New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

Importance: In 2018, the US Congress gave Medicare Advantage (MA) historic flexibility to address members' social needs with a set of Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCIs). In response, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded the definition of primarily health-related benefits (PHRBs) to include nonmedical services in 2019. Uptake has been modest; MA plans cited a lack of evidence as a limiting factor. Objective: To evaluate the association between adopting the expanded supplemental benefits designed to address MA enrollees' nonmedical and social needs and enrollees' plan ratings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared the plan ratings of MA enrollees in plans that adopted an expanded PHRB, SSBCI, or both using difference-in-differences estimators with MA Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems survey data from March to June 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021 linked to Medicare administrative claims and publicly available benefits and enrollment data. Data analysis was performed between April 2023 and March 2024. Exposure: Enrollees in MA plans that adopted a PHRB and/or SSBCI in 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollee plan rating on a 0- to 10-point scale, with 0 indicating the worst health plan possible and 10 indicating the best health plan possible. Results: The study sample included 388 356 responses representing 467 MA contracts and 2558 plans in 2021. Within the weighted population of responders, the mean (SD) age was 74.6 (8.7) years, 57.2% were female, 8.9% were fully Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible, 74.6% had at least 1 chronic medical condition, 13.7% had not graduated high school, 9.7% were helped by a proxy, 45.1% reported fair or poor physical health, and 15.6% were entitled to Medicare due to disability. Adopting both a new PHRB and SSBCI benefit in 2021 was associated with an increase of 0.22 out of 10 points (95% CI, 0.4-4.0 points) in mean enrollee plan ratings. There was no association between adoption of only a PHRB (adjusted difference, -0.12 points; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.02 points) or SSBCI (adjusted difference, 0.09 points; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.21 points) and plan rating. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare Advantage plans that adopted both benefits saw modest increases in mean enrollee plan ratings. This evidence suggests that more investments in supplemental benefits were associated with improved plan experiences, which could contribute to improved plan quality ratings.

Incorporating Medicare Advantage Admissions Into the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission Measure.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is rapidly expanding, yet Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims-based hospital outcome measures, including readmission rates, have historically included only fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries. Objective: To assess the outcomes of incorporating MA data into the CMS claims-based FFS Hospital-Wide All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) measure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed differences in 30-day unadjusted readmission rates and demographic and risk adjustment variables for MA vs FFS admissions. Inpatient FFS and MA administrative claims data were extracted from the Integrated Data Repository for all admissions for Medicare beneficiaries from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Measure reliability and risk-standardized readmission rates were calculated for the FFS and MA cohort vs the FFS-only cohort, overall and within specialty subgroups (cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, medicine, surgery, neurology), then changes in hospital performance quintiles were assessed after adding MA admissions. Main Outcome and Measure: Risk-standardized readmission rates. Results: The cohort included 11 029 470 admissions (4 077 633 [37.0%] MA; 6 044 060 [54.8%] female; mean [SD] age, 77.7 [8.2] years). Unadjusted readmission rates were slightly higher for MA vs FFS admissions (15.7% vs 15.4%), yet comorbidities were generally lower among MA beneficiaries. Test-retest reliability for the FFS and MA cohort was higher than for the FFS-only cohort (0.78 vs 0.73) and signal-to-noise reliability increased in each specialty subgroup. Mean hospital risk-standardized readmission rates were similar for the FFS and MA cohort and FFS-only cohorts (15.5% vs 15.3%); this trend was consistent across the 5 specialty subgroups. After adding MA admissions to the FFS-only HWR measure, 1489 hospitals (33.1%) had their performance quintile ranking changed. As their proportion of MA admissions increased, more hospitals experienced a change in their performance quintile ranking (147 hospitals [16.3%] in the lowest quintile of percentage MA admissions; 408 [45.3%] in the highest). The combined cohort added 63 hospitals eligible for public reporting and more than 4 million admissions to the measure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, adding MA admissions to the HWR measure was associated with improved measure reliability and precision and enabled the inclusion of more hospitals and beneficiaries. After MA admissions were included, 1 in 3 hospitals had their performance quintile changed, with the greatest shifts among hospitals with a high percentage of MA admissions.

Medicare Advantage Health Risk Assessments Contribute Up To $12 Billion Per Year To Risk-Adjusted Payments.

With Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment surpassing 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, accurate risk-adjusted plan payment rates are essential. However, artificially exaggerated coding intensity, where plans seek to enhance measured health risk through the addition or inflation of diagnoses, may threaten payment rate integrity. One factor that may play a role in escalating coding intensity is health risk assessments (HRAs)-typically in-home reviews of enrollees' health status-that enable plans to capture information about their enrollees. In this study, we evaluated the impact of HRAs on Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk scores, variation in this impact across contracts, and the aggregate payment impact of HRAs, using 2019 MA encounter data. We found that 44.4 percent of MA beneficiaries had at least one HRA. Among those with at least one HRA, HCC scores increased by 12.8 percent, on average, as a result of HRAs. More than one in five enrollees had at least one additional HRA-captured diagnosis, which raised their HCC score. Potential scenarios restricting the risk-score impact of HRAs correspond with $4.5-$12.3 billion in reduced Medicare spending in 2020. Addressing increased coding intensity due to HRAs will improve the value of Medicare spending and ensure appropriate payment in the MA program.

Predictors of adherence to direct oral anticoagulants after cardiovascular or bleeding events in Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) given their improved safety profile. Suboptimal adherence to DOACs remains a significant concern among individuals with AF. However, the extent of adherence to DOACs following a cardiovascular or bleeding event has not been fully evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pattern of adherence trajectories of DOACs after a cardiovascular or bleeding event and to investigate the sociodemographic and clinical predictors associated with each adherence trajectory by using claims-based data. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted among patients with AF prescribed with DOACs (dabigatran/apixaban/rivaroxaban) between July 2016 and December 2017 and who were continuously enrolled in the Texas-based Medicare Advantage Plan. Patients who experienced a cardiovascular or bleeding event while using the DOACs were further included in the analysis. The sample was limited to patients who experienced a clinical event such as a cardiovascular or bleeding event while using the DOACs. The clinical events considered in this study were cardiovascular (stroke, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism) and bleeding events. To assess adherence patterns, each patient with a DOAC prescription was followed up for a year after experiencing a clinical event. The monthly adherence to DOACs after these events was evaluated using the proportion of days covered (PDC). A group-based trajectory model incorporated the monthly PDC to classify groups of patients based on their distinct patterns of adherence. Predictors associated with each trajectory were assessed using a multinomial logistic regression model, with the adherent trajectory serving as the reference group in the outcome variable. RESULTS: Among the 694 patients with AF who experienced clinical events after the initiation of DOACs, 3 distinct adherence trajectories were identified: intermediate nonadherent (30.50%), adherent (37.7%), and low adherent (31.8%); the mean PDC was 0.47 for the intermediate nonadherent trajectory, 0.93 for the adherent trajectory, and 0.01 for low adherent trajectory. The low-income subsidy was significantly associated with lower adherence trajectories (odds ratio [OR] = 4.81; 95% CI = 3.07-7.51) and with intermediate nonadherent trajectories (OR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.06-2.34). Also, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use was significantly associated with lower adherence trajectories (OR = 5.10; 95% CI = 1.95-13.36) and intermediate nonadherent trajectories (OR = 3.17; 95% CI = 1.26-7.93). Other predictors significantly associated with both nonadherent trajectories are type of DOACs (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.35-0.79), presence of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.01-3.55), and having 2 or more clinical events (OR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.09-2.50). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors identified provide valuable insights into the suboptimal adherence of DOACs among Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees with AF, which can guide the development of targeted interventions to enhance adherence in this high-risk patient population.

Budget Impact Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Colon Cancer in Commercial Health and Medicare Advantage Plans.

