Dataset Information

Perspectives of Medicare Advantage Plan Representatives on Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Response to the CHRONIC Care Act.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The passage of the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act in 2018 allows Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which enroll more than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries, greater flexibility to address members' social determinants of health (SDOH) through supplemental benefits.

Objective

To understand MA plan representatives' perspectives on the importance of addressing members' SDOH and their responses to the passage of the CHRONIC Care Act.

Design, setting, and participants

This semistructured qualitative interview study conducted via telephone from July 6, 2018, to November 7, 2018, included participants from 17 MA plans that collectively enrolled more than 13 million MA members (>65% of the total MA market). Data analysis was conducted from September 18, 2018, to December 13, 2018.

Main outcomes and measures

Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using a modified content analysis approach to identify major themes and subthemes.

Results

Thirty-eight participants representing 17 MA plans varying in region, star rating, and size were interviewed. Analysis of interviews revealed 3 key themes. The first theme was that participants increasingly recognize the value of addressing members' SDOH. The second theme was that participants had different perspectives on whether MA plans should directly address SDOH and how to do so. While some reported that they were taking advantage of the increased flexibility provided by the CHRONIC Care Act to design new benefits or partner with community-based organizations, others indicated that it was outside of their purview to directly address members' SDOH. The third theme was that participants described complex decision-making around how to provide supplemental benefits, including a need for evidence, return on investment, strong community partnerships, and guidance from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that the changes in MA plans' benefit packages in response to the CHRONIC Care Act and their efforts to address SDOH will vary. Therefore, it is likely that MA enrollees will be differentially affected by the implementation of the CHRONIC Care Act.

SUBMITTER: Thomas KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6628593 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perspectives of Medicare Advantage Plan Representatives on Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Response to the CHRONIC Care Act.

Thomas Kali S KS Durfey Shayla N M SNM Gadbois Emily A EA Meyers David J DJ Brazier Joan F JF McCreedy Ellen M EM Fashaw Shekinah S Wetle Terrie T

JAMA network open 20190703 7

<h4>Importance</h4>The passage of the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act in 2018 allows Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which enroll more than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries, greater flexibility to address members' social determinants of health (SDOH) through supplemental benefits.<h4>Objective</h4>To understand MA plan representatives' perspectives on the importance of addressing members' SDOH and their responses to the passage of the ...[more]

PMID: 31298711

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceVarious policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program.ObjectiveTo quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month.ResultsAmong 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001).Conclusion and relevanceThis cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.

Project description:Importance:How often enrollees with complex care needs leave the Medicare Advantage (MA) program and what might drive their decisions remain unknown. Objective:To characterize trends in switching to and from MA among high-need beneficiaries and to evaluate the drivers of disenrollment decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study of MA and traditional Medicare (TM) enrollees from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2015, used a multinomial logit regression stratified by Medicare-Medicaid eligibility status. All 14?589?645 non-high-need MA enrollees and 1?302?470 high-need enrollees in the United States who survived until the end of 2014 were eligible for the analysis. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2017, through August 1, 2018. Exposures:Enrollee dual eligibility and high-need status (based on complex chronic conditions, multiple morbidities, use of health care services, functional impairment, and frailty indicators), MA plan star rating, and cost sharing. Main Outcomes and Measures:The proportion of enrollees who disenrolled into TM, remained in the same MA plan, or who switched plans within the MA program. Results:A total of 13 901 816 enrollees were included in the analysis (56.2% women; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [9.9] years). Among the 1?302?470 high-need enrollees, an adjusted 4.6% (95% CI, 4.5%-4.6%) of Medicare-only and 14.8% (95% CI, 14.5%-15.0%) of Medicare-Medicaid members switched from MA to TM compared with 3.3% (95% CI, 3.3%-3.3%) and 4.6% (95% CI, 4.5%-4.7%), respectively, among non-high-need enrollees. Among enrollees in low-quality plans, 23.0% (95% CI, 22.3%-23.9%) of Medicare and 42.8% (95% CI, 40.5%-45.1%) of dual-eligible high-need enrollees left MA. Even in high-quality plans, high-need members disenrolled at higher rates than non-high-need members (4.9% [95% CI, 4.6%-5.2%] vs 1.8% [95% CI, 1.8%-1.9%] for Medicare-only enrollees and 11.3% vs 2.4% dual eligible enrollees). Enrollment in a 5.0-star rated plan was associated with a 30.1-percentage point reduction (95% CI, -31.7 to -28.4 percentage points) in the probability of disenrollment among high-need individuals. A $100 increase in monthly premiums was associated with a 33.9-percentage point increase (95% CI, -34.9 to -33.0 percentage points) in the likelihood of switching plans, and a small reduction in the likelihood of disenrolling (-2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to -2.2 percentage points). Among Medicare-Medicaid eligible participants, 14.1% (95% CI, 14.0%-14.2%) of high-need and 16.7% (95% CI, 16.6%-16.7%) of non-high-need enrollees switched from TM to MA. Conclusions and Relevance:Results of this study suggest that substantially higher disenrollment from MA plans occurs among high-need and Medicare-Medicaid eligible enrollees. This study's findings suggest that star ratings have the strongest association with disenrollment trends, whereas increases in monthly premiums are associated with greater likelihood of switching plans.

Dataset Information

Perspectives of Medicare Advantage Plan Representatives on Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Response to the CHRONIC Care Act.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Perspectives of Medicare Advantage Plan Representatives on Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Response to the CHRONIC Care Act.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets