Hispanic-White Differences in Double Bonuses for Quality of Care in Medicare Advantage.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Markovitz AA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8903100 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Hispanic-White Differences in Double Bonuses for Quality of Care in Medicare Advantage.
Markovitz Adam A AA Montás Marie C MC Warrier Anupama A Ayanian John Z JZ Ryan Andrew M AM
JAMA health forum 20220304 3
This study uses Medicare and Medicare Advantage data to describe differences in quality care between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White patients and the association with double bonuses under Medicare Advantage. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Under the Medicare Advantage (MA) quality bonus payment program, initiated in 2012, MA plans with relatively high quality performance that are located in "double bonus"-eligible counties-metropolitan areas with high MA enrollment and low fee-for-service Medicare spending-receive quality bonuses twice as large as those received by equivalently high-quality plans in double-bonus-ineligible counties. Using national data for 2008-18, we found that double bonuses were not associated with either improvements in plan quality or increased MA enrollment. Additionally, because Black beneficiaries were less likely to reside in eligible counties, double bonuses increased payments to plans to care for Black beneficiaries by $60 per year, compared with $91 for White beneficiaries. Our findings suggest that double bonuses not only fail to improve quality and enrollment but also foster a racially inequitable distribution of Medicare funds that disfavors Black beneficiaries. Our study supports eliminating double bonuses, thereby saving Medicare an estimated $1.8 billion per year.
| S-EPMC9278554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Geographic, racial, and ethnic variations in quality of care and outcomes have been well documented among the Medicare population. Few data exist on beneficiaries living in Puerto Rico, three-quarters of whom enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA).To determine the quality of care provided to white and Hispanic MA enrollees in the United States and Puerto Rico.A cross-sectional study of MA enrollees in 2011 was conducted, including white enrollees in the United States (n?=?6?289?374), Hispanic enrollees in the United States (n?=?795?039), and Hispanic enrollees in Puerto Rico (n?=?267?016). The study was conducted from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011; data analysis took place from January 19, 2015, to January 2, 2016.Seventeen performance measures related to diabetes mellitus (including hemoglobin A1c control, retinal eye examination, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control, nephropathy screening, and blood pressure control), cardiovascular disease (including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control, blood pressure control, and use of a ?-blocker after myocardial infarction), cancer screening (colorectal and breast), and appropriate medications (including systemic corticosteroids and bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs).Of the 7.35 million MA enrollees in the United States and Puerto Rico in our study, 1.06 million (14.4%) were Hispanic. Approximately 25.1% of all Hispanic MA enrollees resided in Puerto Rico, which was more than those residing in any state. For 15 of the 17 measures assessed, Hispanic MA enrollees in Puerto Rico received worse care compared with Hispanics in the United States, with absolute differences in performance rates ranging from 2.2 percentage points for blood pressure control in diabetes mellitus (P?=?.03) to 31.3 percentage points for use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy (P?<?.01). Adjusted performance differences between Hispanic MA enrollees in Puerto Rico and Hispanic MA enrollees in the United States exceeded 20 percentage points for 3 measures: use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy (-23.8 percentage points [95% CI, -30.9 to -16.8]), use of systemic corticosteroid in COPD exacerbation (-21.3 percentage points [95% CI, -27.5 to -15.1]), and use of bronchodilator therapy in COPD exacerbation (-22.7 percentage points [95% CI, -27.7 to -17.6]).We found modest differences in care between white and Hispanic MA enrollees in the United States but substantially worse care for enrollees in Puerto Rico compared with their US counterparts. Major efforts are needed to improve care delivery on the island to a level equivalent to the United States.
| S-EPMC4934661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment growth could make it difficult for MA plans to maintain their track record of limiting discretionary utilization while delivering higher-quality care than traditional Medicare. We compared quality and utilization measures in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in 2010 and 2017. Clinical quality performance was higher in MA health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and preferred provider organizations (PPOs) than in traditional Medicare for almost all measures in both years. MA HMOs outperformed traditional Medicare on all measures in 2017. MA HMOs' performance on nearly all seven patient-reported quality measures improved, and MA HMOs outperformed traditional Medicare on five of those measures in 2017. MA PPOs performed the same as or better than traditional Medicare on all but one patient-reported quality measure in 2010 and 2017. The number of emergency department visits was 30 percent lower, the number of elective hip and knee replacements was approximately 10 percent lower, and the number of back surgeries was almost 30 percent lower in MA HMOs than in traditional Medicare in 2017. Utilization trends were similar in MA PPOs, but differences from traditional Medicare were narrower. Despite increased enrollment, overall utilization remains lower in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare, whereas quality performance is the same or higher.
| S-EPMC10171780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) has entailed a major expansion of government-financed, privately administered health insurance in the US. As policy makers consider options to expand Medicare further, it is informative to compare the performance of traditional Medicare (TM) and MA.ObjectiveTo assess whether MA is associated with differential changes in health care utilization and spending for beneficiaries entering Medicare from commercial insurance compared with beneficiaries entering TM.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis and propensity score matching compared health care utilization and spending between beneficiaries enrolling in MA and beneficiaries enrolling in TM with a Medicare Supplement plan 1 year before vs 1 year after their initial Medicare enrollment. Participants included beneficiaries aged 65 to 70 years who remained enrolled with a large insurer when transitioning from commercial insurance to Medicare between June 2018 and December 2018. Data were analyzed from February 2020 to October 2021.Main outcomes and measuresUse of, and spending on, institutional (Part A) and professional (Part B) medical services, measured as overall spending per member per month, and as rates of services per thousand members per year, including inpatient stays, inpatient days, physician visits, and injectable drug administrations.ResultsAmong 1082 matched beneficiaries (541 joining MA, 541 joining TM with a Supplement plan), 585 (54.1%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at Medicare enrollment was 66 (1.4) years. Prior to Medicare enrollment, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome trends between the MA and TM groups. The first year of MA enrollment was associated with a differential reduction in institutional (Part A) spending of $95 (95% CI, $7-$183) per member per month, corresponding to a differential reduction in inpatient stays of 63 (95% CI, 10-116) per thousand members per year. Medicare Advantage was associated with a differential reduction in total spending (Parts A and B) of $142 (95% CI, $0-$282) per member per month, which was 36% of total spending in TM. There was no differential reduction in professional (Part B) spending (per member per month, $47; 95% CI, $51-$145) or utilization.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis, during the first year of Medicare coverage, MA was associated with large reductions in institutional (Part A) utilization and spending.
| S-EPMC8796939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) insures an increasing proportion of Medicare beneficiaries, but evidence is lacking on patient or family perceptions of the quality of end-of-life care in MA vs traditional Medicare.ObjectiveTo determine if there is a difference in quality of care reported by family and friends of individuals who died while insured by MA vs traditional Medicare at the end of life.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the 2011 to 2017 Medicare-linked National Health and Aging Trends Study to conduct population-based survey research representing 8 668 829 Medicare enrollees. Included individuals were 2119 enrollees who died when aged 65 years or older, with quality of care reported by a family member or close friend familiar with the individual's last month of life. Analysis was conducted in July 2020.ExposuresMA enrollment at the time of death or before hospice enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresPerception of end-of-life care was measured with 9 validated items, with the primary outcome variable being overall care rated not excellent. We conducted a propensity score-weighted multivariable model to examine the association of each item with MA vs traditional Medicare enrollment. The propensity score and multivariable model included covariates capturing demographic and socioeconomic factors, function and health, and relationship of the respondent to the individual who died. The sample was then stratified by hospice enrollment and setting of care in the last month.ResultsOf 2119 people in the sample, 670 individuals were enrolled in MA at the time of death or prior to hospice (32.7%) and 1449 were enrolled in traditional Medicare (67.3%). In survey-weighted percentages, 53.6% (95% CI, 51.0% to 56.1%) were women and 43.4% (95% CI, 41.5% to 45.3%) were older than 85 years at the time of death. In the adjusted model, family and friends of individuals in MA were more likely to report that care was not excellent (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.61; P = .04) and that they were not kept informed (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.05; P = .02). For those in nursing homes, there was an estimated probability of 57.2% of respondents reporting that care was not excellent for individuals with traditional Medicare, compared with 77.9% of respondents for individuals with MA (marginal increase for those in MA, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.32; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of people who died while enrolled in Medicare, friends and family of those in MA reported lower-quality end-of-life care compared with friends and family of those enrolled in traditional Medicare. These findings suggest that, given the rapid growth of MA, Medicare should take steps to ensure that MA plans are held accountable for quality of care at the end of life.
| S-EPMC7877489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.
| S-EPMC7489427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine differences in health care utilization, process of diabetes care, care satisfaction, and health status for Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries with and without diabetes.MethodsUsing the 2010-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we identified MA and TM beneficiaries with and without diabetes. To address the endogenous plan choice between MA and TM, we used an instrumental variable approach. Using marginal effects, we estimated differences in the outcomes between MA and TM beneficiaries with and without diabetes.ResultsOur instrumental variable analysis showed that compared with TM beneficiaries with diabetes, MA beneficiaries with diabetes had less annual health care utilization, including -22.4 medical provider visits [95% confidence interval (CI): -23.6 to -21.1] and -3.4 outpatient hospital visits (95% CI: -3.8 to -3.0). A significant difference between MA and TM beneficiaries without diabetes was only observed in medical provider visits and the difference was greater among beneficiaries with diabetes than beneficiaries without diabetes (-12.5 medical provider visits; 95% CI: -15.9 to -9.2). While we did not detect significant differences in 5 measures of the process of diabetes care between MA and TM beneficiaries with diabetes, there were inconsistent results in the other 3 measures. There were no or marginal differences in care satisfaction and health status between MA and TM beneficiaries with and without diabetes.ConclusionsMA enrollment was associated with lower health care utilization without compromising care satisfaction and health status, particularly for beneficiaries with diabetes. MA may have a more efficient care delivery system for beneficiaries with diabetes.
| S-EPMC7572707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with disabilities aged 18 to 64 years face barriers accessing ambulatory care. Past studies comparing Medicare Advantage (MA) with traditional Medicare (TM) have not assessed how well these programs meet the needs of beneficiaries with disabilities.ObjectiveTo compare differences in enrollment rates, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality for beneficiaries with disabilities in MA vs TM.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study included a nationally representative, weighted sample of 7201 person-years for beneficiaries aged 18 to 64 years with disability entitlement in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 through 2018. Differences in program enrollment and in measures of access and quality by program enrollment were compared after adjusting for demographic, insurance, social, health, and area characteristics and after reweighting the sample by propensity to enroll in MA as estimated by observed confounders. Data analyses were conducted between November 1, 2020, and November 11, 2021.ExposuresMedicare Advantage vs TM program enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresSix patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (usual source of care, primary care usual source of care, specialist visit) and quality (cholesterol screening, influenza vaccination, colon cancer screening).ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the overall study population was 52.1 (11.0) years; 49.5% were female and 50.5% were male; 1.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander; 17.4%, Black; 10.2% Hispanic; 1.4%, Native American; 65.1%, White, and 4.2%, multiracial. Among all beneficiaries living in the community, individuals with disability entitlement were less likely to enroll in MA than other beneficiaries (34.8% vs 41.2%). The final sample of beneficiaries with disabilities included 2444 person-years in MA and 4757 person-years in TM. Beneficiaries with disabilities in MA vs TM were more likely to be of a minority race or ethnicity (35.7% vs 27.6%) and less likely to be enrolled in private insurance (11.9% vs 25.0%). Comparing MA with TM among beneficiaries with disabilities, those in MA had significantly better rates of access to a usual source of care (90.2% vs 84.9%; adjusted propensity-weighted marginal difference [APWMD], 2.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-5.7%), access to specialist visits (53.2% vs 44.8%; APWMD, 5.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-10.5%), cholesterol screenings (91.1% vs 86.4%; APWMD, 3.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.7%), influenza vaccinations (61.4% vs 51.5%; APWMD, 10.4%; 95% CI, 5.3%-15.5%), and colon cancer screenings (68.4% vs 54.6%; APWMD, 10.3%; 95% CI, 4.8%-15.8%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities were enrolled in MA at significantly lower rates than those without disabilities. However, MA was associated with significantly better ambulatory care access and quality for these beneficiaries on 5 of 6 measures compared with TM.
| S-EPMC8903104 | 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:Background/objectiveMedicare Advantage (MA) and Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) operate under incentives to reduce burdensome and costly care at the end of life. We compared end-of-life care for persons with dementia who are in MA, ACOs, or traditional Medicare (TM).Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective study of decedents with dementia enrolled in MA, attributed to an ACO, or in TM. Decedents had a nursing home stay between 91 and 180 days prior to death, two or more functional impairments, and mild to severe cognitive impairment.MeasurementsHospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) use, and in-hospital death in the last 30 days of life reported in Medicare billing.ResultsAmong 370,094 persons with dementia, 93,801 (25.4%) were in MA (mean age [SD], 86.9 [7.7], 67.6% female), 39,586 (10.7%) were ACO attributed (mean age [SD], 87.2 [7.6], 67.3% female), and 236,707 (63.9%) were in TM (mean age [SD], 87.0 [7.8], 67.6% female). The proportion hospitalized in the last 30 days of life was higher among TM enrollees (27.9%) and those ACO attributed (28.1%) than among MA enrollees (20.5%, p ≤ 0.001). After adjustment for socio-demographics, cognitive and functional impairments, comorbidities, and Hospital Referral Region, adjusted odds of hospitalization in the 30 days prior to death was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.74) among MA enrollees and 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.09) among those attributed to ACOs relative to TM enrollees. Relative to TM, the adjusted odds of death in the hospital were 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.81) among MA enrollees and 1.02 (95% CI 0.96-1.08) for ACO participants. Dementia decedents in MA had a lower likelihood of IMV use (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.85) compared to TM.ConclusionsAmong decedents with dementia, MA enrollees but not decedents in ACOs experienced less costly and potentially burdensome care compared with those with TM. Policy changes are needed for ACOs.
| S-EPMC8497397 | biostudies-literature