Analysis of Value-Based Payment and Acute Care Use Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gondi S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8931557 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Analysis of Value-Based Payment and Acute Care Use Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.
Gondi Suhas S Li Yong Y Drzayich Antol Dana D Boudreau Emily E Shrank William H WH Powers Brian W BW
JAMA network open 20220301 3
Similar Datasets
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:ImportanceMedicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program adjusts hospital payments according to performance on 4 equally weighted quality domains: clinical outcomes, safety, patient experience, and efficiency. The assumption that performance on each domain is equally important may not reflect the preferences of Medicare beneficiaries.ObjectiveTo estimate the relative importance (ie, weight) of the 4 quality domains in the HVBP program from the perspective of Medicare beneficiaries and the impact of using beneficiary value weights on incentive payments for hospitals enrolled in fiscal year 2019.Design, setting, and participantsAn online survey was conducted in March 2022. A nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries was recruited through Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Value weights were estimated using a discrete choice experiment that asked respondents to choose between 2 hospitals and indicate which they preferred. Hospitals were described using 6 attributes, including (1) clinical outcomes, (2) patient experience, (3) safety, (4) Medicare spending per patient, (5) distance, and (6) out-of-pocket cost. Data analysis was performed from April to November 2022.Main outcomes and measuresAn effects-coded mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the relative importance of quality domains. HVBP program performance was linked to Medicare payment data in the Medicare Inpatient Hospitals by Provider and Service data set and hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey data set, and the estimated impact of using beneficiary value weights on hospital payments was estimated.ResultsA total of 1025 Medicare beneficiaries (518 women [51%]; 879 individuals [86%] aged ≥65 years; 717 White individuals [70%]) responded to the survey. A hospital's performance on clinical outcomes was most highly valued by beneficiaries (49%), followed by safety (22%), patient experience (21%), and efficiency (8%). Nearly twice as many hospitals would see a payment reduction when using beneficiary value weights than would see an increase (1830 vs 922 hospitals); however, the average net decrease was smaller (mean [SD], -$46 978 [$71 211]; median [IQR], -$24 628 [-$53 507 to -$9562]) than the comparable increase (mean [SD], $93 243 [$190 654]; median [IQR], $35 358 [$9906 to $97 348]). Hospitals seeing a net reduction with beneficiary value weights were more likely to be smaller, lower volume, nonteaching, and non-safety-net hospitals located in more deprived areas that served less complex patients.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study of Medicare beneficiaries found that current HVBP program value weights do not reflect beneficiary preferences, suggesting that the use of beneficiary value weights may exacerbate disparities by rewarding larger, high-volume hospitals.
| S-EPMC10285577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLow-value care in the Medicare program is prevalent, costly, potentially harmful, and persistent. Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use managed care strategies not available in traditional Medicare (TM), it is not clear whether this flexibility is associated with lower rates of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare rates of low-value services between MA and TM beneficiaries and explore how elements of insurance design present in MA are associated with the delivery of low-value care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. All analyses were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresLow-value care was assessed using 26 claims-based measures. Regression models were used to estimate the association between MA enrollment and rates of low-value services while controlling for beneficiary characteristics. Stratified analyses explored whether network design, product design, value-based payment, or utilization management moderated differences in low-value care between MA and TM beneficiaries and among MA beneficiaries.ResultsAmong a study population of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.0] years; 1 346 777 [54.5%] female; 229 107 [9.3%] Black and 2 126 353 [86.1%] White individuals), 1 527 763 (61.8%) were enrolled in MA and 942 436 (38.2%) were enrolled in TM. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA received 9.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.8%) fewer low-value services in 2019 than TM beneficiaries (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). Although MA beneficiaries enrolled in health management organization and preferred provider organization products received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, the difference was largest for those enrolled in health management organization products (2.6 fewer [95% CI, 2.4-2.8] vs 2.1 fewer [95% CI, 1.9-2.3] services per 100 beneficiaries, respectively). Across primary care payment arrangements, MA beneficiaries received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, with the largest difference observed for MA beneficiaries whose primary care physicians were reimbursed within 2-sided risk arrangements.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of low-value care than those enrolled in TM; elements of insurance design present in the MA program and absent in TM were associated with reduction in low-value care.
| S-EPMC9463603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.
