Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.

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. To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries. 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. 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. 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). 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%]). 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.

Better evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes. To compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees. This cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design. Enrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. Postacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services. Included in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility. In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has been increasing and has reached one-third of total Medicare enrollment. Because of data limitations, direct comparison of inpatient rehabilitation services between MA and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries has been very scarce. Subgroups of elderly individuals admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) may experience different care outcomes by insurance types. To measure the differences in length of stay and health outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation services between TM and MA beneficiaries in the US. This multiyear cross-sectional study used the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation to assess rehabilitation services received by elderly (aged >65 years) Medicare beneficiaries in IRFs between 2007 and 2016 for stroke, hip fracture, and joint replacement. Generalized linear models were used to assess whether an association existed between Medicare insurance type and IRF care outcomes. Models were adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and facility characteristics. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to August 2019. Medicare insurance plan type, TM or MA. Inpatient length of stay in IRFs, functional improvements, and possibility of returning to the community after discharge. The sample included a total of 1 028 470 patients (634 619 women [61.7%]; mean [SD] age, 78.23 [7.26] years): 473 017 patients admitted for stroke, 323 029 patients admitted for hip fracture, and 232 424 patients admitted for joint replacement. Individuals enrolled in MA plans were younger than TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.96 [7.02] vs 77.95 [7.26] years for stroke, 79.92 [6.93] vs 80.85 [6.87] years for hip fracture, and 74.79 [6.58] vs 75.88 [6.80] years for joint replacement) and were more likely to be black (17 086 [25.5%] vs 54 648 [17.9%] beneficiaries) or Hispanic (14 496 [28.5%] vs 24 377 [8.3%] beneficiaries). The MA beneficiaries accounted for 21.8% (103 204 of 473 017) of admissions for stroke, 11.5% (37 160 of 323 029) of admissions for hip fracture, and 11.8% (27 314 of 232 424) of admissions for joint replacement. The MA beneficiaries had shorter mean lengths of stay than did TM beneficiaries for both stroke (0.11 day; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.07 day; 1.15% shorter) and hip fracture (0.17 day; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13 day; 0.85% shorter). The MA beneficiaries also had higher possibilities of returning to the community than did TM beneficiaries, by 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) for stroke and 5.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-5.6%) for hip fracture. The shorter length of stay and better ultimate outcomes were achieved without substantially compromising the intermediate functional improvements. Facility type (freestanding vs within an acute care hospital) and patient alternative payment sources other than Medicare (none vs other) partially explained the differences between insurance types. This study suggests that MA enrollees experience shorter length of stay and better outcomes for postacute care than do TM beneficiaries in IRFs. The magnitude of the differences depends on treatment deferability, patient sociodemographic subgroups, and facility characteristics.

Nearly all Medicare Advantage (MA) plans offer dental, vision, and hearing benefits not covered by traditional Medicare (TM). However, little is known about MA enrollees' use of those benefits or how much they cost MA insurers or enrollees. To estimate use, out-of-pocket (OOP) spending, and insurer payments for dental, hearing, and vision services among Medicare beneficiaries. This cross-sectional analysis used pooled 2017-2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) data for MA and TM beneficiaries (excluding those also covered by Medicaid). The analysis was performed from September 10, 2023, to June 30, 2024. MA compared with TM coverage. The main outcome was receipt of eye examinations, corrective lenses, hearing aids, optometry and dental visits, and MA and TM enrollees' and insurers' spending for such services. MEPS and MCBS data were weighted to be nationally representative. We included 76 557 non-dually eligible Medicare beneficiaries, including 23 404 from the MEPS and 53 153 from the MCBS. Weighted demographic characteristics of MA and TM beneficiaries were similar (54.7% and 51.9% female; 39.8% and 35.2% older than 75 years, respectively). Only 54.2% (95% CI, 52.4%-55.9%) and 54.3% (95% CI 52.2%-56.3%) of MA beneficiaries were aware of having MA dental and vision coverage, respectively. MA enrollees were no more likely to receive eye examinations, hearing aids, or eyeglasses than TM enrollees. After adjustment for demographic differences, MA and TM enrollees paid OOP $205.86 (95% CI, $192.44-$219.27) and $226.12 (95% CI, $212.02-$240.23), respectively, for eyeglasses (MA - TM difference, -$20.27 [95% CI, -$33.77 to -$6.77] or -9.0% [95% CI, -14.9% to -3.0%]); $226.82 (95% CI, $202.24-$251.40) and $249.98 (95% CI, $226.22-$273.74) for dental visits, respectively (MA - TM difference, -$23.16 [95% CI, -$43.15 to -$3.17] or -9.3% [95% CI, -17.3% to -1.3%]); and no less for optometry visits or durable medical equipment (a proxy for hearing aids). Nationwide, MA plans' annual spending on vision, dental services, and durable medical equipment totaled $3.9 billion (95% CI, $3.3-$4.4 billion), while enrollees spent OOP $9.2 billion (95% CI, $8.2-$10.2 billion) annually for these services and other private insurers covered $2.8 billion (95% CI, $2.7-$3.0 billion). In this cross-sectional study of 2 nationally representative surveys, MA beneficiaries did not receive more supplemental services than TM beneficiaries, possibly because of cost-sharing and limited awareness of benefit coverage.

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.

The objective of this study was to examine racial/ethnic differences in enrollment trends for supplemental insurance coverage among traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. We employed a retrospective cohort study design using the 2010-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We included two types of outcomes: 1) seven exclusive types of insurance coverage in a given year and 2) changes in insurance coverage in the next year for those with each of the seven exclusive types of insurance coverage. Our primary independent variable was race/ethnicity. We conducted regression while controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. We calculated the adjusted value of the outcome by race/ethnicity after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health status characteristics. We found substantial racial/ethnic differences in supplemental insurance coverage among TM and MA beneficiaries. Compared to White beneficiaries, racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries had lower adjusted rates of enrollment in Medigap among TM beneficiaries and higher enrollment in Medicaid among both TM and MA beneficiaries. Trends in enrollment differed by supplemental insurance coverage, but an increasing trend in enrollment among MA beneficiaries without supplemental insurance coverage and MA beneficiaries with Medicaid was notable. Overall trends were consistent across all racial/ethnic groups. Finally, most beneficiaries were less likely to change insurance coverage in the next year, but a distinct phenomenon was observed among Black beneficiaries with the lowest rates of remaining in Medigap or MA only. Our findings indicate the minority Medicare beneficiaries may not have equitable access to supplemental insurance coverage.

