Medicare skilled nursing facilities' occupancy and payer source: The moderating role of financial performance.

Objectives: While extensive research has focused on patient outcomes in skilled nursing facilities, a critical gap remains in understanding factors influencing their managerial performance, particularly occupancy rates. This study examines the occupancy rates of skilled nursing facilities and assesses the significance of two important drivers of managerial performance that have not received sufficient attention-the influence of payer mix and total profit margin. Specifically, we focused on the role played by a nursing home's financial performance (as assessed by profit margin) in influencing the relationship between payer mix and occupancy rate among skilled nursing facilities. Methods: Data were extracted from the 2019 to 2020 Joint Annual Report of Nursing Homes for a sample of 612 skilled nursing facilities in Tennessee, USA. Regression analysis was performed by fitting a generalized estimating equation of occupancy rate. Results: Compared to skilled nursing facilities in the lowest quartile of profit margin, for example, those in the highest quartile had approximately 18 percentage points higher occupancy rates per unit increase in resident days of care covered by traditional Medicare (ß = 0.18, p = 0.0028). Similarly, skilled nursing facilities in the second highest quartile of profit margin had a higher occupancy rate by approximately 23 percentage points per unit increase in Medicare Advantage (ß = 0.23, p = 0.0375) when compared to those in the lowest quartile of profit margin. Conclusions: Skilled nursing facilities with stronger financial performance generally have higher occupancy rates, particularly notable in relation to an upswing in payer sources such as traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, when compared to skilled nursing facilities with weaker profitability. Given the increasingly larger role of Medicare in long-term care funding, policymakers and nursing home managers may find it useful to consider our findings when evaluating opportunities to enhance managerial performance of skilled nursing facilities.

Addressing the Marketing Practices of Medicare Advantage Plans.

The Medicare Advantage (MA) Program, home to nearly half of the eligible Medicare population, has recently come under increased scrutiny. Recent investigations conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Finance and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have uncovered marketing practices of MA insurance agents that "were not complying with current regulation and unduly pressuring beneficiaries, as well as failing to provide accurate or enough information to assist a beneficiary in making an informed enrollment decision." These findings come at a time in which MA programs are under investigation for denials of prior authorization requests that fall within Medicare guidelines for covered health services. In this Commentary we consider the backdrop for the growing scrutiny of the MA program and the implications thereof to its future trajectory.

Minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: an observational study of medicare advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in medicare advantage (MA) plans has been steadily increasing. Prior research has shown differences in healthcare access and outcomes based on Medicare enrollment status. This study sought to compare utilization of minimally invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and postoperative outcomes between MA and Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of beneficiaries ≥ 65.5 years of age enrolled in FFS and MA plans was performed of patients undergoing a CRC resection from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was operative approach, defined as minimally invasive (laparoscopic) or open. Secondary outcomes included robotic assistance, hospital length-of-stay, mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission. Using balancing weights, we performed a tapered analysis to examine outcomes with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: MA beneficiaries were less likely to have lymph node (12.9 vs 14.4%, p < 0.001) or distant metastases (15.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to receive chemotherapy (6.2% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001), compared to FFS beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries had a higher risk-adjusted likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic CRC resection (OR 1.12 (1.10-1.15), p < 0.001), and similar rates of robotic assistance (OR 1.00 (0.97-1.03), p = 0.912), compared to FFS beneficiaries. There were no differences in risk-adjusted length-of-stay (ß coefficient 0.03 (- 0.05-0.10), p = 0.461) or mortality at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.99 (0.95-1.04), p = 0.787; OR 1.00 (0.96-1.04), p = 0.815; OR 0.98 (0.95-1.02), p = 0.380). MA beneficiaries had a lower likelihood of non-routine disposition (OR 0.77 (0.75-0.78), p < 0.001) and readmission at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.76 (0.73-0.80), p < 0.001; OR 0.78 (0.75-0.81), p < 0.001; OR 0.79 (0.76-0.81), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MA beneficiaries had less advanced disease at the time of CRC resection and a greater likelihood of undergoing a laparoscopic procedure. MA enrollment is associated with improved health outcomes for elderly beneficiaries undergoing operative treatment for CRC.