| S-EPMC11365002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in integrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated plans share unique features that may differ from newer integrated MA plans. It is unclear whether integrated and legacy-integrated MA plans are associated with a better beneficiary care experience compared with non-legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans.ObjectiveTo assess whether enrollment in integrated, legacy-integrated, non-legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated MA plans is associated with better beneficiary care experiences.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included MA beneficiaries who responded to Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys conducted annually between 2015 and 2019. Data analysis was performed between October 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024.ExposureMedicare Advantage plan integration status, categorized as integrated, legacy-integrated, non-legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated.Main outcomes and measuresThe CAHPS surveys assessed 9 care experience measures. To assess differences in care experience measures, mixed linear regression analyses were performed, adjusting for demographic characteristics, plan random effects, and state fixed effects.ResultsThe sample consisted of 857 695 respondents. Their mean (SD) age was 72.6 (10.3) years, and 58.1% were women. A total of 12.7% of respondents were Black, 10.7% were Hispanic, and 71.0% were White. Compared with respondents in nonintegrated MA plans, respondents in integrated MA plans were younger (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [10.3] vs 72.2 [10.3] years, respectively) and were less likely to be Black (13.1% vs 11.2%, respectively), female (58.4% vs 57.2%, respectively), and partially dual eligible (8.7% vs 6.2%, respectively). Integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings only of customer service (1.6 points [95% CI, 1.1-2.1]) and health plan (1.0 points [95% CI, 0.6-1.5]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings of drug plan (3.7 points [95% CI, 2.4-5.0]), health plan (3.1 points [95% CI, 1.7-4.5]), customer service (2.8 points [95% CI, 1.3-4.4]), getting appointments and care quickly (2.6 points [95% CI, 1.2-4.0]), health care quality (1.9 points [95% CI, 1.0-2.7]), physicians who communicate well (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.8]), and care coordination (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, integrated MA plans were not associated with better beneficiary care experiences compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with higher ratings on all care experience measures compared with both non-legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. Monitoring of integrated MA plans is needed to assess whether they are adding meaningful value to MA beneficiaries and to determine their effects on the health care system.
| S-EPMC11581604 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8342740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.
| S-EPMC7970337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with co-occurring chronic conditions and complex care needs experience high rates of acute care utilization and poor outcomes. These patterns are well described among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries, but less is known about outcomes among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. Compared with TM, MA plans have additional levers to potentially address beneficiary needs, such as network design, care management, supplemental benefits, and value-based contracting.ObjectiveTo compare health care utilization for MA and TM beneficiaries with complex care needs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were segmented into the following cohorts: frail elderly, major complex chronic, and minor complex chronic. Regression models estimated the association between MA enrollment and health care utilization in 2018, using inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the MA and TM cohorts on observable characteristics. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. All analyses were conducted from December 2020 to August 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresHospital stays (inpatient admissions and observation stays), emergency department (ED) visits, and 30-day readmissions.ResultsAmong a study population of 1 844 326 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.1] years; 1 021 479 [55.4%] women; 1 524 458 [82.7%] White; 223 377 [12.1%] with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility), 1 177 896 (63.9%) were enrolled in MA and 666 430 (36.1%) in TM. Beneficiary distribution across cohorts was as follows: frail elderly, 116 047 with MA (10.0% of the MA sample) and 104 036 with TM (15.6% of the TM sample); major complex chronic, 320 954 (27.2%) and 158 811 (23.8%), respectively; and minor complex chronic, 740 895 (62.9%) and 403 583 (60.6%), respectively. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, ED visits, and 30-day readmissions. The largest relative differences were observed for hospital stays, which ranged from -9.3% (95% CI, -10.9% to -7.7%) for the frail elderly cohort to -11.9% (95% CI, -13.2% to -10.7%) for the major complex chronic cohort.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, ED visits, and 30-day readmissions than similar beneficiaries enrolled in TM, suggesting that managed care activities in MA may influence the nature and quality of care provided to these beneficiaries.
| S-EPMC9547312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of home-based medical care differed in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in 2018. Having exactly one such visit was thirty-one times as likely for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries (18.6 percent) as for traditional Medicare beneficiaries (0.6 percent), likely reflecting incentives in the Medicare Advantage program to code all accurate diagnoses. Multiple home-based medical care visits were less likely in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (1.6 percent versus 2.1 percent of beneficiaries, respectively).
| S-EPMC10947452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This cohort study examines the association between the primary care payment model and telemedicine use for Medicare Advantage enrollees during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8796918 | biostudies-literature