Background: The federal government spends billions of dollars per year on payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans based largely on beneficiaries’ risk scores. Despite this, little is known about the true burden of cardiovascular risk factors among MA beneficiaries, or whether they receive better management of these conditions, compared to those in traditional Medicare (TM). Goal: To determine whether the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as treatment and control rates, differ between MA and TM beneficiaries. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of adults &gt;65 years enrolled in MA or TM participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015-2018). We compared the prevalence of hypertension, obesity, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease between MA and TM beneficiaries, and examined treatment and control rates for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. All outcomes were age- and sex-adjusted. Results: The age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of hypertension (67.8% vs 67.4%, OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.72, 1.26]), obesity (40.8% vs 40.7%, OR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81, 1.29]), hyperlipidemia (75.8% vs 76.2%, OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.75, 1.22]), and chronic kidney disease (19.9% vs 22.2%, OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.55, -1.16], p=0.25) were similar between MA and TM beneficiaries, while the prevalence of diabetes was higher in MA (31.5% vs 24.2%, OR 1.48 [95% CI 1.21, 1.80]). Adjusted rates of hypertension treatment (82.3% vs 79.1%, OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.94, 1.65], p=0.14) and control (53.3% vs 58.7%, OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.62, 1.20], p=0.38), hyperlipidemia treatment (56.4% vs 56.0%, OR 1.02 [95% CI 0.79, 1.32], p=0.87) and control (82.0% vs 74.9%, OR 1.63 [95% CI 1.02, 2.61], p=0.051), as well as diabetes treatment (76.3% vs 82.5%, OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.45, 1.20], p=0.23) and control (53.3% vs 55.1%, OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.57, 1.36], p=0.56) were all similar between these groups. Conclusions: In this nationally representative study using physical examination, biometric, and laboratory data from NHANES, the prevalence of common cardiovascular risk factors was similar between MA and TM beneficiaries. There were no differences in treatment or control rates for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Compared with traditional Medicare (TM) fee-for-service plans, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may provide more-efficient care for beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) without compromising care quality. To determine differences in health care utilization, care satisfaction, and health status for MA and TM beneficiaries with and without ADRD. A cohort study was conducted of MA and TM beneficiaries with and without ADRD from all publicly available years of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey between 2010 and 2016. To address advantageous selection into MA plans, county-level MA enrollment rate was used as an instrument. Data were analyzed between July 2019 and December 2019. Enrollment in MA. Self-reported health care utilization, care satisfaction, and health status. The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). Compared with TM beneficiaries with ADRD, MA beneficiaries with ADRD had lower utilization across the board, including a mean of -22.3 medical practitioner visits (95% CI, -24.9 to -19.8 medical practitioner visits), -2.3 outpatient hospital visits (95% CI, -3.6 to -1.1 outpatient hospital visits), -0.2 inpatient hospital admissions (95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1 inpatient hospital admissions), and -0.1 long-term care facility stays (95% CI, -0.2 to -0.1 long-term care facility stays). A similar trend was observed among beneficiaries without ADRD, but the difference was greater between MA and TM beneficiaries with ADRD than between MA and TM beneficiaries without ADRD (mean, -15.0 medical practitioner visits [95% CI, -18.7 to -11.3 medical practitioner visits], -1.7 outpatient hospital visits [95% CI, -3.0 to -0.3 outpatient hospital visits], and -0.1 inpatient hospital admissions [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.0 inpatient hospital admissions]). Overall, no or negligible differences were detected in care satisfaction and health status between MA and TM beneficiaries with and without ADRD. Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries had lower health care utilization without compromising care satisfaction and health status. This difference was more pronounced among beneficiaries with ADRD. These findings suggest that MA plans may be delivering health care more efficiently than TM, especially for beneficiaries with ADRD.

Low-value care in the Medicare program is prevalent, costly, potentially harmful, and persistent. Although Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can use managed care strategies not available in traditional Medicare (TM), it is not clear whether this flexibility is associated with lower rates of low-value care. To compare rates of low-value services between MA and TM beneficiaries and explore how elements of insurance design present in MA are associated with the delivery of low-value care. This cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. All analyses were conducted from July 2021 to March 2022. Enrollment in MA vs TM. Low-value care was assessed using 26 claims-based measures. Regression models were used to estimate the association between MA enrollment and rates of low-value services while controlling for beneficiary characteristics. Stratified analyses explored whether network design, product design, value-based payment, or utilization management moderated differences in low-value care between MA and TM beneficiaries and among MA beneficiaries. Among a study population of 2 470 199 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.0] years; 1 346 777 [54.5%] female; 229 107 [9.3%] Black and 2 126 353 [86.1%] White individuals), 1 527 763 (61.8%) were enrolled in MA and 942 436 (38.2%) were enrolled in TM. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA received 9.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.8%) fewer low-value services in 2019 than TM beneficiaries (23.1 vs 25.4 total low-value services per 100 beneficiaries). Although MA beneficiaries enrolled in health management organization and preferred provider organization products received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, the difference was largest for those enrolled in health management organization products (2.6 fewer [95% CI, 2.4-2.8] vs 2.1 fewer [95% CI, 1.9-2.3] services per 100 beneficiaries, respectively). Across primary care payment arrangements, MA beneficiaries received fewer low-value services than TM beneficiaries, with the largest difference observed for MA beneficiaries whose primary care physicians were reimbursed within 2-sided risk arrangements. In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of low-value care than those enrolled in TM; elements of insurance design present in the MA program and absent in TM were associated with reduction in low-value care.

Unlike traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans limit in-network care to a specific network of Medicare clinicians. MA plans thus play a role in sorting patients to a subset of clinicians. It is unknown whether the performance of physicians who treat MA and TM beneficiaries is different. To examine whether avoidable hospital stay differences between MA and TM can be explained by the primary care clinicians who treat MA and TM beneficiaries. This was a cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of MA and TM beneficiaries in 2019 with any of 5 chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). The relative risk (RR) of avoidable hospital stays in MA compared with TM was estimated with inverse probability of treatment-weighted Poisson regression, both without and with clinician fixed effects. The degree to which the estimated MA vs TM difference could be explained by patient sorting was calculated by comparing the 2 RR estimates. Data were analyzed between February 2022 and April 2023. Enrollment in MA. Whether a beneficiary had avoidable hospital stays in 2019 due to any of the ACSCs. Avoidable hospital stays included both hospitalizations and observation stays. The study sample comprised 1 323 481 MA beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [7.0] years; 56.9% women; 69.3% White) and 1 965 863 TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [7.4] years; 57.1% women; 82.5% White). When controlling for the primary care clinician, the RR of avoidable hospital stays in MA vs TM changed by 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.72-3.50; P < .001), suggesting that compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries saw clinicians with lower rates of avoidable hospital stays. This effect size was statistically significant to explain the 2% lower rate of avoidable hospital stays in MA than in TM. In this cross-sectional study of MA and TM beneficiaries, the lower rate of avoidable hospital stays among MA beneficiaries than TM beneficiaries was attributable to MA beneficiaries visiting clinicians with lower rates of avoidable hospital stays. The patient sorting that occurs in MA plays a critical role in the lower rates of avoidable hospital stays compared with TM.

To examine differences in access to care and financial burden between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries in rural and urban areas and then explore whether there were potential differences in MA benefits between urban and rural areas. We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States. Data from three distinct sources for 2017-2021: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, the MA landscape data, and the Plan Benefit Package data. Our sample comprised 43,343 Medicare beneficiary-years, including TM and MA beneficiaries in urban and rural areas. Our adjusted analysis showed that rural MA beneficiaries experienced higher rates of delayed care due to costs (10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1]) compared with rural TM (9.5% [8.8-10.2]), urban MA (7.9% [7.4-8.4]), and urban TM (7.9% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. Similarly, rural MA beneficiaries (11.4% [95% CI: 10.3-12.5]) reported more difficulty paying medical bills compared with rural TM (9.4% [8.7-10.1]), urban MA (8.1% [7.7-8.6]), and urban TM (7.8% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. This disparity was associated with less generous financial structures in rural MA plans. Compared to urban MA plans, rural MA plans offered lower out-of-pocket maximums for in-network care ($5918 vs. $5439), but required higher copayments ($1686 vs. $1724 for a 5-day hospitalization, $37 vs. $41 for a specialist visit, and $35 vs. $38 for a mental health visit). However, differences in quality of care and provision of supplemental benefits were small. Rural Medicare beneficiaries reported a greater financial burden of care than urban Medicare beneficiaries, but the most significant burden was observed among MA beneficiaries in rural areas. One possible mechanism could be the less generous financial structures offered by rural MA plans. These findings suggest the need for policies addressing the affordability of care for rural MA beneficiaries.