Growing divergence between Medicare Advantage plan bids and payments to plans.

As the Medicare Advantage (MA) program grows in enrollment and costs, there has been increasing concern that federal payments to MA plans exceed necessary levels. Estimates suggest that, in 2023, MA plans were paid up to 6% more per enrollee than would have been spent had that beneficiary instead enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM). We evaluated the factors driving this overpayment, characterizing trends in MA benchmarks, bids, and total payments from pre-Affordable Care Act (pre-ACA) levels through 2023. We found that, despite an overall decrease in risk-adjusted bids relative to average risk-adjusted TM enrollee costs, total payments to plans have modestly increased since 2015. Decomposing these trends into various factors in the MA payment formula, we found that divergent trends in benchmarks and bids are, in part, due to the increasing influence of payment adjustments, such as quartile spending adjustments, quality bonus payments, and risk adjustment. Our results suggest that current payment rules have contributed to overpayments and policy reform may be necessary.

The Cost of Unhealthy Days: A New Value Assessment.

For-profit companies addressing disparities in social determinants of health (SDOH), also known as SDOH Industry companies, often lack member-level claims data to evaluate their organizational interventions. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Days Measure, offer a unique proxy metric to evaluate impact. This retrospective study sought to explore the association between self-reported physically and mentally unhealthy days with health care costs among a Medicare Advantage (MA) population. A cross-sectional study of MA members receptive to a companion care program, and thus likely to have unmet social needs, was conducted. The analysis included members with recorded baseline unhealthy days and complete claims data (n = 2,354). Least squares regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between baseline medical costs, physically unhealthy days, and mentally unhealthy days. A review of Major Diagnostic Categories (MDCs) was also included to elucidate the strength of the Healthy Days Measure as an indicator of the burden of health conditions. Each additional unhealthy day reported was associated with an increase in 30-day medical costs of $60 and $34 for physically and mentally unhealthy days, respectively. Unhealthy days and costs increased with an increasing number of MDCs. Compared with previous studies linking unhealthy days and health care expenditure, these data reveal the potential for even higher savings by reducing the number of unhealthy days in a high-risk population. This evidence supports using unhealthy days as a HRQOL measure and as an important tool for cost estimations.

Profiling Social Needs Activities in Publicly Traded Medicare Advantage Organizations.

The objective was to examine Medical Advantage (MA) organizations' commitment toward addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) through their health-related social benefit offerings, and the perceived impact of providing supplemental benefits associated with SDOH in their plans. Public reporting documents were reviewed from six of the largest MA firms: Humana, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, Elevance Health, CVS Health, and Centene. Public reports were obtained from each company's website (eg, from the "Investor Relations" page). Quarterly reports for Q1 2023, annual reports for 2022, and proxy statements for 2023 for all companies were examined. Content analysis of the public reports was conducted under three constructs: (1) Growth of MA in the company, (2) SDOH-related activities in the company, and (3) SDOH-related activities in the MA plans of the company. Each of the three constructs was further analyzed for recurring themes and elements. The findings from content analysis suggests that plans are providing tailored benefits that may address the social needs of vulnerable and underserved populations. Companies that offered supplemental benefits and value-based arrangements that addressed social needs reported beneficiary clinical outcomes resulting in cost savings and increased revenue. Health insurance companies identify MA as a significant growth opportunity and a strategically important market for overall membership and revenue growth. Moreover, companies providing innovative social benefits through their MA plans reported witnessing increased value propositions by underserved and vulnerable populations, leading to increased revenue and cost containment.

Medicare Advantage Prior Authorization Requirements for Otolaryngologic Procedures in 2021.

Little is known about the extent of prior authorization requirements in otolaryngology. We performed a secondary analysis of data comparing prior authorization (PA) policies across 5 major Medicare Advantage insurers to estimate the counterfactual proportion of 2021 Medicare Part B fee-for-service spending and utilization for commonly performed otolaryngologic procedures that would have required PA. The counterfactual proportion of spending (range: 20.4%-27.6%) and utilization (range: 1.8%-4.5%) requiring PA was relatively consistent across insurers and largely attributable to rhinologic procedures. However, PA requirements for specific services varied widely among insurers. Among the 70 (of 196; 35.7%) services subject to PA by any insurer, nearly half were subject to PA by a single insurer (n = 34; 48.6%). Only 10 (14.3%) services were subject to PA by 4 (n = 6; 8.6%) or 5 (n = 4; 5.7%) insurers. These discrepancies illustrate the challenges of navigating discordant insurer policies for otolaryngologists and raise concerns about the validity of certain PA requirements.