Importance: In a randomized clinical trial, treatment guided by tumor-informed circulating tumor (ct)DNA testing reduced adjuvant chemotherapy use without compromising recurrence-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer. The potential effects of adopting ctDNA testing into routine patient care is unknown. Objective: To compare the total cost of patient care scenarios with and without the adoption of ctDNA testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This budget impact analysis was conducted from the perspectives of US commercial health and Medicare Advantage payers. A decision-analytical model was populated with age-specific incidence of colon cancer, use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and use of single-agent or multiagent regimens. Total cost was estimated with the costs of ctDNA testing, drug acquisition, administration, surveillance, and adverse events. The analysis was conducted from September 2023 to January 2024. Exposures: The adoption of ctDNA testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incremental cost in the first year following the adoption of ctDNA testing, where testing will affect patient treatment and costs. Results: In hypothetical plans with 1 million individuals covered, 35 commercial health plan members and 102 Medicare Advantage members aged 75 years and younger were eligible for ctDNA testing. In the base case with a 50% adoption rate, total cost savings were $221 684 (equivalent to $0.02 per member per month [PMPM]) for a commercial payer and $116 720 (equivalent to $0.01 PMPM) for a Medicare Advantage payer. Cost savings were robust to variations in assumptions of all parameters in the commercial population but sensitive to variations in assumptions of adjuvant chemotherapy use rates in the Medicare Advantage population. The number needed to test to avoid 1 patient receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was 4 in the commercial population and 10 in the Medicare Advantage population. The budget-neutral cost for ctDNA testing was $16 202 for a commercial payer and $5793 for a Medicare Advantage payer. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of tumor-informed ctDNA testing to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in postsurgery patients with stage II colon cancer was projected to result in cost savings for both commercial and Medicare Advantage payers. Adoption of ctDNA testing is therefore advantageous from a budgetary perspective.

Medication adherence star ratings measures, health care resource utilization, and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between missed CMS Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence over 3 years for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications (9 measures) and health care utilization and relative costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study examined eligible patients who qualified for the diabetes, statin, and renin-angiotensin system antagonist medication adherence measures in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and were continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan from 2017 through 2021. A total of 103,900 patients were divided into 4 groups based on the number of adherence measures missed (3 medication classes over 3 years): (1) missed 0 measures, (2) missed 1 measure, (3) missed 2 or 3 measures, and (4) missed 4 or more measures. To achieve a quality measure, patients had to meet the Pharmacy Quality Alliance 80% threshold of proportion of days covered during the calendar year. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 71.1 years, and 49.9% were female. Compared with patients who missed 0 of 9 adherence measures, those who missed 1 measure, 2 or 3 measures, and 4 or more measures experienced 12% to 26%, 22% to 42%, and 24% to 50% increased risks, respectively, of all-cause and diabetes-related inpatient stays and all-cause and diabetes-related emergency department visits (all  P  values < .01). Additionally, patients who missed 1, 2 or 3, and 4 or more adherence measures experienced 14%, 19%, and 20% higher monthly medical costs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Missing Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence was associated with an increased likelihood of health care resource utilization and increased costs for patients taking medications to treat diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Traditional Medicare supplemental insurance and the rise of Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVES: Most Medicare beneficiaries obtain supplemental insurance or enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA) to protect against potentially high cost sharing in traditional Medicare (TM). We examined changes in Medicare supplemental insurance coverage in the context of MA growth. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2005 to 2019. METHODS: We determined whether Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older were enrolled in MA (without Medicaid), TM without supplemental coverage, TM with employer-sponsored supplemental coverage, TM with Medigap, or Medicaid (in TM or MA). RESULTS: From 2005 to 2019, beneficiaries with TM and supplemental insurance provided by their former (or current) employer declined by approximately half (31.8% to 15.5%) while the share in MA (without Medicaid) more than doubled (13.4% to 35.1%). The decline in supplemental employer-sponsored insurance use was greater for White and for higher-income beneficiaries. Over the same period, beneficiaries in TM without supplemental coverage declined by more than a quarter (13.9% to 10.1%). This decline was largest for Black, Hispanic, and lower-income beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid rise in MA enrollment from 2005 to 2019 was accompanied by substantial changes in supplemental insurance with TM. Our results emphasize the interconnectedness of different insurance choices made by Medicare beneficiaries.

