Regional Variations: The Use Of Hospitals, Home Health, And Skilled Nursing In Traditional Medicare And Medicare Advantage.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Li Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6286089 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Regional Variations: The Use Of Hospitals, Home Health, And Skilled Nursing In Traditional Medicare And Medicare Advantage.
Li Qijuan Q Rahman Momotazur M Gozalo Pedro P Keohane Laura M LM Gold Marsha R MR Trivedi Amal N AN
Health affairs (Project Hope) 20180801 8
In the traditional Medicare program, the use of health care services-particularly postacute care-varies substantially across geographic regions. Less is known about such variations in Medicare Advantage (MA), which is growing rapidly. Insurers that are paid on a risk basis, as in MA, may have incentives and tools to restrain the use of services, which could attenuate geographic variations. In this study of fifty-four million Medicare beneficiaries in the period 2007-13, we found that geographic ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The use of home-based medical care differed in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in 2018. Having exactly one such visit was thirty-one times as likely for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries (18.6 percent) as for traditional Medicare beneficiaries (0.6 percent), likely reflecting incentives in the Medicare Advantage program to code all accurate diagnoses. Multiple home-based medical care visits were less likely in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (1.6 percent versus 2.1 percent of beneficiaries, respectively).
| S-EPMC10947452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the use of top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery between Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) enrollees.Study designCross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims and enrollment data.MethodsThe study used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files to compare differences in use of top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and the Whipple procedure [pancreaticoduodenectomy]) between MA and FFS enrollees 65 years and older who underwent the surgery in 2015 to 2017.ResultsAfter adjusting for demographic characteristics and county fixed effects, MA enrollees were less likely to use top-ranked cancer hospitals than FFS enrollees by 6.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7-7.2) overall; the difference varied from 3.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) for colectomy to 14.3 percentage points (95% CI, 10.9-17.8) for the Whipple procedure. The difference in cancer surgery rate at a top-ranked cancer hospital between MA and FFS enrollees was larger for MA plans without out-of-network (OON) benefits (-7.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.1 to -5.9) than for MA plans with OON benefits (-2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.9 to -1.7).ConclusionsMA enrollees were less likely to use top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery than FFS enrollees. This difference was larger for MA plans with more restrictive OON policies. These findings suggest that MA enrollees, particularly those with lower OON benefits, may have restricted access to top-ranked hospitals for cancer care compared with FFS enrollees.
| S-EPMC8979370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare use of diabetes medications between beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM).Study designRetrospective cohort analysis of Medicare enrollment and Part D event claims during 2015-2016.MethodsData came from 1,027,884 TM and 838,420 MA beneficiaries who received at least 1 prescription for an oral or injectable diabetes medication. After matching MA and TM enrollees by demographic characteristics and geography, we analyzed use of medication overall, choices of first diabetes medication for those new to medication, and patterns of adding medications.ResultsOverall and for patients on 1, 2, or 3 diabetes medications, use of metformin was higher in MA by about 3 percentage points, but use of newer medication classes was 5.1 percentage points higher in TM overall (21.3% vs 16.2%). Use of guideline-recommended first-line agents was higher in MA. For those who started metformin first, use of a sulfonylurea as a second medication was 7.8 percentage points higher in MA than TM (61.5% vs 53.7%), whereas use of medications from newer classes was 7.7 percentage points lower (22.0% vs 29.7%). Mean total spending was $149 higher in TM for those taking 1 medication and $298 higher for those taking 2 medications. Differences in spending among MA plans were of similar magnitude to the MA-TM differences.ConclusionsMA enrollees are more likely to be treated with metformin and sulfonylureas and less likely to receive costly newer medications than those in TM, but there also is substantial variation within MA. A limitation of the study is that we could not assess glucose control using glycated hemoglobin levels.
| S-EPMC7967940 | 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:Importance:In the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, Medicare enrollees may be steered by their health plan to specific hospitals. Little is known about the quality of hospitals that serve MA enrollees. Objective:To compare the quality of hospitals that admit MA enrollees with the quality of those that admit traditional Medicare enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012 to 2016 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review to compare quality of care, as measured by the star rating given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and readmission rates, in hospitals that serve MA enrollees and traditional Medicare enrollees using multinomial logit models. Participants were 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries admitted to 2994 acute care hospitals across the United States in 2016. Data were analyzed between August 2018 and August 2019. Exposures:The exposure was MA enrollment. Adjusters included demographic and clinical characteristics and zip code fixed effects. Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital Compare star ratings and quintiles of performance in 30-day readmission rates. Results:The sample included 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries in 2016 (54.3% female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [13.2] years). Of 12?190?270 total hospitalizations, 1?211?293 traditional Medicare and 494?352 MA patients were admitted to 718 low-readmission hospitals and 1?205?586 traditional Medicare and 526?955 MA patients were admitted to 597 high-readmission hospitals. Accounting for observed patient characteristics, MA enrollees less often entered either low- or high-quality hospitals and were more often admitted to average-quality hospitals. For nonemergent hospitalizations, MA enrollees were 1.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-2.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a low-readmissions hospital, 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.6-5.6 percentage points) more likely to enter an average-readmissions hospital, and 3.2 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9-3.5 percentage points) less likely to enter a high-readmissions hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. Patients with MA were also 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 percentage points) less likely to enter a 1- to 2-star hospital, 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9-5.9 percentage points) more likely to enter a 3-star hospital, and 2.8 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a 4- to 5-star hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. The differences were less pronounced for emergency admissions. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that enrollees in MA plans were more likely to be admitted to average-quality hospitals instead of either high- or low-quality hospitals, suggesting that MA plans may be steering their enrollees to specific hospitals.