Processing and validation of inpatient Medicare Advantage data for use in hospital outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of integrating Medicare Advantage (MA) admissions into the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital outcome measures through combining Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) encounter- and hospital-submitted inpatient claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Beneficiary enrollment data and inpatient claims from the Integrated Data Repository for 2018 Medicare discharges. STUDY DESIGN: We examined timeliness of MA claims, compared diagnosis and procedure codes for admissions with claims submitted both by the hospital and the MAO (overlapping claims), and compared demographic characteristics and principal diagnosis codes for admissions with overlapping claims versus admissions with a single claim. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We combined hospital- and MAO-submitted claims to capture MA admissions from all hospitals and identified overlapping claims. For admissions with only an MAO-submitted claim, we used provider history data to match the National Provider Identifier on the claim to the CMS Certification Number used for reporting purposes in CMS outcome measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After removing void and duplicate claims, identifying overlapped claims between the hospital- and MAO-submitted datasets, restricting claims to acute care and critical access hospitals, and bundling same admission claims, we identified 5,078,611 MA admissions. Of these, 76.1% were submitted by both the hospital and MAO, 14.2% were submitted only by MAOs, and 9.7% were submitted only by hospitals. Nearly all (96.6%) hospital-submitted claims were submitted within 3 months after a one-year performance period, versus 85.2% of MAO-submitted claims. Among the 3,864,524 admissions with overlapping claims, 98.9% shared the same principal diagnosis code between the two datasets, and 97.5% shared the same first procedure code. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient MA data are feasible for use in CMS claims-based hospital outcome measures. We recommend prioritizing hospital-submitted over MAO-submitted claims for analyses. Monitoring, data audits, and ongoing policies to improve the quality of MA data are important approaches to address potential missing data and errors.

Regional variation in length of stay for stroke inpatient rehabilitation in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Regional variation in health care use threatens efficient and equitable resource allocation. Within the Medicare program, variation in care delivery may differ between centrally administered traditional Medicare (TM) and privately managed Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which rely on different strategies to control care utilization. As MA enrollment grows, it is particularly important for program design and long-term health care equity to understand regional variation between TM and MA plans. This study examined regional variation in length of stay (LOS) for stroke inpatient rehabilitation between TM and MA plans in 2019 and how that changed in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results showed that MA plans had larger across-region variations than TM (SD = 0.26 vs 0.24 days; 11% relative difference). In 2020, across-region variation for MA further increased, but the trend for TM stayed relatively stable. Market competition among all inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) within a region was associated with a moderate increase in within-region variation of LOS (elasticity = 0.46). Policies reducing administrative variation across MA plans or increasing regional market competition among IRFs can mitigate regional variation in health care use.

No Association Between Medicare Advantage Providers' Network Restrictiveness and Star Rating Between 2013 and 2017: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which employs a wide range of practices around restriction of the networks of providers that beneficiaries visit. Though Medicare beneficiaries highly value provider choice, it is unknown whether the MA contract quality metrics which beneficiaries use to inform their contract selection capture the restrictiveness of contracts' provider networks. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether there are meaningful associations between provider network restrictiveness (across primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology providers) and contracts' overall star quality rating, as well as between network restrictiveness and contracts' performance on access to care measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Advantage contracts with health maintenance organization (HMO), local preferred provider organization (PPO), and point of service (POS) plans with available data. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis using multivariable linear regressions to assess the relationship between provider network restrictiveness and contract quality scores in 2013 through 2017. MEASURES: Statistical significance in the relationship between network restrictiveness and contract performance on quality measures. RESULTS: Across all study years, we included 562 unique contracts and 2801 contract-years. We find no evidence of consistent relationships between MA physician network restrictiveness and contract star rating. For primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology, respectively, a 10 percentage point increase in restrictiveness was associated with a 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.01 to 0.04), 0.0008 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02), and -0.01 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.001) difference in star rating (p-value > 0.05 for all). Similarly, we find no evidence of consistent relationships between network restrictiveness and access to care measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that existing MA contract quality measures are not useful for indicating differences in network restrictiveness. Given the importance of provider choice to beneficiaries, more specific metrics may be needed to facilitate informed decisions about MA coverage.