High-need beneficiary enrollment patterns in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVES: High-need Medicare beneficiaries require elevated levels of care and coordination to manage their conditions. We evaluated the extent to which high-need beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) or traditional Medicare (TM) accountable care organizations (ACOs) relative to TM non-ACOs. STUDY DESIGN: Using Medicare claims and MA encounter data, we identified 3 groups of high-need beneficiaries: (1) individuals younger than 65 years with a disability or end-stage kidney disease, (2) frail individuals, and (3) older individuals with major complex or multiple noncomplex chronic conditions. For comparison, we included non-high-need beneficiaries in the analysis, including those with minor complex chronic conditions. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of Medicare enrollment patterns and beneficiary characteristics of high-need and other beneficiaries between 2016 and 2019. RESULTS: In 2019, high-need beneficiaries accounted for 18 million or 32% of enrollees in TM and MA, an increase of approximately 1 million since 2016, driven by growth in MA. A larger share of beneficiaries in TM ACOs was high need (38%) compared with MA (24%). Although the total count of high-need beneficiaries in TM remained stable from 2016 to 2019, ACOs saw an increase of almost 1.5 million high-need beneficiaries (39% increase), and TM non-ACOs saw a decrease of 1.9 million (23% decrease). CONCLUSIONS: We found that high-need beneficiaries were more likely to be in TM non-ACOs than in MA through 2019. However, an increasing number of these beneficiaries are enrolling in MA or aligned with a TM ACO. A projected increase in the population of older adults will increase the economic burden of caring for high-need individuals.

Medication persistence and its impact on type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Medication persistence in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a critical factor for preventing adverse clinical events. We assessed persistence among newly treated patients with T2D and documented the impact of persistence on clinical outcomes and costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees from 2007 to 2020. METHODS: We identified adult patients who initiated antidiabetic treatments. Patients were required to have at least 1 treatment-free year prior to their first T2D prescription. Persistence was measured as the duration of continuous therapy until a 60-day gap in drug availability appeared in any antidiabetic therapy. Factors associated with duration were documented, focusing on the initial class(es) of T2D drugs. The impact of treatment duration on the risk of hospitalization and on total health care costs was also examined. RESULTS: A total of 673,265 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 7 years. Only 22% of patients maintained continuous treatment, of whom 10% added a second medication. A 1-month increase in duration was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization due to stroke by 0.54% (95% CI, 0.46%-0.60%), acute myocardial infarction by 0.51% (95% CI, 0.44%-0.57%), and all-cause hospitalization by 0.36% (95% CI, 0.34%-0.37%). A 1-month increase in duration was associated with a year-to-year decrease in medical costs of $51 (95% CI, -$54 to -$48) and an increase in year-to-year drug costs of $14 (95% CI, $13-$14). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show low persistence among patients with T2D and emphasize the importance of medication persistence, which is associated with cost savings and lower risk of hospitalizations.

Impact of overdose on health plan disenrollment among patients prescribed long-term opioids: Retrospective cohort study.

CONTEXT: Health plan disenrollment may disrupt chronic or preventive care for patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). PURPOSE: To assess whether overdose events in patients prescribed LTOT are associated with subsequent health plan disenrollment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND DATASET: Data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse which includes de-identified medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment records for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees. The database contains longitudinal health information on patients, representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. PATIENTS: Adults prescribed stable opioid therapy (≥10 morphine milligram equivalents/day) for a 6-month baseline period prior to an index opioid prescription from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Health plan disenrollment during follow-up. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 404,151 patients who were followed up after 800,250 baseline periods of stable opioid dosing. During a mean follow-up of 9.1 months, unadjusted disenrollment rates among primary commercial beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage enrollees were 37.2 and 13.9 per 100 person-years, respectively. Incident overdoses were associated with subsequent health plan disenrollment with a statistically significantly stronger association among primary commercial insurance beneficiaries [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 1.48 (95% CI: 1.33-1.64)] as compared to Medicare Advantage enrollees [aIRR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23)]. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients prescribed long-term opioids, overdose events were strongly associated with subsequent health plan disenrollment, especially among primary commercial insurance beneficiaries. These findings raise concerns about the social consequences of overdose, including potential health insurance loss, which may limit patient access to care at a time of heightened vulnerability.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

