Dataset Information

Subgroups of High-Cost Medicare Advantage Patients: an Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a growing focus on improving the quality and value of health care delivery for high-cost patients. Compared to fee-for-service Medicare, less is known about the clinical composition of high-cost Medicare Advantage populations.

Objective

To describe a high-cost Medicare Advantage population and identify clinically and operationally significant subgroups of patients.

Design

We used a density-based clustering algorithm to group high-cost patients (top 10% of spending) according to 161 distinct demographic, clinical, and claims-based variables. We then examined rates of utilization, spending, and mortality among subgroups.

Participants

Sixty-one thousand five hundred forty-six Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

Main measures

Spending, utilization, and mortality.

Key results

High-cost patients (n?=?6154) accounted for 55% of total spending. High-cost patients were more likely to be younger, male, and have higher rates of comorbid illnesses. We identified ten subgroups of high-cost patients: acute exacerbations of chronic disease (mixed); end-stage renal disease (ESRD); recurrent gastrointestinal bleed (GIB); orthopedic trauma (trauma); vascular disease (vascular); surgical infections and other complications (complications); cirrhosis with hepatitis C (liver); ESRD with increased medical and behavioral comorbidity (ESRD+); cancer with high-cost imaging and radiation therapy (oncology); and neurologic disorders (neurologic). The average number of inpatient days ranged from 3.25 (oncology) to 26.09 (trauma). Preventable spending (as a percentage of total spending) ranged from 0.8% (oncology) to 9.5% (complications) and the percentage of spending attributable to prescription medications ranged from 7.9% (trauma and oncology) to 77.0% (liver). The percentage of patients who were persistently high-cost ranged from 11.8% (trauma) to 100.0% (ESRD+). One-year mortality ranged from 0.0% (liver) to 25.8% (ESRD+).

Conclusions

We identified clinically distinct subgroups of patients within a heterogeneous high-cost Medicare Advantage population using cluster analysis. These subgroups, defined by condition-specific profiles and illness trajectories, had markedly different patterns of utilization, spending, and mortality, holding important implications for clinical strategy.

SUBMITTER: Powers BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6374249 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Subgroups of High-Cost Medicare Advantage Patients: an Observational Study.

Powers Brian W BW Yan Jiali J Zhu Jingsan J Linn Kristin A KA Jain Sachin H SH Kowalski Jennifer L JL Navathe Amol S AS

Journal of general internal medicine 20181203 2

<h4>Background</h4>There is a growing focus on improving the quality and value of health care delivery for high-cost patients. Compared to fee-for-service Medicare, less is known about the clinical composition of high-cost Medicare Advantage populations.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe a high-cost Medicare Advantage population and identify clinically and operationally significant subgroups of patients.<h4>Design</h4>We used a density-based clustering algorithm to group high-cost patients (top 10% o ...[more]

PMID: 30511290

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo facilitate informed decision-making in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes plan information on the Medicare Plan Finder website, including costs, benefits, and star ratings reflecting quality. Little is known about how beneficiaries weigh costs versus quality in enrollment decisions.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess associations between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan attributes (i.e., costs, quality, and benefits) and brand market share and beneficiaries' enrollment decisions.Design, setting, participantsWe performed a nationwide, beneficiary-level cross-sectional analysis of 847,069 beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage for the first time in 2011.Main measuresMatching beneficiaries with their plan choice sets, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate associations between plan attributes and enrollment to assess the proportion of enrollment variation explained by plan attributes and willingness to pay for quality.Key resultsRelative to the total variation explained by the model, the variation in plan choice explained by premiums (25.7 %) and out-of-pocket costs (11.6 %) together explained nearly three times as much as quality ratings (13.6 %), but brand market share explained the most variation (35.3 %). Further, while beneficiaries were willing to pay more in total annual combined premiums and out-of-pocket costs for higher-rated plans (from $4,154.93 for 2.5-star plans to $5,698.66 for 5-star plans), increases in willingness to pay diminished at higher ratings, from $549.27 (95 %CI: $541.10, $557.44) for a rating increase from 2.5 to 3 stars to $68.22 (95 %CI: $61.44, $75.01) for an increase from 4.5 to 5 stars. Willingness to pay varied among subgroups: beneficiaries aged 64-65 years were more willing to pay for higher-rated plans, while black and rural beneficiaries were less willing to pay for higher-rated plans.ConclusionsWhile beneficiaries prefer higher-quality and lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans, marginal utility for quality diminishes at higher star ratings, and their decisions are strongly associated with plans' brand market share.

