Higher Medicare Advantage Star Ratings Are Associated With Improvements In Patient Outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Meyers DJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7899034 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Higher Medicare Advantage Star Ratings Are Associated With Improvements In Patient Outcomes.
Meyers David J DJ Trivedi Amal N AN Wilson Ira B IB Mor Vincent V Rahman Momotazur M
Health affairs (Project Hope) 20210201 2
Little is known about how well the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' five-star rating system for the overall quality of Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts captures quality of care. Leveraging contract consolidation as a natural experiment to study the association between outcomes and insurer-initiated enrollee shifts to plans with higher-rated contracts, we found that enrollees experiencing a one-star MA rating increase were 20.8 percent less likely to voluntarily leave their plan to en ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) plans, which disproportionately enroll racial/ethnic minorities and persons with socioeconomic disadvantage, receive bonus payments on the basis of overall performance on a 5-star rating scale. The association between plans' overall quality and disparities in quality is not well understood.ObjectiveTo examine the association between MA star ratings and disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities and enrollees with lower income and educational attainment.Design setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study included 1 578 564 MA enrollees from 454 contracts across the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Data analyses were conducted between June 2019 and June 2020.ExposuresSelf-reported race and ethnicity and low socioeconomic status (SES) (defined by low income or less than a high school education) vs high SES (neither low income nor low educational attainment).Main outcomes and measuresPerformance on 22 measures of quality and satisfaction determined at the individual enrollee level, aggregated into simulated star ratings (scale, 2-5) stratified by SES and race/ethnicity.ResultsA total of 1 578 564 enrollees were included in this analysis (55.8% female; mean [SD] age, 71.4 [11.3] years; 65.8% White; 12.3% Black; 14.6% Hispanic). Enrollees with low SES had simulated stratified star ratings 0.5 stars lower (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 stars) than individuals with high SES in the same contract. Black and Hispanic enrollees had simulated star ratings that were 0.3 stars (95% CI, 0.2-0.4 stars) and 0.1 stars (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.2 stars) lower than White enrollees within the same contracts. Black enrollees had a 0.4-star lower rating (95% CI, 0.1-0.7 stars) in 4.5- to 5-star contracts and a no statistical difference in 2.0- to 2.5-star-rated contracts (difference, 0.3 stars; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.7 stars). Hispanic enrollees had a 0.6-star lower simulated rating (95% CI, 0.2-1.0 stars) in 4.5- to 5-star contracts and no statistical difference in 2- to 2.5-star contracts (difference, -0.01 stars; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4 stars). There was low correlation between simulated ratings for enrollees of low SES and high SES (difference, 0.2 stars; 95% CI, 0.03-0.4 stars) and between simulated ratings for White and Black enrollees (difference, 0.4 stars; 95% CI, 0.3-0.5 stars) and White and Hispanic enrollees (difference, 0.3 stars; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4 stars). As the proportion of Black and Hispanic enrollees increased in a contract, racial/ethnic disparities in ratings decreased.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, simulated MA star ratings were only weakly correlated with those for enrollees of low SES in the same contract, and contracts with higher star ratings had larger disparities in quality. Measures of equity in MA plans' quality of care may be needed.
| S-EPMC8796982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medicare Advantage healthcare plans may present undue impediments that result in disparities in patient outcomes. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent STS resection based on enrollment in either traditional Medicare (TM) or Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The Premier Healthcare Database was utilized to identify all patients ≥65 years old who underwent surgery for resection of a lower-extremity STS from 2015 to 2021. These patients were then subdivided based on their Medicare enrollment status (i.e., TM or MA). Patient characteristics, hospital factors, and comorbidities were recorded for each cohort. Bivariable analysis was performed to assess the 90-day risk of postoperative complications. Multivariable analysis controlling for patient sex, as well as demographic and hospital factors found to be significantly different between the cohorts, was also performed. From 2015 to 2021, 1858 patients underwent resection of STS. Of these, 595 (32.0%) had MA coverage and 1048 (56.4%) had TM coverage. The only comorbidities with a significant difference between the cohorts were peripheral vascular disease (p = 0.027) and hypothyroidism (p = 0.022), both with greater frequency in MA patients. After controlling for confounders, MA trended towards having significantly higher odds of pulmonary embolism (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.98, 95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 0.58-6.79), stroke (aOR: 1.14, 95%-CI: 0.20-6.31), surgical site infection (aOR: 1.59, 95%-CI: 0.75-3.37), and 90-day in-hospital death (aOR 1.38, 95%-CI: 0.60-3.19). Overall, statistically significant differences in postoperative outcomes were not achieved in this study. The authors of this study hypothesize that this may be due to study underpowering or the inability to control for other oncologic factors not available in the Premier database. Further research with higher power, such as through multi-institutional collaboration, is warranted to better assess if there truly are no differences in outcomes by Medicare subtype for this patient population.
| S-EPMC10420157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This cross-sectional study examines the extent of narrow networks across Medicare Advantage, types of counties where they are common, enrollment in narrow network plans, and how networks are associated with star ratings.
