Dual-eligible Beneficiaries Research Articles

Helping Dual-Eligible Individuals Navigate Medicare and Medicaid

This Viewpoint discusses helping dual-eligible beneficiaries navigate Medicare and Medicaid coverage options.

County-Level Enrollment in Medicare Advantage Plans Offering Expanded Supplemental Benefits

Since 2019 and 2020, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have been able to offer supplemental benefits that address long-term services and supports (LTSS) and social determinants of health (SDOH). To examine the temporal trends and geographic variation in enrollment in MA plans offering LTSS and SDOH benefits. This cross-sectional study used publicly available data to examine changes in beneficiary enrollment and plan offerings of LTSS and SDOH benefits from the benefits data from the second quarter of each year and other data from April of each year except 2024, for which the first quarter was the latest for benefits data and January the latest for other data at the time of analysis. Multivariable linear regression models for each type of benefit were used to investigate associations between county characteristics and enrollment in 2024. Analyses were stratified for (1) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) that exclusively enroll dual-eligible beneficiaries and (2) non-D-SNPs. The percentage of MA enrollees in plans offering LTSS or SDOH benefits at the county level. This study included 2 631 697 D-SNP and 20 114 506 non-D-SNP enrollees in 2020, which increased to 5 494 426 and 25 561 455, respectively, in 2024. From 2020 to 2024, the percentage of D-SNP enrollees in plans offering SDOH benefits increased from 9% to 46%, whereas the percentage fluctuated between 23% and 39% for LTSS benefits. There was an increase in non-D-SNP enrollees with LTSS (from 9% to 22%) and SDOH (from 4% to 20%) benefits from 2020 to 2023, which decreased in 2024. In 2024, the most offered LTSS benefit was in-home support services, and the most offered SDOH benefit was food and produce. The percentage of enrollees with these benefits varied across counties in 2024. In multivariable linear regression models, among D-SNPs, enrollment in plans offering any SDOH benefits was higher in counties with greater MA penetration (coefficient, 5.0 percentage points [pp] per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.1-7.9 pp), in urban counties (coefficient, 7.2 pp vs rural counties; 95% CI, 3.8-10.6 pp), in counties with greater enrollment in fully integrated D-SNPs (coefficient, 3.0 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.2-3.9 pp), and in counties in states with approved Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers for individuals 65 years or older or those with disabilities (coefficient, 10.8 pp; 95% CI, 4.0-17.6 pp). Enrollment in D-SNPs offering LTSS benefits was also higher in counties with greater MA penetration (coefficient, 5.9 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.4-9.5 pp), urban vs rural counties (coefficient, 4.6 pp; 95% CI, 1.1-8.1 pp), and counties with greater enrollment in fully integrated D-SNPs (coefficient, 3.0 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 pp) in addition to counties with greater social vulnerability scores (coefficient, 1.4 pp per 10-pp change; 95% CI, 0.3-2.5 pp). In this cross-sectional study of MA plans and enrollees, an increase in enrollment was most consistent in D-SNPs offering SDOH benefits compared with LTSS benefits and in D-SNPs compared with non-D-SNPs. Geographic variation in enrollment patterns highlights potential gaps in access to LTSS and SDOH benefits for rural MA beneficiaries and dual-eligible enrollees living in counties with lower enrollment in fully integrated D-SNPs and states with more limited Medicaid home- and community-based services coverage.

Medicare Advantage Enrollment Following the 21st Century Cures Act in Adults With End-Stage Renal Disease