The objective of this study was to determine differences in health care utilization, process of diabetes care, care satisfaction, and health status for Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries with and without diabetes. Using the 2010-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we identified MA and TM beneficiaries with and without diabetes. To address the endogenous plan choice between MA and TM, we used an instrumental variable approach. Using marginal effects, we estimated differences in the outcomes between MA and TM beneficiaries with and without diabetes. Our instrumental variable analysis showed that compared with TM beneficiaries with diabetes, MA beneficiaries with diabetes had less annual health care utilization, including -22.4 medical provider visits [95% confidence interval (CI): -23.6 to -21.1] and -3.4 outpatient hospital visits (95% CI: -3.8 to -3.0). A significant difference between MA and TM beneficiaries without diabetes was only observed in medical provider visits and the difference was greater among beneficiaries with diabetes than beneficiaries without diabetes (-12.5 medical provider visits; 95% CI: -15.9 to -9.2). While we did not detect significant differences in 5 measures of the process of diabetes care between MA and TM beneficiaries with diabetes, there were inconsistent results in the other 3 measures. There were no or marginal differences in care satisfaction and health status between MA and TM beneficiaries with and without diabetes. MA enrollment was associated with lower health care utilization without compromising care satisfaction and health status, particularly for beneficiaries with diabetes. MA may have a more efficient care delivery system for beneficiaries with diabetes.

Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown significantly over the last decade; however, MA's performance for patients with serious conditions, such as cancer, remains unclear. To compare resource use and care quality between MA and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries undergoing cancer chemotherapy. This cohort study used TM claims and MA encounter records from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were MA and TM beneficiaries who initiated cancer chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting balanced characteristics between MA and TM beneficiaries, and regression estimation was used. The analysis was conducted between August 2023 and May 2024. Chemotherapy initiation after a 1-year washout period. Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation. Resource use was measured using standardized prices for services in both MA and TM, covering hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, Part D drugs, and hospice services. Chemotherapy utilization was examined for Part B chemotherapy, Part B supportive drugs, and Part D chemotherapy. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations, avoidable ED visits, preventable hospitalizations during the 6-month episode, and survival days up to 18 months from chemotherapy initiation. The study comprised 96 501 MA enrollees contributing to 98 872 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.9 [7.6] years; 55 859 [56.5%] female; 7371 [7.5%] Hispanic, 14 778 [14.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 75 130 [75.0%] non-Hispanic White participants) and 206 274 TM beneficiaries, contributing 212 969 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [8.3] years; 121 263 [56.9%] female; 8356 [3.9%] Hispanic, 16 693 [7.8%] non-Hispanic Black, and 182 228 [85.6%] non-Hispanic White participants). Adjusted total resource use per enrollee during the 6-month episode was $8718 (95% CI, $8343 to $9094) lower in MA than TM ($62 599 vs $71 317). Part B chemotherapy resource use accounted for most of the difference in total resource use, with MA enrollees having $5032 (95% CI, $4772 to $5293) lower use than TM beneficiaries. Lower resource use for Part B chemotherapy in MA was associated with both fewer chemotherapy visits (-1.06 visits; 95% CI, -1.10 to -1.02 visits) and less expensive chemotherapy per visit (-$277; 95% CI, -$275 to -$179). Findings on quality were mixed, but importantly, survival did not differ between MA and TM patients who initiated chemotherapy. In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, MA enrollment was associated with lower resource use but not shorter survival.