Project description:BackgroundMost healthcare costs are concentrated in a small proportion of individuals with complex social, medical, behavioral, and clinical needs that are poorly met by a fee-for-service healthcare system. Efforts to reduce cost in the top decile have shown limited effectiveness. Understanding patient subgroups within the top decile is a first step toward designing more effective and targeted interventions.ObjectiveSegment the top decile based on spending and clinical characteristics and examine the temporal movement of individuals in and out of the top decile.DesignRetrospective claims data analysis.ParticipantsUnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees (N = 1,504,091) continuously enrolled from 2016 to 2019.Main measuresMedical (physician, inpatient, outpatient) and pharmacy claims for services submitted for third-party reimbursement under Medicare Advantage, available as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) and National Drug Codes (NDC) claims.Key resultsThe top decile was segmented into three distinct subgroups characterized by different drivers of cost: (1) Catastrophic: acute events (acute myocardial infarction and hip/pelvic fracture), (2) persistent: medications, and (3) semi-persistent chronic conditions and frailty indicators. These groups show different patterns of spending across time. Each year, 79% of the catastrophic group dropped out of the top decile. In contrast, 68-70% of the persistent group and 36-37% of the semi-persistent group remained in the top decile year over year. These groups also show different 1-year mortality rates, which are highest among semi-persistent members at 17.5-18.5%, compared to 12% and 13-14% for catastrophic and persistent members, respectively.ConclusionsThe top decile consists of subgroups with different needs and spending patterns. Interventions to reduce utilization and expenditures may show more effectiveness if they account for the different characteristics and care needs of these subgroups.

Project description:BackgroundMedicare Advantage (MA) covers more than 1/3rd of all Medicare beneficiaries. MA plans are required to provide the same benefits as Traditional Medicare (TM), but can impose utilization management tools to control costs.ObjectiveTo assess differences between TM and MA enrollees in the probability of receiving prescribed post-acute home health (HH) care and to describe MA plan characteristics associated with HH receipt.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of claims data, HH patient assessment data, and MA plan data from 2011 to 2017.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older with an incident hospitalization for joint replacement, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, urinary tract infection, septicemia, acute renal failure, or congestive heart failure.Main measuresReceipt of prescribed HH as indicated by a HH discharge code and corresponding HH patient assessment within 14 days of hospital discharge.Key resultsThere were 2,723,245 beneficiaries prescribed HH at discharge (68% TM, 32% MA). About 75% of TM enrollees and 62% of MA enrollees received prescribed post-acute HH. In adjusted analyses, MA enrollees had an -11.7 percentage point (pp) (95% confidence interval (CI): -16.8, -6.5) lower probability of receiving HH compared with TM enrollees. In adjusted analyses, HMO enrollees in plans with cost sharing (- 8.4 pp; 95% CI: - 14.3, - 2.5), referrals (- 3.7 pp; 95% CI: - 6.1, - 1.2), and pre-authorization (- 5.1 pp; 95% CI: - 8.3, - 2.0) were less likely to receive prescribed HH. In adjusted analyses, PPO enrollees in plans with cost sharing were -7.0 pp (95% CI: - 12.7, - 1.4) less likely to receive HH, but there was no difference for those with referrals (1.1 pp; 95% CI, - 1.5, 3.7) or pre-authorization (1.6 pp; 95% CI: - 0.6, - 3.9).ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries, MA enrollees were less likely to receive prescribed post-acute HH compared with TM. As enrollment in MA continues to grow, it is important to examine how differences in utilization relate to outcomes.

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.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral policy proposals advocate introducing copayments for home health care in the Medicare program. To our knowledge, no prior studies have assessed this cost-containment strategy.ObjectiveTo determine the association of home health copayments with use of home health services.Design, setting, and participantsA difference-in-differences case-control study of 18 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans that introduced copayments for home health care between 2007 and 2011 and 18 concurrent control MA plans. The study included 135 302 enrollees in plans that introduced copayment and 155 892 enrollees in matched control plans.ExposuresIntroduction of copayments for home health care between 2007 and 2011.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of enrollees receiving home health care, annual numbers of home health episodes, and days receiving home health care.ResultsCopayments for home health visits ranged from $5 to $20 per visit, which were estimated to be associated with $165 (interquartile range [IQR], $45-$180) to $660 (IQR, $180-$720) in out-of-pocket spending for the average user of home health care. The increased copayment for home health care was not associated with the proportion of enrollees receiving home health care (adjusted difference-in-differences, -0.15 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.38 to 0.09), the number of home health episodes per user (adjusted difference-in-differences, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03), and home health days per user (adjusted difference-in-differences, -0.19; 95% CI, -3.02 to 2.64). In both intervention and control plans and across all levels of copayments, we observed higher disenrollment rates among enrollees with greater baseline use of home health care.Conclusions and relevanceWe found no evidence that imposing copayments reduced the use of home health services among older adults. More intensive use of home health services was associated with increased rates of disenrollment in MA plans. The findings raise questions about the potential effectiveness of this cost-containment strategy.

Dataset Information

Subgroups of High-Cost Medicare Advantage Patients: an Observational Study.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main measures

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Subgroups of High-Cost Medicare Advantage Patients: an Observational Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets