Medicare Advantage Networks and Access to High-volume Cancer Surgery Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan networks impact access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: Cancer surgery at high-volume hospitals is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. In the United States, health insurance is a major detriment to seeking care at high-volume hospitals. A third of older (>65 years) Americans are enrolled in privatized MA health plans. The impact of MA plan networks on access to high-volume surgery hospitals is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed in-network hospitals for MA plans offered in Los Angeles county during open enrollment of 2015. For the purposes of this analysis, MA network data from provider directories were linked to hospital volume data from California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Volume thresholds were based on published literature. RESULTS: A total of 34 MA plans enrolled 554,754 beneficiaries in Los Angeles county during 2014 open enrollment for coverage starting in 2015 (MA penetration ∼43%). The proportion of MA plans that included high-volume cancer surgery hospital varied by the type of cancer surgery. While most plans (>71%) included at least one high-volume hospital for colon, rectum, lung, and stomach; 59% to 82% of MA plans did not include any high-volume hospitals for liver, esophagus, or pancreatic surgery. A significant proportion of beneficiaries in MA plans did not have access to high-volume hospitals for esophagus (93%), stomach (44%), liver (39%), or pancreas (70%) surgery. In contrast, nearly all MA beneficiaries had access to at least one high-volume hospital for lung (93%), colon (100%), or rectal (100%) surgery. Overall, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan rating or plan popularity were not correlated with access to high-volume hospital (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies lack of high-volume hospital coverage in MA health plans as a major detriment in regionalization of cancer surgery impacting at least a third of older Americans.

The effects of coding intensity in Medicare Advantage on plan benefits and finances.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how beneficiary premiums, expected out-of-pocket costs, and plan finances in the Medicare Advantage (MA) market are related to coding intensity. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: MA plan characteristics and administrative records from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the sample of beneficiaries enrolled in both MA and Part D between 2008 and 2015. Medicare claims and drug utilization data for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries were used to calibrate an independent measure of health risk. STUDY DESIGN: Coding intensity was measured by comparing the CMS risk score for each MA contract with a contract level risk score developed using prescription drug data. We conducted regressions of plan outcomes, estimating the relationship between outcomes and coding intensity. To develop prescription drug scores, we assigned therapeutic classes to beneficiaries based on their prescription drug utilization. We then regressed nondrug spending for TM beneficiaries in 2015 on demographic and therapeutic class identifiers for 2014 and used the coefficients to predict relative risk. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that, for each $1 increase in potential revenue resulting from coding intensity, MA plan bid submissions declined by $0.10 to $0.19, and another $0.21 to $0.45 went toward reducing plans' medical loss ratios, an indication of higher profitability. We found only a small impact on beneficiary's projected out-of-pocket costs in a plan, which serves as a measure of the generosity of plan benefits, and a $0.11 to $0.16 reduction in premiums. As expected, coding intensity's effect on bids was substantially larger in counties with higher levels of MA competition than in less competitive counties. CONCLUSIONS: While coding intensity increases taxpayers' costs of the MA program, enrollees and plans both benefit but with larger gains for plans. The adoption of policies to more completely adjust for coding intensity would likely affect both beneficiaries and plan profits.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care. Objective: To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019. Exposures: Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars). Results: Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Competition and health plan quality in the Medicare Advantage market.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between insurer market structure, health plan quality, and health insurance premiums in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Administrative data files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with other secondary data sources. STUDY DESIGN: Trends in MA market concentration from 2008 to 2017 are presented, alongside logistic and linear regression models examining MA plan quality and premiums as a function of insurer market structure for 2011. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data are publicly available. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: MA plans that tend to operate in more concentrated MA markets have a higher predicted probability of receiving a high-quality health plan rating. Operating in more concentrated MA markets was also found to be associated with higher premiums. Among plans that tend to operate in very concentrated MA markets, high-quality MA plans were associated with premiums as much as two times higher than premiums associated with lower-quality plans. CONCLUSIONS: Any policies directed at enhancing insurer competition should consider implications for health plan quality, which may be very different than the implications for enrollee premiums.

Commentary: Don't Further Privatize Medicare.

The Medicare program is quietly becoming privatized through increasing enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, even though MA has not lived up to its promise of delivering better care at lower cost. Policymakers must reverse this trend and ensure parity between traditional Medicare and MA rather than encourage it through legislation that only benefits MA. Furthermore, as discussions of expanding health insurance coverage through Medicare intensify, policymakers should explore what version of Medicare they wish to expand.

Insurers' perspectives on MA value-based insurance design model.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based insurance design (VBID) lowers cost sharing for high-value healthcare services that are clinically beneficial to patients with certain conditions. In 2017, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation began a voluntary VBID model test in Medicare Advantage (MA). This article describes insurers' perspectives on the MA VBID model, explores perceived barriers to joining this model, and describes ways to address participation barriers. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive, qualitative study. METHODS: In spring/summer 2017, we conducted semistructured interviews with 24 representatives of 10 nonparticipating MA insurers to learn why they did not join the model test. We interviewed 73 representatives of 8 VBID-participating insurers about their participation decisions and implementation experiences. All interview data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Fewer than 30% of eligible insurers participated in the first 2 years of the model test. The main barriers to entry were a perceived lack of information on VBID in MA, an expectation of low return on investment, concerns over administrative and information technology (IT) hurdles, and model design parameters. Most VBID participants encountered administrative and IT hurdles but overcame them. CMS made changes to the model parameters to increase the uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The model uptake was low, and implementation challenges and concerns over VBID effectiveness in the Medicare population were important factors in participation decisions. To increase uptake, CMS could consider providing in-kind implementation assistance to model participants. Nonparticipants may want to incorporate lessons learned from current participants, and insurers should engage their IT departments/vendors early on.

Will 2019 kick off a new era in person-centered care?

Medicare's star rating system for Medicare Advantage health plans is a powerful tool for driving plan behavior and, beginning in 2019, CMS is providing new weight to patient access and experience measures. As the shift begins, a recent analysis of person-centered care measures in the star rating system conducted by the Center for Consumer Engagement in Health Innovation found ample room for improving both plan performance and how the ratings measure patient-centeredness. Although from 2010 to 2017, plans performed better on person-centered measures compared with the other measures in the star rating set (3.4 vs 3.0), our analysis also shows that performance on patient-centered measures has not comparatively budged appreciably over time. This may indicate that improvement initiatives focused on non-person-centered star measures have not had a spillover effect on the person-centered measures, or that plans may feel that once a minimum threshold on person-centered measures is met, they need not focus attention on further improvements. At the same time, we need a more comprehensive assessment of person-centeredness. The CMS star measures classified as person-centered are limited in scope and do not constitute a comprehensive view of what it actually means to be person-centered. The new weighting of patient access and experience measures in the CMS star rating system will press plans to refocus their managerial attention, allocate internal assets, and improve their performance, but we also need new measures that are more closely aligned with the domains that describe person-centered care.

Relationships between provider-led health plans and quality, utilization, and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: To compare healthcare quality, utilization, and patient satisfaction between provider-led health plans (PLHPs) and non-PLHPs. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 2016 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. METHODS: We included 3 quality outcomes (MA Star Rating System, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] effectiveness aggregate score, and HEDIS access aggregate score), 4 utilization outcomes (HEDIS average procedure rates, discharge rates, inpatient days, and readmission probability), and 1 patient satisfaction outcome (National Committee for Quality Assurance consumer satisfaction rating). We performed regression analysis to compare the 8 selected outcomes between PLHPs and non-PLHPs, controlling for key covariates, including region, profit status, patient risk, and patient-related and provider-related demographics. RESULTS: Our sample included 64 contracts offered by 31 PLHPs (representing 3,197,284 enrollees) and 311 contracts offered by 55 non-PLHPs (representing 13,881,210 enrollees). Compared with non-PLHPs, in our primary multivariable model, PLHPs were associated with higher star ratings (ß = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67), effectiveness scores (ß = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-4.80), and patient satisfaction (ß = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84), and lower procedure rates (ß = -0.47; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.16). There were no significant differences in access, discharges, inpatient days, and readmission probability. The association between PLHPs and outcomes differed by plan size, nonprofit status, and region. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of care within a PLHP was associated with improved quality, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, as well as lower procedure rates. As providers bear increasing financial risk under alternative payment models, there is momentum to integrate healthcare provision and payment through PLHPs. Our results demonstrate the potential of such organizations to deliver high-quality care, although opportunities remain to optimize utilization.

Paying more for less? Insurer competition and health plan generosity in the Medicare Advantage program.

This paper explores the relationship between insurer competition and health plan benefit generosity by examining the impact of a regulatory change that caused the cancellation of 40% of the private plans in Medicare. I isolate cancellation's causal effect by using variation induced by insurers canceling all plans nationally. Results show that insurers in markets affected by cancellation reduced the benefit generosity of the plans remaining in the market. In the average market, out-of-pocket costs for a representative beneficiary enrolled in plans not directly affected by the policy increased by $91 annually. In the least competitive markets, out-of-pocket costs increased by roughly $64-$127 a year for enrollees in those plans. Meanwhile in the most competitive markets, benefit generosity barely changed. These findings have crucial implications for markets such as health insurance exchanges, as they suggest that plan generosity is degraded when competition declines.