Capturing and harvesting in Medicare Advantage plan design.

Consumers in health insurance markets have inertia stemming from the desire to maintain relationships with providers and other frictions involved in switching plans. In other markets that feature inertia, suppliers respond with pricing strategies that vary by market share: lowering markups to capture consumers when market shares are low and raising markups to harvest profits once market share has been established. I tested for this behavior in the Medicare Advantage (MA) market by examining how MA plan sponsors changed the financial terms of their plans in response to changes in market share from 2007 to 2021 using a first-difference model with fixed effects. I found evidence that plans increase premiums, copays, and out-of-pocket limits when market shares increase. The results imply that for every 1% increase in market share, plan sponsors subsequently increase out-of-pocket costs by 1% in the following year.

Spending, utilization, and coverage for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis therapies among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

KEY POINTS: CRSwNP-specific mean total annual spending ranged from $5,837 (EDS-FLU) to $28,058 (dupilumab). Most CRSwNP patients receiving biologics had comorbid asthma and did not undergo sinus surgery. While biologics were covered by most Medicare Part D plans, only 37% of plans covered EDS-FLU.

Medicare Advantage enrollment and outcomes of post-acute nursing home care among patients with dementia.

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been rapidly growing. We examined whether MA enrollment affects the outcomes of post-acute nursing home care among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). We exploited year-to-year changes in MA penetration rates within counties from 2012 through 2019. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics and county fixed effects, we found that MA enrollment was not associated with days spent at home, nursing home days, likelihood of becoming a long-stay resident, hospital days, hospital readmission, or 1-year mortality. There was a modest increase in successful discharge to the community by 0.73 percentage points (relative increase of 2.4%) associated with a 10-percentage-point increase in MA enrollment. The results are consistent among racial/ethnic subgroups and dual-eligible patients. These findings suggest an imperative need to monitor and improve quality of managed care among enrollees with ADRD.

Medicare Advantage plan characteristics associated with sorting their beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether certain Medicare Advantage (MA) plan characteristics are associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays. DATA SOURCES: This paper primarily used 2018-2019 MA encounter data and traditional Medicare (TM) claims data for a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: For each plan design aspect-plan type, carrier, star rating, and network breadth-we estimated two adjusted Poisson regressions of avoidable hospital stays: one without clinician fixed effects and the other with. We calculated the difference between the coefficients to evaluate the extent to which patient sorting affected avoidable hospital stays relative to TM. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Our sample included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older who were continuously enrolled in either MA or TM during 2018-2019. Beneficiaries in our sample had one or more chronic, ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient sorting can be attributed to certain characteristics of plan design aspects. For plan type, HMOs account for 86%, with PPOs accounting for only 14%. For carriers, Humana and smaller carriers account for 89%. For star ratings, high-star contracts account for 94%, with other stars only accounting for 6%. By network design, narrow network plan-counties explained 20% of the patient sorting effect. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans were found to be associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays, the effect is not homogeneous across the characteristics of MA plans. HMOs and high-star contracts are drivers of this MA phenomenon.

Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With and Without Food Insecurity.

BACKGROUND: Compared to traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans impose out-of-pocket cost limits and offer extra benefits, potentially providing financial relief for MA enrollees, especially for those with food insecurity. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the prevalence of food insecurity differs between TM and MA enrollees at baseline and then examine whether MA enrollment in a baseline year is associated with less financial hardships in the following year, relative to TM enrollment, especially for those experiencing food insecurity. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Our analysis included 2807 Medicare beneficiaries (weighted sample size, 23,963,947) who maintained continuous enrollment in either TM or MA in both 2020 and 2021 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed outcomes related to financial hardships in health care and non-health care domains (measured in 2021). Our primary independent variables were food insecurity and MA enrollment (measured in 2020). RESULTS: The point estimate of food insecurity prevalence was greater among MA enrollees than TM enrollees, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.1 percentage points [95% CI, - 1.0, 3.4]). Furthermore, there is evidence that compared to TM enrollment, MA enrollment did not mitigate the risk of financial hardship, particularly for food-insecure enrollees. Rather, food-secure MA enrollees faced greater financial hardship in the following year than food-secure TM enrollees (11.2% [8.9-13.6] and 7.6% [6.9-8.3] for problems paying medical bills and 5.5% [4.6-6.4] and 2.8% [2.1-3.6] for paying medical bills over time). Moreover, the point estimate of financial hardship was higher among food-insecure MA enrollees than food-insecure TM enrollees (21.5% [5.4-37.5] and 11.2% [4.1-18.4] and 23.7% [9.6-37.9] and 6.9% [0.5-13.3]) despite the lack of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the promise of financial protection offered by MA plans has not been fully realized, particularly for those with food insecurity.

Medicare Advantage enrollees' reports of unfair treatment during health care encounters.

We investigated unfair treatment among 1863 Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees from 21 MA plans using 2022 survey data (40% response rate) in which respondents indicated whether they were treated unfairly in a health care setting based on any of 10 personal characteristics. We calculated reported unfair treatment rates overall and by enrollee characteristics. Nine percent of respondents reported any unfair treatment, most often based on health condition (6%), disability (3%), or age (2%). Approximately 40% of those reporting any unfair treatment endorsed multiple categories. People who qualified for Medicare via disability reported unfair treatment by disability, age, income, race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender/gender identity more often than those who qualified via age. Enrollees dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid or eligible for a Low-Income Subsidy (DE/LIS) reported unfair treatment by disability, income, language/accent, race and ethnicity, culture/religion, and sex more often than non-DE/LIS enrollees. Compared with White respondents, racial and ethnic minority respondents more often reported unfair treatment by race and ethnicity, language/accent, culture/religion, and income. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report unfair treatment based on age and sex.

The Social Determinants of Health Industry: Two Years On.

Social determinants of health (SDOH) have been insufficiently addressed by payers and providers despite increased prioritization at the national level. This led to the development of a separate, for-profit "SDOH industry" found to have a valuation of $18.5 billion (all dollar amounts in U.S. dollars) with $2.4 billion in funding as of July 2021. The purpose of this article is to determine the growth of the industry from 2021 to 2023 and provide a multifaceted explanation for this development. The authors conducted an analysis of 57 SDOH industry companies using a third-party market research platform. Over the previous two-year period, 10 out of 57 (18%) companies were acquired, and the industry gained an additional $1.1 billion (46% increase) in funding and $13.7 billion (74% increase) in valuation. The authors propose four contributing factors to explain the nature of this industry's evolution. They include developments in national health care policy favoring SDOH, standardization of SDOH information as actionable claims data, multi-source investment in SDOH, and improved methods of industry intervention measurement. These trends appear likely to continue, requiring additional scrutiny by all relevant stakeholders to ensure maximum improvement of rampant SDOH disparities that impact millions of individuals daily.