Patterns of care and costs of switching oral antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia initiating monotherapy treatment: A US claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are the mainstay of schizophrenia therapy but may need to be changed over the course of a patient's illness to achieve the desired therapeutic goals or minimize medication side effects. Investigations of real-world treatment patterns and economic consequences associated with antipsychotic changes, including switching, are limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns among patients with schizophrenia who initiated oral antipsychotic medication (OAM) monotherapy and assess switching-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in US Medicare Advantage and commercially insured patients. METHODS: Adults with at least 2 claims with a schizophrenia diagnosis who initiated (or reinitiated after ≥6 months) OAM monotherapy between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2021, were identified in the Optum Research Database. A claims-based algorithm using timing of therapies and treatment gaps identified medication changes, specifically OAM monotherapy switches, among OAM initiators over a period of up to 7 years. Patients who switched from their initial OAM monotherapy to a second OAM monotherapy (initial OAM switchers) were matched based on clinical and demographic characteristics to OAM initiators who had not switched OAMs; switch-related HCRU and costs (incurred up to 3 months before and 3 months after the initial OAM switch) were compared between matched initial OAM switchers and nonswitchers. RESULTS: Among 6,425 OAM monotherapy initiators, 1,505 (23.4%) had at least 1 OAM monotherapy switch at any time during follow-up, with a mean (SD) time to first switch of 209 (333) days (median, 67 days), a rate of 0.65 switches per person-year of follow-up, and 56% of first switches occurring within 3 months of OAM initiation. Of all OAM initiators, 947 (14.7%) were initial OAM switchers. Compared with 865 matched nonswitchers, 865 initial OAM switchers had greater mean counts of all-cause medical visits and greater mean counts of schizophrenia-related emergency and inpatient visits and longer inpatient stays per patient per month. Mean (SD) total schizophrenia-related costs per patient per month were $1,252 ($2,602) for switchers compared with $402 ($2,027) for nonswitchers (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Changes to antipsychotic therapy in our sample of patients with schizophrenia were common, with nearly one-fourth switching OAMs, the majority within the first 3 months of therapy. Initial OAM switchers experienced greater HCRU and costs than nonswitchers. These findings highlight the importance of initiating OAM monotherapy that effectively maintains symptom control and minimizes tolerability issues, which would limit the need to switch OAMs and therefore prevent excess HCRU and treatment costs.

Medicare Advantage and Home Health Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Home health care serves millions of Americans who are "Aging in Place," including the rapidly growing population of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. This study systematically reviewed extant evidence illustrating home health care (HHC) services to MA enrollees. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 6 electronic databases to identify eligible studies, which resulted in 386 articles. Following 2 rounds of screening, 30 eligible articles were identified. Each study was also assessed independently for study quality using a validated quality assessment checklist. RESULTS: Of the 30 studies, nearly half (n=13) were recently published between January 1, 2017 - January 6, 2022. Among various issues related to HHC to MA enrollees examined, which were often compared with Traditional Medicare (TM) enrollees, the 2 most studied issues were HHC use rate (including access) and care dosage/intensity. Inconsistencies were common in findings across reviewed studies, with slight variations in the level of inconsistency by studied outcomes. Several critical issues, such as heterogeneity of MA plans, influence of MA-specific features, and program response to policy and quality improvement initiatives, were only examined by 1 or 2 studies. The depth and scope of scientific investigation were also limited by the scale and details available in MA data in addition to other methodological limits. CONCLUSIONS: Wild variations and conflicting findings on HHC to MA beneficiaries exist across studies. More research with rigorous designs and robust MA encounter data is warranted to determine home health care for MA enrollees and the relevant outcomes.

Comparison of prior authorization across insurers: cross sectional evidence from Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare the scope of US insurers' policies for prior authorization (PA), a process by which insurers assess the necessity of planned medical care, and to quantify differences in PA across insurers, physician specialties, and clinical service categories. DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. SETTING: PA policies for five insurers serving most of the beneficiaries covered by privately administered Medicare Advantage in the US, 2021, as applied to utilization patterns observed in Medicare Part B. PARTICIPANTS: 30 540 086 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare Part B. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of government administered traditional Medicare Part B spending and utilization that would have required PA according to Medicare Advantage insurer rules. RESULTS: The insurers required PA for 944 to 2971 of the 14 130 clinical services (median 1899; weighted mean 1429) constituting 17% to 33% of Part B spending (median 28%; weighted mean 23%) and 9% to 41% of Part B utilization (median 22%; weighted mean 18%). 40% of spending ($57bn; £45bn; €53bn) and 48% of service utilization would have required PA by at least one insurer; 12% of spending and 6% of utilization would have required PA by all insurers. 93% of Part B medication spending, or 74% of medication use, would have required PA by at least one Medicare Advantage insurer. For all Medicare Advantage insurers, hematology and oncology drugs represented the largest proportion of PA spending (range 27-34%; median 33%; weighted mean 30%). PA rates varied widely across specialties. CONCLUSION: PA policies varied substantially across private insurers in the US. Despite limited consensus, all insurers required PA extensively, particularly for physician administered medications. These findings indicate substantial differences in coverage policies between government administered and privately administered Medicare. The results may inform ongoing efforts to focus PA more effectively on low value services and reduce administrative burdens for clinicians and patients.

