ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM) performance on quality, health, and cost outcomes in peer-reviewed literature published since 2010. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of peer-reviewed papers published between January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2020. METHODS: To identify relevant research papers, we searched MEDLINE, EBSCO, and ProQuest. We excluded any studies that did not meet several inclusion criteria. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were independently reviewed by 1 author and several trained research assistants. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We also reviewed the bibliographies of included studies and consulted subject matter experts to identify additional papers.For each eligible study, we extracted the first author, year published, study design, data sources, study years, sample sizes, relevant measures, and study quality. To ensure consistent and complete data extraction, each article was reviewed by 2 reviewers. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 208 analyses were included. All included studies were observational. Two-thirds of studies were of high methodological quality for observational studies, and 49% addressed selection bias. Analyses compared quality of care (41%), health outcomes (44%), and spending (15%). Overall, 65% of analyses found a statistically significant relationship: 52% favored MA and 13% favored TM. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of recent analyses comparing MA and TM find that MA delivers significantly better quality of care, better health outcomes, and lower costs compared with TM.
