on whether the hospital prices paid by MA plans vary with market characteristics or other factors would be useful for evaluating the performance of the MA program and analyzing proposals to modify it. In this study, we compared the hospital prices paid by MA plans and commercial plans with Medicare FFS prices using 2013 claims from the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database. The HCCI claims were used to calculate hospital prices for private insurers, and Medicare's payment rules were used to estimate Medicare FFS prices. We focused on stays at acute care hospitals in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). We found MA prices to be roughly equal to Medicare FFS prices, on average, but commercial prices were 89% higher than FFS prices. In addition, commercial prices varied greatly across and within MSAs, but MA prices varied much less.
| S-EPMC6050995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare's prospective payment systems for postacute care provide little incentive to coordinate care or control costs. In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans pay for postacute care out of monthly capitated payments and thus have stronger incentives to use it efficiently. We compared the use of postacute care in skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities by enrollees in Medicare Advantage and FFS Medicare after hospital discharge for three high-volume conditions: lower extremity joint replacement, stroke, and heart failure. After accounting for differences in patient characteristics at discharge, we found lower intensity of postacute care for Medicare Advantage patients compared to FFS Medicare patients discharged from the same hospital, across all three conditions. Medicare Advantage patients also exhibited better outcomes than their FFS Medicare counterparts, including lower rates of hospital readmission and higher rates of return to the community. These findings suggest that payment reforms such as bundling in FFS Medicare may reduce the intensity of postacute care without adversely affecting patient health.
| S-EPMC5521268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOne-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's private plan option. Medicare Advantage incentivizes performance on evidence-based care, but limited information exists using reliable clinical data to determine whether this translates into better quality for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in MA compared with those enrolled in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.ObjectiveTo determine differences in evidence-based secondary prevention treatments and intermediate outcomes among patients with CAD enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsIn this observational, retrospective, cohort study, deidentified data from patients 18 years or older diagnosed as having CAD between January 1, 2013, and May 1, 2014, at cardiology practices participating in the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry were studied, including 35 563 patients enrolled in MA and 172 732 enrolled in FFS Medicare. Data were analyzed from March to July 2018.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresMedication prescription patterns among eligible patients and intermediate outcomes, including blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.ResultsOf the 35 563 patients with CAD enrolled in MA, 20 193 (56.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 76.7 (7.6) years; of the 172 732 patients with CAD enrolled in FFS Medicare, 100 025 (57.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 77.5 (8.0) years. Patients enrolled in MA were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to be female and to have heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease compared with those enrolled in FFS Medicare. Compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments, including β-blockers (80.6% vs 78.8%; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (70.7% vs 65.1%; P < .001), and statins (68.4% vs 64.5%; P < .001). Patients enrolled in MA were also more likely to receive all 3 medications when eligible (48.9% vs 40.4%; P < .001). After adjustment, MA beneficiaries had higher odds of receiving guideline-recommended therapy compared with FFS Medicare beneficiaries for β-blockers (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17; P = .002), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19; P < .001), and all 3 medications (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.001-1.50; P = .047). There were no significant differences in intermediate outcomes between those enrolled in MA and FFS Medicare, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with CAD in the PINNACLE registry, MA beneficiaries had more comorbidities than FFS Medicare beneficiaries and were more likely to receive secondary prevention treatments. However, this did not translate into differences in intermediate outcomes. These findings suggest that MA plans may drive improvements in process-based quality measures for Medicare beneficiaries, although this may have a limited effect on improving patient outcomes over FFS Medicare.
| S-EPMC6439549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, collectively referred to as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), are conditions characterized by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence and prevalence of IBD is increasing globally, and although the disease has little impact on mortality, the number of older adults with IBD is expected to increase as the U.S. population ages (1). Older adults with IBD have worse hospitalization outcomes than do their younger counterparts (2). CDC analyzed Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) data to estimate IBD-related hospitalization rates and hospitalization outcomes in 2017 among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ?65 years, by selected demographics and trends in hospitalization rates and by race/ethnicity during 1999-2017. In 2017, the age-adjusted hospitalization rate for Crohn's disease was 15.5 per 100,000 Medicare enrollees, and the IBD-associated surgery rate was 17.4 per 100 hospital stays. The age-adjusted hospitalization rate for ulcerative colitis was 16.2 per 100,000 Medicare enrollees, and the surgery rate was 11.2 per 100 stays. During 1999-2017, the hospitalization rate for both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis decreased among non-Hispanic white (white) beneficiaries, but not among non-Hispanic black (black) beneficiaries. Health care utilization assessment is needed among black beneficiaries with IBD. Disease management for older adults with IBD could focus on increasing preventive care and preventing emergency surgeries that might result in further complications.
| S-EPMC6919289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) plans have different financial incentives. Medicare pays predetermined rates per beneficiary to MA plans for providing care throughout the year, while providers serving FFS patients are reimbursed per utilization event. It is unknown how these incentives affect post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The objective of this study was to examine differences in rehabilitation service use, length of stay, and outcomes for patients following hip fracture between FFS and MA enrollees.Methods and findingsThis was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. We linked the Master Beneficiary Summary File, Medicare Provider and Analysis Review data, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set data, the Minimum Data Set, and the American Community Survey. The 6 primary outcomes of interest in this study included 2 process measures and 4 patient-centered outcomes. Process measures included length of stay in the SNF and average rehabilitation therapy minutes (physical and occupational therapy) received per day. Patient-centered outcomes included 30-day hospital readmission, changes in functional status as measured by the 28-point late loss MDS-ADL scale, likelihood of becoming a long-term resident, and successful discharge to the community. Successful discharge from a SNF was defined as being discharged to the community within 100 days of SNF admission and remaining alive in the community without being institutionalized in any acute or post-acute setting for at least 30 days. We analyzed 211,296 FFS and 75,554 MA patients with hip fracture admitted directly to a SNF following an index hospitalization who had not been in a nursing facility or hospital in the preceding year. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and nursing facility fixed effects regression models to compare treatments and outcomes between MA and FFS patients. MA patients were younger and less cognitively impaired upon SNF admission than FFS patients. After applying IPTW, demographic and clinical characteristics of MA patients were comparable with those of FFS patients. After adjusting for risk factors using IPTW-weighted fixed effects regression models, MA patients spent 5.1 (95% CI -5.4 to -4.8) fewer days in the SNF and received 463 (95% CI to -483.2 to -442.4) fewer minutes of total rehabilitation therapy during the first 40 days following SNF admission, i.e., 12.1 (95% CI -12.7 to -11.4) fewer minutes of rehabilitation therapy per day compared to FFS patients. In addition, MA patients had a 1.2 percentage point (95% CI -1.5 to -1.1) lower 30-day readmission rate, 0.6 percentage point (95% CI -0.8 to -0.3) lower rate of becoming a long-stay resident, and a 3.2 percentage point (95% CI 2.7 to 3.7) higher rate of successful discharge to the community compared to FFS patients. The major limitation of this study was that we only adjusted for observed differences to address selection bias between FFS and MA patients with hip fracture. Therefore, results may not be generalizable to other conditions requiring extensive rehabilitation.ConclusionsCompared to FFS patients, MA patients had a shorter course of rehabilitation but were more likely to be discharged to the community successfully and were less likely to experience a 30-day hospital readmission. Longer lengths of stay may not translate into better outcomes in the case of hip fracture patients in SNFs.
| S-EPMC6019094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.
| S-EPMC9579917 | biostudies-literature