In January 2021, under the 21st Century Cures Act, Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were permitted to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans for the first time. In the first year of the Cures Act, there was a 51% increase in MA enrollment among beneficiaries with ESRD. To examine changes in MA enrollment among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD in the first 2 years of the Cures Act and, among beneficiaries newly enrolled in MA in 2021, to assess the proportion of beneficiaries who switched MA contracts and how the characteristics of contracts changed. This cross-sectional, population-based time-trend study was conducted from January 2020 to December 2022. Eligible participants included Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD. Data analysis was conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Enrollment in Medicare during the first 2 years of the 21st Century Cures Act. The primary outcomes were enrollment in MA, switching between traditional Medicare (TM) and MA, and switching between MA contracts from 2021 to 2022. There were 718 252 unique Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD between 2020 and 2022 (1 659 652 beneficiary-years). In 2022, there were 583 203 beneficiaries with ESRD (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [14.1] years, 245 153 female (42.0%); 197 988 Black [34.0%]; 47 912 Hispanic [8.2%]). The proportion of beneficiaries with ESRD who were enrolled in MA increased from 25.1% (118 601 of 472 234 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 43.1% (211 896 of 491 611 beneficiaries) in December 2022. Increases in MA enrollment were larger in the first year of the Cures Act (12.6 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI 12.3-12.8 pp) compared with the second year (5.7 pp; 95% CI, 5.5-5.9 pp). Changes between December 2020 and December 2022 ranged between 49.3% for Asian or Pacific Islander beneficiaries (difference = 13.0 pp; 95% CI, 12.2-13.8 pp) and 207.2% for American Indian or Alaska Native beneficiaries (difference = 17.0 pp; 95% CI, 15.3-18.7 pp). Changes were high among partial dual-eligible (difference = 35.5 pp; 95% CI, 34.9-36.1 pp; 134.7% increase) and fully dual-eligible beneficiaries (difference = 22.8 pp, 95% CI, 22.5-23.1 pp; 98.0% increase). Among 53 366 beneficiaries enrolled in MA in 2021, 37 439 (70.2%) remained in their contract, 11 730 (22.0%) switched contracts, and 4197 (7.9%) switched to TM in 2022. Compared with the characteristics of MA enrollees with ESRD in 2021, those in 2022 were more likely to be in contracts with lower premiums and with a rating of 4.5 stars or higher. In this cross-sectional time-trend study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD, MA enrollment continued to increase in the second year of the Cures Act, particularly among racially or ethnically minoritized individuals and dual eligible populations. These findings suggest need to monitor the equity of care for beneficiaries with ESRD as they enroll in managed care plans.

Dual-Eligible Nursing Home Residents: Enrollment Growth In Managed Care Plans That Coordinate Care, 2013-20.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries have insurance through two distinct and uncoordinated programs: Medicaid, which pays for long-term care; and Medicare, which pays for medical care, including hospital stays. Concern that this system leads to poor quality and inefficient care, particularly for dual-eligible nursing home residents, has led policy makers to test managed care plans that provide incentives for coordinating care across Medicare and Medicaid. We examined enrollment in three such plans among dual-eligible beneficiaries receiving long-term nursing home care. Two of those plans, Medicare-Medicaid plans and Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans, are integrated care plans that establish a global budget including Medicare and Medicaid spending. The third, Institutional Special Needs Plans, puts insurers and nursing homes at risk for Medicare spending but not Medicaid spending. Among dual-eligible nursing home residents, enrollment in these plans increased from 6.5percent of residents per month in 2013 to 16.9percent in 2020. Enrollment varied across counties but did not vary appreciably with respect to nursing home characteristics, including the share of residents with Medicaid. As policy makers pursue strategies to coordinate medical and long-term care for dual-eligible beneficiaries, it remains critical to evaluate how these plans influence the care of dual-eligible nursing home residents.

Senior-Focused Primary Care Organizations Increase Access For Medicare Advantage Members, Especially Underserved Groups.

Population-based payment in Medicare Advantage (MA) can foster innovation in care delivery by giving risk-bearing providers flexibility and strong incentives to enhance care and engage patients. This may particularly benefit historically underserved groups for whom payments often exceed costs. In this study, using data from Humana MA plans, we examined "senior-focused" primary care organizations that are supported predominantly by population-based payments in contracts with MA plans. We explored whether such organizations supported by such payment are associated with better care and improved equity compared with other primary care organizations receiving other forms of payment in MA. Analyses of data from 462,872 MA beneficiaries in 2021 showed that senior-focused primary care organizations served more Black and dually eligible beneficiaries than other primary care organizations serving MA beneficiaries, and regression-adjusted analysis showed that senior-focused primary care patients received 17percent more primary care visits. Differences were largest among Black and dual-eligible beneficiaries. These findings suggest that risk-bearing organizations in MA are responding to current payment dynamics and providing enhanced care and access to patients, particularly historically underserved populations.