Comparison of Financial Hardship and Healthcare Utilizations Associated with Cancer in the United States Medicare Programs during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer often face significant financial challenges due to the expensive nature of cancer treatments and increased cost-sharing responsibilities. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the financial hardships and healthcare utilizations faced by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) compared to those in traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study aims to investigate the subjective financial hardships experienced by individuals enrolled in TM and MA and to determine whether these two Medicare programs exhibit differences in healthcare utilization during the pandemic. METHODS: We utilized data from the 2020-2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), focusing on nationally representative samples of cancer survivors aged 65 or older. Financial hardship was categorized into three distinct groups: material (e.g., problems with medical bills), psychological (e.g., worry about paying), and behavioral (e.g., delayed care due to cost). Healthcare utilization included wellness visits (preventive care), emergency care services, hospitalizations, and telehealth. We used survey design-adjusted analysis to compare the study outcomes between MA and TM. RESULTS: Among a weighted sample of 4.4 million Medicare beneficiaries with cancer (mean age: 74.9), 76% were enrolled in MA plans. Cancer survivors with a college degree (59.3% vs. 49.8%) and high family income (38.2% vs. 31.1%) were more likely to enroll in MA plans. There were no significant differences in any material, psychological, or behavioral financial hardship domains between beneficiaries with MA and TM plans except forgone counseling due to cost. For healthcare utilization measures, cancer survivors in MA were more likely than those in TM to have flu vaccination (77.2% vs. 70.1%) and experience lower hospitalizations (16.0% vs. 20.0%). However, there were no differences in other health service utilizations between MA and TM. CONCLUSION: While no significant differences were observed in any materialized, psychological, or behavioral financial hardships, older cancer survivors enrolled in MA plans were more likely to receive vaccinations and lower hospitalization rates during COVID-19. Although other preventive or primary care visits (i.e., wellness visits) were higher, their difference did not reach statistical significance. As MA grows in popularity, it is essential to consistently monitor and evaluate the performance and outcomes of Medicare plans for cancer survivors as we navigate the post-pandemic landscape.

Restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage provider networks across physician specialties.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to measure specialty provider networks in Medicare Advantage (MA) and examine associations with market factors. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We relied on traditional Medicare (TM) and MA prescription drug event data from 2011 to 2017 for all Medicare beneficiaries in the United States as well as data from the Area Health Resources File. STUDY DESIGN: Relying on a recently developed and validated prediction model, we calculated the provider network restrictiveness of MA contracts for nine high-prescribing specialties. We characterized network restrictiveness through an observed-to-expected ratio, calculated as the number of unique providers seen by MA beneficiaries divided by the number expected based on the prediction model. We assessed the relationship between network restrictiveness and market factors across specialties with multivariable linear regression. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Prescription drug event data for a 20% random sample of beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug coverage from 2011 to 2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Provider networks in MA varied in restrictiveness. OB-Gynecology was the most restrictive with enrollees seeing 34.5% (95% CI: 34.3%-34.7%) as many providers as they would absent network restrictions; cardiology was the least restrictive with enrollees seeing 58.6% (95% CI: 58.4%-58.8%) as many providers as they otherwise would. Factors associated with less restrictive networks included the county-level TM average hierarchical condition category score (0.06; 95% CI: 0.04-0.07), the county-level number of doctors per 1000 population (0.04; 95% CI: 0.02-0.05), the natural log of local median household income (0.03; 95% CI: 0.007-0.05), and the parent company's market share in the county (0.16; 95% CI: 0.13-0.18). Rurality was a major predictor of more restrictive networks (-0.28; 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that rural beneficiaries may face disproportionately reduced access in these networks and that efforts to improve access should vary by specialty.

Validation of a Rule-Based ICD-10-CM Algorithm to Detect Fall Injuries in Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis-code-based algorithms to identify fall injuries in Medicare data are useful for ascertaining outcomes in interventional and observational studies. However, these algorithms have not been validated against a fully external reference standard, in ICD-10-CM, or in Medicare Advantage (MA) data. METHODS: We linked self-reported fall injuries leading to medical attention (FIMA) from the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial (reference standard) to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and MA data from 2015-19. We measured the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) based on sensitivity and specificity of a diagnosis-code-based algorithm against the reference standard for presence or absence of ≥1 FIMA within a specified window of dates, varying the window size to obtain points on the curve. We stratified results by source (FFS vs MA), trial arm (intervention vs control), and STRIDE's 10 participating health care systems. RESULTS: Both reference standard data and Medicare data were available for 4 941 (of 5 451) participants. The reference standard and algorithm identified 2 054 and 2 067 FIMA, respectively. The algorithm had 45% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43%-47%) and 99% specificity (95% CI: 99%-99%) to identify reference standard FIMA within the same calendar month. The AUC was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78-0.81) and was similar by FFS or MA data source and by trial arm but showed variation among STRIDE health care systems (AUC range by health care system, 0.71 to 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: An ICD-10-CM algorithm to identify fall injuries demonstrated acceptable performance against an external reference standard, in both MA and FFS data.