Dataset Information

Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medicare 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 findings

This 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.

Conclusions

Compared 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.

SUBMITTER: Kumar A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6019094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been increasing and has reached one-third of total Medicare enrollment. Because of data limitations, direct comparison of inpatient rehabilitation services between MA and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries has been very scarce. Subgroups of elderly individuals admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) may experience different care outcomes by insurance types. Objective:To measure the differences in length of stay and health outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation services between TM and MA beneficiaries in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants:This multiyear cross-sectional study used the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation to assess rehabilitation services received by elderly (aged >65 years) Medicare beneficiaries in IRFs between 2007 and 2016 for stroke, hip fracture, and joint replacement. Generalized linear models were used to assess whether an association existed between Medicare insurance type and IRF care outcomes. Models were adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and facility characteristics. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to August 2019. Exposures:Medicare insurance plan type, TM or MA. Main Outcomes and Measures:Inpatient length of stay in IRFs, functional improvements, and possibility of returning to the community after discharge. Results:The sample included a total of 1 028 470 patients (634 619 women [61.7%]; mean [SD] age, 78.23 [7.26] years): 473 017 patients admitted for stroke, 323 029 patients admitted for hip fracture, and 232 424 patients admitted for joint replacement. Individuals enrolled in MA plans were younger than TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.96 [7.02] vs 77.95 [7.26] years for stroke, 79.92 [6.93] vs 80.85 [6.87] years for hip fracture, and 74.79 [6.58] vs 75.88 [6.80] years for joint replacement) and were more likely to be black (17 086 [25.5%] vs 54 648 [17.9%] beneficiaries) or Hispanic (14 496 [28.5%] vs 24 377 [8.3%] beneficiaries). The MA beneficiaries accounted for 21.8% (103 204 of 473 017) of admissions for stroke, 11.5% (37 160 of 323 029) of admissions for hip fracture, and 11.8% (27 314 of 232 424) of admissions for joint replacement. The MA beneficiaries had shorter mean lengths of stay than did TM beneficiaries for both stroke (0.11 day; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.07 day; 1.15% shorter) and hip fracture (0.17 day; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13 day; 0.85% shorter). The MA beneficiaries also had higher possibilities of returning to the community than did TM beneficiaries, by 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) for stroke and 5.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-5.6%) for hip fracture. The shorter length of stay and better ultimate outcomes were achieved without substantially compromising the intermediate functional improvements. Facility type (freestanding vs within an acute care hospital) and patient alternative payment sources other than Medicare (none vs other) partially explained the differences between insurance types. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that MA enrollees experience shorter length of stay and better outcomes for postacute care than do TM beneficiaries in IRFs. The magnitude of the differences depends on treatment deferability, patient sociodemographic subgroups, and facility characteristics.

Project description:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.

Project description:ImportanceThe Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act of 2014 mandated a quality measure of successful community discharge for postacute care services. Examining variation in performance nationally can help identify opportunities for improving patient-centered quality of care.ObjectiveTo examine US facility-level and geographic variation in rates of successful community discharges after inpatient rehabilitation.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims data from December 31, 2013, through October 1, 2015, included 1154 inpatient rehabilitation facilities submitting claims to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and a total of 487 862 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Analyses were performed from December 8, 2017, through September 11, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresSuccessful community discharge as defined for the Discharge to Community-Post-Acute Care Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Quality Reporting Program measure. To be considered a successful community discharge, patients had to discharge from the inpatient rehabilitation facility to the community (ie, home or self-care) and remain there without experiencing an unplanned rehospitalization or dying within the following 31 days. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services specifications were followed to identify the cohort, define the outcome, and calculate risk-standardized facility and state rates.ResultsAmong the 487 862 patients included in the cohort, mean (SD) age was 76.4 (10.8) years, and 56.9% were female. The overall rate of successful community discharge after inpatient rehabilitation was 63.7% (95% CI, 63.6%-63.8%). Risk-standardized rates ranged from 42.9% to 83.6% across inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Two hundred sixteen facilities (18.7%) performed significantly better than the mean national rate and 203 (17.6%) performed significantly worse (P < .05). Risk-standardized state rates ranged from 55.9% to 73.3%. Rates were lowest in the Northeast (Massachusetts, 55.9%; New Hampshire, 57.0%) and highest in the West (Oregon, 70.3%; Hawaii, 73.3%).Conclusions and relevanceThe observed variation suggests opportunities exist for improving this important, patient-centered national quality measure. Future research is needed to identify the aspects of care delivery and the community services and supports that facilitate successful community discharge. These findings can be used to guide care improvement efforts and further improve the consistency and quality of postacute care.

Project description:ImportanceLow-value care in the Medicare program is prevalent, costly, potentially harmful, and persistent. Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use managed care strategies not available in traditional Medicare (TM), it is not clear whether this flexibility is associated with lower rates of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare rates of low-value services between MA and TM beneficiaries and explore how elements of insurance design present in MA are associated with the delivery of low-value care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. All analyses were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresLow-value care was assessed using 26 claims-based measures. Regression models were used to estimate the association between MA enrollment and rates of low-value services while controlling for beneficiary characteristics. Stratified analyses explored whether network design, product design, value-based payment, or utilization management moderated differences in low-value care between MA and TM beneficiaries and among MA beneficiaries.ResultsAmong a study population of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.0] years; 1 346 777 [54.5%] female; 229 107 [9.3%] Black and 2 126 353 [86.1%] White individuals), 1 527 763 (61.8%) were enrolled in MA and 942 436 (38.2%) were enrolled in TM. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA received 9.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.8%) fewer low-value services in 2019 than TM beneficiaries (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). Although MA beneficiaries enrolled in health management organization and preferred provider organization products received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, the difference was largest for those enrolled in health management organization products (2.6 fewer [95% CI, 2.4-2.8] vs 2.1 fewer [95% CI, 1.9-2.3] services per 100 beneficiaries, respectively). Across primary care payment arrangements, MA beneficiaries received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, with the largest difference observed for MA beneficiaries whose primary care physicians were reimbursed within 2-sided risk arrangements.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of low-value care than those enrolled in TM; elements of insurance design present in the MA program and absent in TM were associated with reduction in low-value care.

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: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.

Project description:ImportanceThe 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk.ObjectiveTo examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program.Main outcomes and measuresPer-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending.ResultsThe sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.