Contract Termination and Insurance Enrollment Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Approximately one-fifth of Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts terminated their participation in the MA program between 2011 and 2020. Little is known about subsequent insurance choices following a termination. To examine the insurance destinations of MA enrollees and the characteristics of enrollees who switch into traditional Medicare (TM) after a contract termination. This cross-sectional study examined MA program data of MA beneficiaries in the Medicare Master Beneficiary File from 2016 to 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Beneficiary characteristics, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual eligibility; hospital, nursing home, and home health utilization; and contract characteristics, including plan type, vertical integration, premium, and MA star rating. The main outcome was switching to TM in the year immediately after termination. We also evaluated the characteristics of contracts among those who remained in MA. A total of 117 681 beneficiaries were included in this analysis (64 654 [54.9%] female; 409 [0.4%] American Indian or Alaska Native; 2817 [2.4%] Asian; 76 725 [16.8%] Black; 11 131 [9.5%] Hispanic; 81 226 [69.0%] White; and 2373 [2.0%] other race or ethnicity; 27 078 [23.0%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age, 71.2 [10.4] years). Following a contract termination, 20.1% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%) of enrollees switched to TM, including 32.7% (95% CI, 32.4%-33.1%) of dual-eligible beneficiaries and 16.4% (95% CI, 16.2%-16.5%) of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In nonterminated contracts, the concurrent switch rate was 6.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-6.2%) for all, 10.4% (95% CI, 10.4%-10.4%) for dual-eligible beneficiaries and 5.1% (95% CI, 5.1%-5.1%) for non-dual-eligible enrollees. The highest switch rates to TM were among Black enrollees (32.3% [95% CI, 31.7%-32.8%]) and those with prior use of hospital (31.3% [95% CI, 30.7%-31.9%], nursing home, 41.4% [95% CI, 40.4%-42.4%], or home health care (28.3% [95% CI, 27.4%-29.2%]). Beneficiaries who stayed in MA selected higher-rated star plans (mean posttermination contract star rating of 3.8 [95% CI, 3.8-3.8] stars compared with 3.3 [95% CI, 3.3-3.3] stars in the terminated year), but did not pay more in monthly premiums with 66.5% (95% CI, 66.2%-66.8%) paying the same or lower premiums. In this cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 MA beneficiaries switched to TM after a contract termination, with Black beneficiaries and those with more intensive health needs having the highest switch rates. These findings highlight the need to examine consequences of contract terminations and subsequent insurance destinations on access to care and health outcomes, especially among those with marginalized race and ethnicity, those who are dual-eligible, and beneficiaries with higher health care needs.

Quality, Spending, Utilization, and Outcomes Among Dual-Eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries in Integrated Care Programs

Most dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in bifurcated insurance programs that pay for different components of care. Therefore, policymakers are prioritizing expansion of integrated care plans (ICPs) that manage both Medicare and Medicaid benefits and spending. To review evidence of the association between ICPs and health care spending, quality, utilization, and patient outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries. A search was conducted of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2010, through November 1, 2023) and Google Scholar (January 1, 2010, through October 1, 2023) and augmented with reports from US federal and state government websites. Three categories of ICPs were evaluated: Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicare-Medicaid Plans (MMPs), and Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (FIDE-SNPs) and related models aligning Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The review included studies that evaluated beneficiaries dually eligible for and enrolled in full Medicaid; compared an ICP to a nonintegrated arrangement; and evaluated utilization, spending, care coordination, patient experience, or health for 100 or more beneficiaries. In all, 26 ICP evaluations met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 5 of PACE, 13 of MMPs, and 8 of FIDE-SNPs and other aligned models. Evidence generally showed associated reductions in long-term nursing home stays in PACE (3 of 4 studies) and FIDE-SNPs and related aligned models (3 of 5 studies) but was mixed in evaluations of MMPs. Four of 9 studies of MMPs and 2 of 3 studies of FIDE-SNPs found higher outpatient use, although other studies showed no difference. Evidence on Medicaid spending was limited, whereas 8 of 10 studies of MMPs showed an association between these plans and higher Medicare spending. Evidence was mixed or inconclusive regarding care coordination and hospitalizations, and it was insufficient to evaluate patient satisfaction, health, and outcomes in beneficiary subgroups (eg, those with serious mental illness). Furthermore, studies had limited ability to control for bias from unmeasured differences between enrollees of ICPs compared with nonintegrated models. This systematic review found variability and gaps in evidence regarding ICPs and spending, quality, utilization, and outcomes. Studies found some ICPs were associated with reductions in long-term nursing home admissions, and several identified increases in outpatient care. However, MMPs were primarily associated with higher Medicare spending. Evidence for other outcomes was limited or inconclusive. Research addressing these evidence gaps is needed to guide ongoing efforts to integrate coverage and care for dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Quality of care for dual eligible beneficiaries in the oncology care model.

Dual eligible beneficiaries are a vulnerable population who often experience inferior access to care and outcomes compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model that aims to improve coordination and quality of care in beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy and thus may improve care for dual eligible beneficiaries with cancer. We used 100% Medicare claims data from 2014 through 2019 and included beneficiaries with bladder, breast, esophageal, colorectal, kidney, lung, pancreatic, or prostate cancer receiving chemotherapy. We constructed multivariable difference-in-differences regression models to evaluate the effect of OCM participation on healthcare utilization and quality of care at the end-of-life among dual eligible beneficiaries. We also compared healthcare utilization and quality of care outcomes to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. We identified 3,043,944 episodes of care among 1,260,892 unique Medicare beneficiaries. Ten percent of all beneficiaries (n = 126,758) were dual eligible and 64,087 (22%) of episodes among dual eligible patients were in an OCM participating practice. We noted no effect of OCM participation on healthcare utilization or end-of-life quality of care for dual eligible beneficiaries. However, we observed higher rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, intensive care unit stays, and a lower number of office visits among dual eligible beneficiaries compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. Participation in OCM was not associated with improvements in quality of care or healthcare utilization for dual eligible beneficiaries. Dual eligible beneficiaries experience lower quality of care across several measures compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. Focused policies and incentives may be necessary to address disparities within emerging health reforms.

“Lesser-of” payment policies and the use of physicians’services among dual-eligible beneficiaries in the United States

ABSTRACT Most dual-eligible beneficiaries in the U.S. —people enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid – are eligible for Medicaid through enrolment in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) program, which requires that states pay for Medicare cost sharing. Since 1997, states have gradually implemented policies under which they pay the lesser of Medicare cost sharing and the amount, if any, by which Medicaid’s payment rate for the service exceeds Medicare’s payment rate. Consequently, physicians in most states receive roughly 80% of the Medicare rate for primary care services provided to QMBs. We used difference-in-difference-in-differences models and administrative data from 1999 to 2012 to assess how the implementation of ‘lesser-of’ payment policies affected QMBs’ access to care compared with Medicare-only beneficiaries. We found that lesser-of policies were associated with a 5% reduction in the number of new primary care visits and a 7% reduction in the likelihood of such visits among QMBs. Both the number and the likelihood of total and established patients’ primary care visits fell by about 3%. However, we were unable to discern spillover effects on the use of acute care, including emergency room visits or hospitalizations. Those results suggest that continued monitoring of quality-of-care measures among dual-eligible beneficiaries may be warranted.

Medicaid Eligibility Loss Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries Before and During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

Medicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known. To assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid. This repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023. Onset of PHE. Loss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year. Sample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020. During the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE.

