Physician Network Breadth and Plan Quality Ratings in Medicare Advantage.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sen AP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796886 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Physician Network Breadth and Plan Quality Ratings in Medicare Advantage.
Sen Aditi P AP Meiselbach Mark K MK Anderson Kelly E KE Miller Brian J BJ Polsky Daniel D
JAMA health forum 20210730 7
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. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In 2012 Medicare introduced the quality bonus program, linking financial bonuses to commercial insurers' quality performance in Medicare Advantage (MA). Despite large investments in the program, evidence of its effectiveness is limited. We analyzed insurance claims from the period 2009-2018 from the nation's largest MA claims database for 3,753,117 MA beneficiaries (treatment group) and 4,025,179 commercial enrollees (control group). Using a difference-in-differences framework, we evaluated changes in performance on nine claims-based measures of quality in both groups before and after the start of the bonus program and with adjustment for differential pre-period trends. We observed no consistent differential improvement in quality for MA versus commercial enrollees under the quality bonus program. Program participation was associated with significant quality improvements among MA beneficiaries on four measures, significant declines on four other measures, and no significant change in overall quality performance (+0.6 percentage points). Together, these results suggest that the quality bonus program did not produce the intended improvement in overall quality performance of MA plans.
| S-EPMC9098184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between insurer market structure, health plan quality, and health insurance premiums in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program.Data sources/study settingAdministrative data files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with other secondary data sources.Study designTrends in MA market concentration from 2008 to 2017 are presented, alongside logistic and linear regression models examining MA plan quality and premiums as a function of insurer market structure for 2011.Data collection/extraction methodsData are publicly available.Principal findingsMA plans that tend to operate in more concentrated MA markets have a higher predicted probability of receiving a high-quality health plan rating. Operating in more concentrated MA markets was also found to be associated with higher premiums. Among plans that tend to operate in very concentrated MA markets, high-quality MA plans were associated with premiums as much as two times higher than premiums associated with lower-quality plans.ConclusionsAny policies directed at enhancing insurer competition should consider implications for health plan quality, which may be very different than the implications for enrollee premiums.
| S-EPMC6736911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate how integration between Medicare Advantage plans and health care providers is related to plan premiums and quality ratings.Data sourceWe used public data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Area Resource File and private data from one large insurer. Premiums and quality ratings are from 2009 CMS administrative files and some control variables are historical.Study designWe estimated ordinary least-squares models for premiums and plan quality ratings, with state fixed effects and firm random effects. The key independent variable was an indicator of plan-provider integration.Data collectionWith the exception of Medigap premium data, all data were publicly available. We ascertained plan-provider integration through examination of plans' websites and governance documents.Principal findingsWe found that integrated plan-providers charge higher premiums, controlling for quality. Such plans also have higher quality ratings. We found no evidence that integration is associated with more generous benefits.ConclusionsCurrent policy encourages plan-provider integration, although potential effects on health insurance products and markets are uncertain. Policy makers and regulators may want to closely monitor changes in premiums and quality after integration and consider whether quality improvement (if any) justifies premium increases (if they occur).
| S-EPMC3876399 | 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:Approximately 34% of all Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan in 2019. Quantitative evidence suggests that MA beneficiaries have low rates of switching plans, but that beneficiaries who are hospitalized or use postacute nursing home care are disproportionately more likely to exit their plan. This research sought to explore how MA enrollees choose plans and the factors involved in their decision to keep their current plan or switch plans. We conducted 25 semistructured interviews focusing on expectations and experiences preenrollment and postenrollment among MA beneficiaries. Overall, the beneficiaries interviewed reported being highly satisfied with their plans. After selecting a plan, there was little incentive to revisit their choice since they viewed their plan as "good enough." Confusion, health status, cost and benefits also contributed to many seniors keeping or switching their plans. These seniors were reluctant to switch plans unless they experienced a major health event.
| S-EPMC7903586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sociodemographically disadvantaged patients have worse outcomes on some quality measures that inform Medicare Advantage plan ratings. Performance measurement that does not adjust for sociodemographic factors may penalize plans that disproportionately serve disadvantaged populations. We assessed the impact of adjusting for socioeconomic and demographic factors (sex, race/ethnicity, dual eligibility, disability, rurality, and neighborhood disadvantage) on Medicare Advantage plan rankings for blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol control. After adjustment, 20.3 percent, 19.5 percent, and 11.4 percent of Medicare Advantage plans improved by one or more quintiles in rank on the diabetes, cholesterol, and blood pressure measures, respectively. Plans that improved in ranking after adjustment enrolled higher proportions of disadvantaged enrollees. Adjusting quality measures for socioeconomic factors is important for equitable payment and quality reporting. Our study suggests that plans serving disadvantaged populations would have improved relative rankings for three important outcome measures if socioeconomic factors were included in risk-adjustment models.
| S-EPMC6063315 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8814909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the prices paid to physicians by employer-sponsored Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with those paid by traditional Medicare (TM) and to determine whether the relationship between MA and TM prices is affected by the generosity of MA benchmarks.Study designDescriptive analysis of medical claims data from the 2014-2015 MarketScan Medicare Claims Database.MethodsWe focus on claims for low-complexity office visits with an established patient (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 99213) and electrocardiograms (CPT code 93000). For a given service, we identify the prices paid by MA plans and by TM in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which is our definition of a market. We then construct an MA-to-TM price ratio for each MSA and report the median price ratio. In a subanalysis, we disaggregate the result for office visits by MA benchmark generosity.ResultsFor both services, the estimated median price ratio is close to 1.00. We also find that even as MA benchmarks (relative to local fee-for-service spending) increase, the median price ratio for office visits remains close to 1.00.ConclusionsAfter analyzing claims for common physician services, we find that employer-sponsored MA plans pay prices that are similar to TM rates. This holds even as the generosity of MA plan payment changes. Similarity between MA and TM prices appears to be stable over time, despite recent policy changes. Our findings emphasize the important role that TM plays in the MA market and that TM payment changes could have a spillover effect on MA prices and spending.
| S-EPMC6053627 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10290750 | biostudies-literature
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