Postacute care expenditures exceed $57.3 billion annually for traditional Medicare (TM) and drive regional spending variation. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, with financial incentives to optimize postacute care, offer a compelling alternative. With more than half of Medicare beneficiaries now enrolled in MA, understanding postacute care use and outcomes across these groups is increasingly critical for policy and practice. To analyze the association of MA enrollment with postacute care use and patient outcomes compared with TM. This cross-temporal cohort study using a difference-in-differences approach matched 2021 MA beneficiaries to 2015 TM beneficiaries with a high propensity of enrolling in MA. The study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older discharged alive from acute care in 2015 or 2021 and subsequently admitted to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or to home health care. The data were analyzed between April 1, 2023, and August 28, 2025. Enrollment in MA plans. The main outcomes were the proportion of beneficiaries discharged to an SNF or home health, length of stay in an SNF or home health, 100-day hospital readmission and mortality rates, total days in the community, and changes in functional status. Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted using linear probability models for binary outcomes, and linear regression models were used for continuous outcomes. Doubly robust models included the same covariates as the propensity score models to adjust for residual imbalances in the matching. The study included 7 294 038 patients hospitalized in 2015 and 2021, with 2 687 009 (36.8%) enrolled in MA at some point. The final analytic sample included 1 081 103 MA beneficiaries enrolled in 2021 matched to 221 119 MA beneficiaries enrolled in 2015 (n = 1 302 222; mean [SD] age, 77.3 [7.9] years; 54.6% female) and 1 625 316 TM beneficiaries enrolled in 2021 matched to 534 607 TM beneficiaries enrolled in 2015 (n = 2 159 923; mean [SD] age, 78.4 [8.2] years; 53.9% female). The MA beneficiaries exhibited greater reductions in postacute care use compared with TM beneficiaries, including 6.3 fewer days in SNFs (95% CI, -6.8 to -5.8 days) and 3.6 fewer days in home health (95% CI, -4.3 to -2.9 days). Medicare Advantage enrollees also experienced a 1.5-percentage point lower probability of readmission (95% CI, -1.8 to -1.2 percentage points) and spent more time in the community in the first 100 days after hospital discharge (difference, 1.9 days; 95% CI, 1.7-2.2 days) than TM beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries also experienced a slightly lower mortality (difference, -0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 percentage points) compared with TM beneficiaries, as well as modest functional gains (difference in 30-day activities of daily living improvement, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.7-3.4 percentage points). These findings suggest that reductions in postacute care in comparable MA and TM beneficiaries were not associated with worse outcomes.

Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring chronic conditions and complex care needs experience high rates of acute care utilization and poor outcomes. These patterns are well described among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries, but less is known about outcomes among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. Compared with TM, MA plans have additional levers to potentially address beneficiary needs, such as network design, care management, supplemental benefits, and value-based contracting. To compare health care utilization for MA and TM beneficiaries with complex care needs. This cross-sectional study analyzed beneficiaries enrolled in MA and TM using claims data from a large, national MA insurer and a random 5% sample of TM beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were segmented into the following cohorts: frail elderly, major complex chronic, and minor complex chronic. Regression models estimated the association between MA enrollment and health care utilization in 2018, using inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the MA and TM cohorts on observable characteristics. The study period was January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. All analyses were conducted from December 2020 to August 2022. Enrollment in MA vs TM. Hospital stays (inpatient admissions and observation stays), emergency department (ED) visits, and 30-day readmissions. Among a study population of 1 844 326 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [7.1] years; 1 021 479 [55.4%] women; 1 524 458 [82.7%] White; 223 377 [12.1%] with Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility), 1 177 896 (63.9%) were enrolled in MA and 666 430 (36.1%) in TM. Beneficiary distribution across cohorts was as follows: frail elderly, 116 047 with MA (10.0% of the MA sample) and 104 036 with TM (15.6% of the TM sample); major complex chronic, 320 954 (27.2%) and 158 811 (23.8%), respectively; and minor complex chronic, 740 895 (62.9%) and 403 583 (60.6%), respectively. Beneficiaries enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, ED visits, and 30-day readmissions. The largest relative differences were observed for hospital stays, which ranged from -9.3% (95% CI, -10.9% to -7.7%) for the frail elderly cohort to -11.9% (95% CI, -13.2% to -10.7%) for the major complex chronic cohort. In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, ED visits, and 30-day readmissions than similar beneficiaries enrolled in TM, suggesting that managed care activities in MA may influence the nature and quality of care provided to these beneficiaries.