Outcomes After Community Discharge From Skilled Nursing Facilities: The Role of Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services.

This study investigated the association between Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) generosity and post-discharge outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries discharged from skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). We linked multiple national datasets for duals discharged from SNFs between 2010 and 2013. Accounting for SNF fixed effects, we estimated the effect of HCBS generosity, measured by its breadth and intensity, on the likelihood of remaining in the community, risks of death, nursing home (NH) admission, and hospitalizations within 30 and 180days after SNF discharge. We found that higher HCBS generosity was associated with an increased likelihood of remaining in the community. HCBS breadth and intensity were both significantly associated with reduced risks of NH admission, while higher HCBS intensity was related to a reduced risk of acute hospitalizations within 30days after discharge. Our findings suggest that more generous HCBS programs may facilitate smoother transitions and sustainable community living following SNF discharge.

Post-acute care transitions during COVID-19: Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences in older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia.

Differences in the post-acute care (PAC) destinations among racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups have been documented before the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the pandemic's impact on these differences remains unknown. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PAC destinations and its variation by individual race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status among community-dwelling older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD). We linked 2019-2021 national data (Medicare claims, Minimum Data Set, Master Beneficiary Summary File) and several publicly available datasets, including Provider of Services File, Area Deprivation Index, Area Health Resource File, and COVID-19 infection data. PAC discharge destinations included skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), home health agencies (HHA), and homes without services. Key variables of interest included individual race, ethnicity, and Medicare-Medicaid dual status. The analytic cohort included 830,656 community-dwelling Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with ADRD who were hospitalized between 2019 and 2021. Regression models with hospital random effects and state-fixed effects were estimated, stratified by the time periods, and adjusted for the individual, hospital, and county-level covariates. SNF discharges decreased while home and HHA discharges increased during the pandemic. The trend was more prominent among racial and ethnic minoritized groups and even more so among dual-eligible beneficiaries. For instance, the reduction in the probabilities of SNF admissions between the pre-pandemic period and the 2nd year of COVID was 4.6 (White non-duals), 18.5 (White duals), 8.7 (Black non-duals), and 20.1 (Black duals) percentage-point, respectively. We also found that non-duals were more likely to replace SNF with HHA services, while duals were more likely to be discharged home without HHA. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted PAC destinations for individuals with ADRD, especially among socioeconomically disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minoritized populations. Future research is needed to understand if and how these transitions may have affected health outcomes.

Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program

Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown. To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments. This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments. Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA. Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics. Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively. Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Opportunities for Integration in the Dual Medicare-Medicaid Population: North Carolina Landscape Analysis.

NC Medicaid is amid a transformation to value-based care models. The transformation requires the consideration of models that may best serve the 1 in 5 NC Medicaid beneficiaries who are dually enrolled in Medicare. The lack of integration of Medicare and Medicaid administration, financing, and care may contribute to suboptimal health outcomes and care experiences. Integrating Medicare and Medicaid to improve care for dually enrolled individuals requires knowledge of the demographic, eligibility, and enrollment trends, as well as the medical needs of these individuals throughout North Carolina. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2019 NC Medicaid administrative enrollment data and 2015-2020 Medicare and Medicaid public use files. Nearly half of North Carolina's full-benefit dual-eligible (FBDE) population was eligible for Medicare due to disability. About one-third of the FBDE population lost full Medicaid benefits at some point during 2019; of these, 65% were under age 65. Most FBDE beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicaid fee-for-service, with 3.5% enrolled in Community Alternatives Program (CAP) waivers, 2% in Medicaid waivers for beneficiaries with behavioral health or intellectual and developmental disabilities (BH/IDD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and 1% in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). Enrollment in Medicare Duals Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) increased from 7.3% of the FBDE population in 2015 to 32.5% in 2021. This descriptive, cross-sectional evaluation of North Carolina duals may not be generalizable to other time periods and contexts. Medicare-Medicaid integration presents an opportunity to improve the value of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries and aligns with the goals of NC Medicaid transformation. Integration strategies that leverage the current infrastructure may minimize disruption of services for beneficiaries and mitigate the impacts of unstable enrollment, particularly among working-age adults and disabled beneficiaries. The diversity within the dual-eligible populations requires a strategy designed to improve health equity across race, disability, eligibility, geography, and health care needs.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Performance of Neurosurgeons Providing Safety-Net Care Under Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