| S-EPMC8796886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Dialysis Facility Compare Star Rating and the Quality Incentive Program (QIP) generate separate performance scores from clinical measures, and the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS) survey evaluates patient satisfaction across 6 separate domains related to nephrologists, dialysis facility, and information transmission. This study examined the relationship of the 3 measures for US clinics, modeling the 6 ICH-CAHPS domains as independent variables and QIP and star ratings as dependent variables. Among 3176 dialysis clinics, domains assessing dialysis facility and information transmission had a consistently stronger relationship with QIP and star ratings than the domains assessing nephrologists: QIP, β (95% CI) = 1.62 (1.26-1.97) for dialysis facility staff rating, 0.70 (0.35-1.05) for nephrologists; star rating, odds ratio (95% CI) = 1.38 (1.29-1.49) for dialysis facility staff rating, 1.17 (1.09-1.25) for nephrologists. Patient satisfaction is associated with dialysis care quality, with surprising differences between nephrologists and dialysis facilities.
| S-EPMC6422762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSince 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have published 5-star quality rating measures to aid consumers in choosing Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans (MAPDs). We examined the impact of these star ratings on Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) enrollment before and after 2012, when star ratings became tied to bonus payments for MAPDs that could be used to improve plan benefits and/or reduce premiums in the subsequent year.MethodsA longitudinal design and multivariable hybrid models were used to assess whether star ratings had a direct impact on concurrent year MAPD contract enrollment (by influencing beneficiary choice) and/or an indirect impact on subsequent year MAPD contract enrollment (because ratings were linked to bonus payments). The main analysis was based on contract-year level data from 2009-2015. We compared effects of star ratings in the pre-bonus payment period (2009-2011) and post-bonus payment period (2012-2015). Extensive sensitivity analyses varied the analytic techniques, unit of analysis, and sample inclusion criteria. Similar analyses were conducted separately using stand-alone PDP contract-year data; since PDPs were not eligible for bonus payments, they served as an external comparison group.ResultThe main analysis included 3,866 MAPD contract-years. A change of star rating had no statistically significant effect on concurrent year enrollment in any of the pre-, post-, or pre-post combined periods. On the other hand, star rating increase was associated with a statistically significant increase in the subsequent year enrollment (a 1-star increase associated with +11,337 enrollees, p<0.001) in the post-bonus payment period but had a very small and statistically non-significant effect on subsequent year enrollment in the pre-bonus payment period. Further, the difference in effects on subsequent year enrollment was statistically significant between the pre- and post-periods (p = 0.011). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the findings were robust. No statistically significant effect of star ratings was found on concurrent or subsequent year enrollment in the pre- or post-period in the external comparison group of stand-alone PDP contracts.ConclusionStar ratings had no direct impact on concurrent year MAPD enrollment before or after the introduction of bonus payments tied to star ratings. However, after the introduction of these bonus payments, MAPD star ratings had a significant indirect impact of increasing subsequent year enrollment, likely via the reinvestment of bonuses to provide lower premiums and/or additional member benefits in the following year.
| S-EPMC4858248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In all but eight states, Medicare supplemental coverage (or Medigap) plans may deny coverage or charge higher premiums on the basis of preexisting health conditions. This may particularly affect chronically ill or high-need Medicare Advantage enrollees who switch to traditional Medicare and subsequently discover that they are unable to purchase affordable Medigap coverage. We found that in states with no Medigap consumer protections, high-need Medicare Advantage enrollees had a 16.9-percentage-point higher reenrollment rate in Medicare Advantage in the year after switching to traditional Medicare, compared to high-need enrollees in states with strong Medigap consumer protections-namely, guaranteed issue and community rating (charging all enrollees the same premium regardless of health condition). Expanding protections in the Medigap market may increase consumers' access to this type of supplemental coverage.
| S-EPMC6541000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Populations with intensive health care needs and high care costs may be attracted to insurance plans that have high quality ratings, but patients may be likely to disenroll from a plan if their care needs are not met. We assessed the association between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and voluntary disenrollment of incident dialysis patients in the following year over the period 2007-13. We found that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with lower star ratings had significantly higher rates of disenrollment by incident dialysis patients in the following year. Compared to MA plans with 4.0 or more stars, adjusted disenrollment rates were 3.9 percentage points higher for plans with 3.5 stars, 5.0 percentage points higher for those with 3.0 stars, and 12.1 percentage points higher for those with 2.5 or fewer stars. These findings suggest that low plan quality may lead to increased expenditures, as this high-cost population generally must shift from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare upon disenrollment.
| S-EPMC6021124 | 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: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
Project description:We ascertain the degree of service-level selection in Medicare Advantage (MA) using individual level data on the 100 most frequent HCC's or combination of HCC's from two national insurers in 2012-2013. We find differences in the distribution of beneficiaries across HCC's between TM and MA, principally in the smaller share of MA enrollees with no coded HCC, consistent with greater coding intensity in MA. Among those with an HCC code, absolute differences between MA and TM shares of beneficiaries are small, consistent with little service-level selection. Variation in HCC margins does not predict differences between an HCC's share of MA and TM enrollees, although one cannot a priori sign a relationship between margin and service-level selection. Margins are negatively associated with the importance of post-acute care in the HCC. Margins among common chronic disease classes amenable to medical management and typically managed by primary care physicians are larger than among diseases typically managed by specialists. These margin differences by disease are robust against a test for coding effects and suggest that the average technical efficiency of MA relative to TM may vary by diagnosis. If so, service-level selection on the basis of relative technical efficiency could be welfare enhancing.
| S-EPMC6481953 | biostudies-literature