The Effect of Plan Type and Comprehensive Medication Reviews on High-Risk Medication Use.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted a star rating system using performance outcome measures to assess Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) and Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) providers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between 2 performance outcome measures for Medicare insurance providers, comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), and high-risk medication use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included Medicare Part C and Part D performance data from the 2014 and 2015 calendar years. Performance data were downloaded per Medicare contract from the CMS. We matched Medicare insurance provider performance data with the enrollment data of each contract. Mann Whitney U and Spearman rho tests and a hierarchical linear regression model assessed the relationship between provider characteristics, high-risk medication use, and CMR completion rate outcome measures. RESULTS: In 2014, an inverse correlation between CMR completion rate and high-risk medication use was identified among MAPD plan providers. This relationship was further strengthened in 2015. No correlation was detected between the CMR completion rate and high-risk medication use among PDP plan providers in either year. A multivariate regression found an inverse association with high-risk medication use among MAPD plan providers in comparison with PDP plan providers in 2014 (beta = -0.358, P < 0.001) and 2015 (beta = -0.350, P < 0.001), the CMR completion rate in 2015 (beta = -0.221, P < 0.001), and enrollee population size in 2015 (beta = -0.203, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that MAPD plan providers and higher CMR completion rates were associated with lower use of high-risk medications among beneficiaries. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Silva Almodovar reports a fellowship funded by SinfoniaRx, Tucson, Arizona, during the time of this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Does Medicare Advantage Reduce Racial Disparity in 30-Day Rehospitalization for Medicare Beneficiaries?

This study determined potential racial and ethnic disparities in risk for all-cause 30-day readmission among traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries initially hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or pneumonia. Our analyses of New York State hospital administrative data between 2009 and 2012 found that overall 30-day readmission rate declined from 22.0% in 2009 to 20.7% in 2012 for TM beneficiaries, and from 20.2% in 2009 to 17.9% in 2012 for MA beneficiaries. However, persistent racial disparities were found in propensity-score-based analyses among TM beneficiaries (e.g., in 2012, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-1.23, p = .029), though not among MA beneficiaries (in 2012, adjusted OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.92-1.19, p = .476). We did not find evidence of persistent ethnic disparity for TM (in 2012, adjusted OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.93-1.25, p = .303) or MA (in 2012, adjusted OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88-1.11, p = .837) beneficiaries. We conclude that enrollment in MA seemed to be associated with significantly reduced readmission rate and potentially reduced racial disparity.

Dropped out or pushed out? Insurance market exit and provider market power in Medicare Advantage.

This paper explores how provider and insurer market power affect which markets an insurer chooses to operate in. A 2011 policy change required that certain private insurance plans in Medicare form provider networks de novo; in response, insurers cancelled two-thirds of the affected plans. Using detailed data on pre-policy provider and insurer market structure, I compare markets where insurers built networks to those they exited. Overall, insurers in the most concentrated hospital and physician markets were 9 and 13 percentage points more likely to exit, respectively, than those in the least concentrated markets. Conversely, insurers with more market power were less likely to exit than those with less, and an insurer's market power had the largest effect on exit in concentrated hospital markets. These findings suggest that concentrated provider markets contribute to insurer exit and that insurers with less market power have more difficulty surviving in concentrated provider markets.

Can a More User-Friendly Medicare Plan Finder Improve Consumers' Selection of Medicare Plans?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy for consumers of two potential enhancements to the Medicare Plan Finder (MPF)-a simplified data display and a "quick links" home page designed to match the specific tasks that users seek to accomplish on the MPF. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Participants (N = 641) were seniors and adult caregivers of seniors who were recruited from a national online panel. Participants browsed a simulated version of the MPF, made a hypothetical plan choice, and reported on their experience. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in a fully factorial design: 2 home pages (quick links, current MPF home page) × 2 data displays (simplified, current MPF display) × 2 plan types (stand-alone prescription drug plan [PDP], Medicare Advantage plan with prescription drug coverage [MA-PD]). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The quick links page resulted in more favorable perceptions of the MPF, improved users' understanding of the information, and increased the probability of choosing the objectively best plan. The simplified data display resulted in a more favorable evaluation of the website, better comprehension of the displayed information, and, among those choosing a PDP only, an increased probability of choosing the best plan. CONCLUSIONS: Design enhancements could markedly improve average website users' understanding, ability to use, and experience of using the MPF.

Rural Medicare Advantage Market Dynamics and Quality: Historical Context and Current Implications.

Purpose. In this policy brief, we assess variation in Medicare's star quality ratings of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans that are available to rural beneficiaries. Evidence from the recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quality demonstration suggests that market dynamics, i.e., firms entering and exiting the MA marketplace, play a role in quality improvement. Therefore, we also discuss how market dynamics may impact the smaller and less wealthy populations that are characteristic of rural places. Key Data Findings. (1) Highly rated MA plans serving rural Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to be health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and local preferred provider organizations (PPOs), as opposed to regional PPOs. HMOs and local PPOs may be better able to improve their quality scores strategically in response to the bonus payment incentive due to existing internal monitoring mechanisms. (2) On average, the rural enrollment rate is lower in plans with higher quality scores (59 percent) than the corresponding urban rate (71 percent). This differential is likely due, in part, to lack of availability of highly rated plans in rural areas: 17.8 percent of rural counties lacked access to a plan with four or more (out of five) stars, while just 3.7 percent of urban counties lacked such access. (3) MA plans with high quality scores have been operating longer, on average, and have a lower percentage of rural counties within their contract service areas than plans with lower quality scores.