Under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), Medicare evaluates provider performance to determine payment adjustments. Studies examining the first year of MIPS (2017) showed that safety-net providers had lower MIPS scores, but the performance of safety-net physicians over time has not been studied. This study aimed to examine the performance of safety-net vs non-safety-net neurosurgeons in MIPS from 2017 to 2020. Safety-net neurosurgeons were defined as being in the top quartile according to proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries and non-safety-net in the bottom quartile. Outcomes were total MIPS scores and dual-eligible proportion over time. In this descriptive study, we evaluated ordinary least squares regression models with SEs clustered at the physician level. Covariates of interest included safety-net status, year, and average Hierarchical Condition Category risk score of beneficiaries. There were 2796-3322 physicians included each year between 2017 and 2020. Mean total MIPS scores were not significantly different for safety-net than non-safety-net physicians in 2017 but were greater for safety-net in 2018 (90.7 vs 84.5, P < .01), 2019 (86.4 vs 81.5, P < .01), and 2020 (90.9 vs 86.7, P < .01). Safety-net status (coefficient -9.11; 95% CI [-13.15, -5.07]; P < .01) and participation in MIPS as an individual (-9.89; [-12.66, -7.13]; P < .01) were associated with lower scores while year, the interaction between safety-net status and year, and participation in MIPS as a physician group or alternative payment model were associated with higher scores. Average Hierarchical Condition Category risk score of beneficiaries (-.011; [-.015, -.006]; P < .01) was associated with decreasing dual-eligible case mix, whereas average age of beneficiaries (.002; [.002, .003]; P < .01) was associated with increasing dual-eligible case mix. Being a safety-net physician was associated with lower MIPS scores, but safety-net neurosurgeons demonstrated greater improvement in MIPS scores than non-safety-net neurosurgeons over time. Providers with higher-risk patients were more likely to decrease their dual-eligible case mix over time.

Linking Medicare-Medicaid Claims for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Among Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries.

Evaluation of Medicare-Medicaid integration models' effects on patient-centered outcomes and costs requires multiple data sources and validated processes for linkage and reconciliation. To describe the opportunities and limitations of linking state-specific Medicaid and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative claims data to measure patient-centered outcomes for North Carolina dual-eligible beneficiaries. We developed systematic processes to (1) validate the beneficiary ID linkage using sex and date of birth in a beneficiary ID crosswalk, (2) verify dates of dual enrollment, and (3) reconcile Medicare-Medicaid claims data to support the development and use of patient-centered outcomes in linked data. North Carolina Medicaid beneficiaries with full Medicaid benefits and concurrent Medicare enrollment (FBDE) between 2014 and 2017. We identified need-based subgroups based on service use and eligibility program requirements. We calculated utilization and costs for Medicaid and Medicare, matched Medicaid claims to Medicare service categories where possible, and reported outcomes by the payer. Some services were covered only by Medicaid or Medicare, including Medicaid-only covered home and community-based services (HCBS). Of 498,030 potential dual enrollees, we verified the linkage and FBDE eligibility of 425,664 (85.5%) beneficiaries, including 281,174 adults enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare fee-for-service. The most common need-based subgroups were intensive behavioral health service users (26.2%) and HCBS users (10.8%) for adults under age 65, and HCBS users (20.6%) and nursing home residents (12.4%) for adults age 65 and over. Medicaid funded 42% and 49% of spending for adults under 65 and adults 65 and older, respectively. Adults under 65 had greater behavioral health service utilization but less skilled nursing facility, HCBS, and home health utilization compared with adults 65 and older. Linkage of Medicare-Medicaid data improves understanding of patient-centered outcomes among FBDE by combining Medicare-funded acute and ambulatory services with Medicaid-funded HCBS. Using linked Medicare-Medicaid data illustrates the diverse patient experience within FBDE beneficiaries, which is key to informing patient-centered outcomes, developing and evaluating integrated Medicare and Medicaid programs, and promoting health equity.