| S-EPMC6991262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inpatient and skilled nursing facility (SNF) cost sharing in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may reduce unnecessary use of these services. However, large out-of-pocket expenses potentially limit access to care and encourage beneficiaries at high risk of needing inpatient and postacute care to avoid or leave MA plans. In 2011 new federal regulations restricted inpatient and skilled nursing facility cost sharing and mandated limits on out-of-pocket spending in MA plans. After these regulations, MA members in plans with low premiums averaged $1,758 in expected out-of-pocket spending for an episode of seven hospital days and twenty skilled nursing facility days. Among members with the same low-premium plan in 2010 and 2011, 36 percent of members belonged to plans that added an out-of-pocket spending limit in 2011. However, these members also had a $293 increase in average cost sharing for an inpatient and skilled nursing facility episode, possibly to offset plans' expenses in financing out-of-pocket limits. Some MA beneficiaries may still have difficulty affording acute and postacute care despite greater regulation of cost sharing.
| S-EPMC4681704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate a federal regulation effective in 2011 that limited how much that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans could charge for the first 20 days of care in a skilled nursing facility (SNF).DesignDifference-in-differences retrospective analysis comparing SNF utilization trends from 2008-2012.SettingSelect MA plans.ParticipantsMembers of 27 plans with mandatory cost sharing reductions (n=132,000) and members of 21 plans without such reductions (n=138,846).MeasurementsMean monthly number of SNF admissions and days per 1,000 members; annual proportion of MA enrollees exiting the plan.ResultsIn plans with mandated cost sharing reductions, cost sharing for the first 20 days of SNF care decreased from an average of $2,039 in 2010 to $992 in 2011. In adjusted analyses, plans with mandated cost-sharing reductions averaged 158.1 SNF days (95% confidence interval (CI)=153.2-163.1 days) per 1,000 members per month before the cost sharing cap. This measure increased by 14.3 days (95% CI=3.8-24.8 days, p=0.009) in the 2 years after cap implementation. However, increases in SNF utilization did not significantly differ between plans with and without mandated cost-sharing reductions (adjusted between-group difference: 7.1 days per 1,000 members, 95% CI=-6.5-20.8, p=.30). Disenrollment patterns did not change after the cap took effect.ConclusionsWhen a federal regulation designed to protect MA members from high out-of-pocket costs for postacute care took effect, the use of SNF services did not change.
| S-EPMC5992084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo address concerns that postacute cost-sharing may deter high-need beneficiaries from participating in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have capped cost-sharing for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services in MA plans since 2011. This study examines whether SNF use, inpatient use, and plan disenrollment changed following stricter regulations in 2015 that required most MA plans to eliminate or substantially reduce cost-sharing for SNF care.DesignDifference-in-differences retrospective analysis from 2013 to 2016.SettingMA plans.ParticipantsThirty-one million MA members in 320 plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions and 261 plans without such reductions.MeasurementsMean monthly number of SNF admissions, SNF days, hospitalizations, and plan disenrollees per 1000 members.ResultsMean total cost-sharing for the first 20 days of SNF services decreased from $911 to $104 in affected plans. Relative to concurrent changes in plans without mandated cost-sharing reductions, plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions experienced no significant differences in the number of SNF days per 1000 members (adjusted between-group difference: 0.4 days per 1000 members [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -5.2 to 6.0, P=0.89], small decreases in the number of hospitalizations per 1000 members [adjusted between-group difference: 0.6 admissions per 1000 members (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P=0.03)], and small decreases in the number of SNF users who disenrolled at year-end [adjusted between-group difference: -16.8 disenrollees per 1000 members (95% CI, -31.9 to -1.8; P=0.03)].ConclusionsMandated reductions in SNF cost-sharing may have curbed selective disenrollment from MA plans without significantly increasing use of SNF services.
| S-EPMC7880533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRelative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare, managed care plans caring for Medicare beneficiaries may be better positioned to promote recommended services and discourage burdensome procedures with little clinical value at the end of life.ObjectiveTo compare end-of-life service use for enrollees in Medicare Advantage health maintenance organizations (MA-HMO) relative to similar individuals enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM).Research design, subjects, measuresFor a national cohort of Medicare decedents continuously enrolled in MA-HMOs or TM in their year of death, 2003-2009, we obtained hospice enrollment information and individual-level Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set utilization measures for MA-HMO decedents for up to 1 year before death. We developed comparable claims-based measures for TM decedents matched on age, sex, race, and location.ResultsHospice use in the year preceding death was higher among MA than TM decedents in 2003 (38% vs. 29%), but the gap narrowed over the study period (46% vs. 40% in 2009). Relative to TM, MA decedents had significantly lower rates of inpatient admissions (5%-14% lower), inpatient days (18%-29% lower), and emergency department visits (42%-54% lower). MA decedents initially had lower rates of ambulatory surgery and procedures that converged with TM rates by 2009 and had modestly lower rates of physician visits initially that surpassed TM rates by 2007.ConclusionsRelative to comparable TM decedents in the same local areas, MA-HMO decedents more frequently enrolled in hospice and used fewer inpatient and emergency department services, demonstrating that MA plans provide less end-of-life care in hospital settings.
| S-EPMC3804008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBetter evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design.ExposuresEnrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresPostacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services.ResultsIncluded in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.
| S-EPMC10439482 | biostudies-literature