Comparison of Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare for Health Care Access, Affordability, and Use of Preventive Services Among Adults With Low Income

Abstract

The Medicare Advantage (MA) program has doubled in size during the past decade, and enrollment among adults with low income has increased rapidly. Such adults face significant barriers in accessing care, leading to poorer health outcomes. Therefore, understanding how health care access, preventive care, and care affordability compare for adults with low income who are enrolled in MA vs traditional Medicare (TM) is critically important. To compare measures of health care access, preventive care use, and affordability of care between adults with low income who are enrolled in MA vs TM. This nationally representative cross-sectional study used the 2019 National Health Interview Survey to compare 2622 adults aged 65 years or older with low income who were enrolled in MA vs TM. Data were analyzed from December 5, 2021, to April 10, 2022. Measures of health care access, preventive care use, and health care affordability. The study cohort included 2622 adults aged 65 years or older with low income, resulting in a weighted cohort of 14 222 243 adults, of whom 5 641 049 (39.7%) were enrolled in MA and 8 581 194 (60.3%) in TM. The overall age of the cohort was 74.6 years (95% CI, 74.3-74.9). Between the MA and TM groups, the mean age (74.5 years [95% CI, 74.1-75.0] vs 74.7 years [95% CI, 74.3-75.1]; P = .63) and sex distribution (63.6% women [95% CI, 59.8%-67.3%] vs 60.4% women [95% CI, 57.4%-63.3%]; P = .17) were similar, but adults with low income in MA were more likely to be non-Hispanic Asian (7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.1%] vs 3.8% [95% CI, 2.4%-5.3%]; P = .01) or Hispanic (18.1% [95% CI, 14.3%-21.9%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 7.2%-11.7%]; P < .001). Adults with low income in MA compared with those enrolled in TM were more likely to have a usual place of care (97.7% vs 94.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.37 [95% CI, 1.38-4.07]), but similarly likely to have a recent physician visit (95.5% vs 93.5%; aOR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.88-2.17]) and to delay medical care (5.3% vs 5.7%; aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.56-1.24]) or not seek medical care (5.6% vs 5.9%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.56-1.30]) due to costs. For preventive care measures, adults with low income in MA were more likely than those in TM to have undergone a recent cholesterol screening (98.7% vs 96.6%; aOR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.27-5.22]). However, there were no significant differences between the MA and TM groups in the likelihood of diabetes screening (90.6% vs 87.6%; aOR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.87-1.66]), blood pressure screening (96.8% vs 95.2%; aOR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.84-2.23]), or receipt of an influenza vaccination in the past year (66.3% vs 63.8%; aOR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.93-1.45]). Adults with low income in MA or TM were similarly likely to be concerned about paying medical bills (47.3% vs 44.2%; aOR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.88-1.35]) or have problems paying medical bills (17.1% vs 17.2%; aOR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]) and were also similarly likely to delay filling prescriptions (7.4% vs 6.2%; aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.78-1.92]) or to not fill prescriptions (7.8% vs 7.4%; aOR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.70-1.45]) due to costs. In this study of Medicare beneficiaries with low income, key measures of health care access, preventive care use, and health care affordability generally did not differ between those enrolled in MA vs TM.