Primary Care Physicians In Medicare Advantage Were Less Costly, Provided Similar Quality Versus Regional Average.

The use of many services is lower in Medicare Advantage (MA) compared with traditional Medicare, generating cost savings for insurers, whereas the quality of ambulatory services is higher. This study examined the role of selective contracting with providers in achieving these outcomes, focusing on primary care physicians. Assessing primary care physician costliness based on the gap between observed and predicted costs for their traditional Medicare patients, we found that the average primary care physician in MA networks was $433 less costly per patient (2.9 percent of baseline) compared with the regional mean, with less costly primary care physicians included in more networks than more costly ones. Favorable selection of patients by MA primary care physicians contributed partially to this result. The quality measures of MA primary care physicians were similar to the regional mean. In contrast, primary care physicians excluded from all MA networks were $1,617 (13.8 percent) costlier than the regional mean, with lower quality. Primary care physicians in narrow networks were $212 (1.4 percent) less costly than those in wide networks, but their quality was slightly lower. These findings highlight the potential role of selective contracting in reducing costs in the MA program.

Differences in Home Health Services and Outcomes Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Importance: Private 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. Objective: To examine differences in home health service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Exposure: TM vs MA plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: Home 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. Results: Of 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 Relevance: The 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.

Availability and use of telehealth services among patients with ADRD enrolled in traditional Medicare vs. Medicare advantage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The objective of this study was to examine differences in availability and use of telehealth services among Medicare enrollees according to Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) status and enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) versus Traditional Medicare (TM) during the period surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data from community-dwelling MA and TM enrollees with and without ADRD from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) Fall 2020 and Winter 2021 COVID-19 Supplement Public Use Files. We examined self-reported availability of telehealth service before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and use of telehealth services during COVID-19. We analyzed marginal effects under multivariable logistic regression. Results: There were 13,700 beneficiaries with full-year enrollment in MA (6,046) or TM (7,724), 518 with ADRD and 13,252 without ADRD. Telehealth availability during COVID-19 was positively associated with having a higher income (2.81 pp. [percentage points]; 95% CI: 0.57, 5.06), having internet access (7.81 pp.; 95% CI: 4.96, 10.66), and owning telehealth-related technology (3.86; 95% CI: 1.36, 6.37); it was negatively associated with being of Black Non-Hispanic ethnicity (-8.51 pp.; 95% CI: -12.31, -4.71) and living in a non-metro area (-8.94 pp.; 95% CI: -13.29, -4.59). Telehealth availability before COVID-19 was positively associated with being of Black Non-Hispanic ethnicity (9.34 pp.; 95% CI: 3.74, 14.94) and with enrollment in MA (4.72 pp.; 95% CI: 1.63, 7.82); it was negatively associated having dual-eligibility (-5.59 pp.; 95% CI: -9.91, -1.26). Telehealth use was positively associated with being of Black Non-Hispanic ethnicity (6.47 pp.; 95% CI: 2.92, 10.01); it was negatively associated with falling into the age group of 75+ years (-4.98 pp.; 95% CI: -7.27, -2.69) and with being female (-4.98 pp.; 95% CI: -7.27, -2.69). Conclusion: Telehealth services were available to and used by Medicare enrollees with ADRD to a similar extent compared to their non-ADRD counterparts. Telehealth services were available to MA enrollees to a greater extent before COVID-19 but not during COVID-19, and this group did not use telehealth services more than TM enrollees during COVID-19.

The Rise and Risks of Medicare Advantage "Affinity Plans".

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans targeting specific groups of individuals and whether these plans will improve quality of care for beneficiaries.