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with utilization of rehabilitation services in breast cancer survivors.

286 Background: Breast cancer treatment is increasingly efficacious, but commonly results in functional morbidity and decreased quality of life for survivors.Rehabilitation services, including physical and occupational therapy, are recommended by clinical practice guidelines to counteract these impairments, yet these supportive services may be underutilized. Little is known about how use of rehabilitation services may vary by patient-level characteristics. Methods: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database was used to identify women aged ≥66 years diagnosed with stage 0-III breast cancer between 2011-2016. Rehabilitation services (evaluation/treatment by a physical and/or occupational therapist) delivered in the initial phase of care (0-11 months post-diagnosis) were identified via outpatient or physician visit claims. Descriptive statistics compared rehabilitation usage by patient sociodemographics and clinical characteristics (age, race, dual eligibility status, rural/urban residence, cancer stage, subtype, treatment type). Associations between patient characteristics and rehabilitation services were calculated using modified Poisson models estimating relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of 55,539 breast cancer survivors, 33% (n=18,244) had received any type of rehabilitative services. Survivors were a mean age of 75 years (SD 6.7), 88% White, 86% urban-dwelling, 21% Medicare/Medicaid dually enrolled, and 82% had HR+ breast cancer. Clinically, 88% of survivors had received chemotherapy, 69% lumpectomy, and 27% mastectomy. In adjusted models, patients aged &gt;75 vs. ≤75 and dual-eligible beneficiaries vs. those with other insurance were 6% (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 4% (0.96, CI 0.93-0.99) less likely to have received rehabilitative services, respectively. Patients with at least a high school education vs. less than high school, White vs. non-White, or living in a rural vs. urban area were 26% (1.26, CI 1.22-1.30), 6% (1.06, CI 1.02-1.11), and 6% (1.06, CI 1.02-1.10) more likely to have received rehabilitative services, respectively. Patients with invasive vs. in situ cancer and those who received surgical treatment vs. none were 13% (1.13, CI 1.06-1.21) and 15% (1.15, CI 1.02-1.32) more likely to have received rehabilitative services, respectively. Conclusions: Rehabilitation services use differed by patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, with the largest differences seen for survivors of differing educational and treatment statuses. Further research is needed on barriers for, access to, and delivery of rehabilitation services, specifically for women with breast cancer who are less educated, older-aged, non-White, or Medicare/Medicaid dual eligible.

State-Level Adverse Outcomes Among Long-Term Services and Supports Users With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.

Home- and community-based services (HCBS) users, on average, experience hospitalizations more frequently than nursing facility residents. However, little is known about state-level variation in such adverse events among these groups. Using 2018 Medicare and Medicaid claims for dual-eligible beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, we described hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit rates among HCBS users and nursing facility residents and observed substantial state-level variation. In addition, consistent with prior evidence, we found more frequent hospitalizations and ED visits among HCBS users than nursing facility residents. The magnitude of this difference varied considerably across states, and the degree of variation was greatest among beneficiaries with six or more comorbid conditions. Our findings represent a crucial initial exploration of the state-level variation in adverse events among HCBS users and nursing facility residents, paving the way for further investigations into factors that contribute to this variability.

Outcomes after ischemic stroke for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries in the United States.

Medicaid serves as a safety net for low-income US Medicare beneficiaries with limited assets. Approximately 7.7 million Americans aged ≥65 years rely on a combination of Medicare and Medicaid to obtain critical medical services, yet little is known about whether these patients have worse outcomes after stroke than patients with Medicare alone. We compared geographic patterns in dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility and ischemic stroke hospitalizations and examined whether these dual-eligible beneficiaries had worse post-stroke outcomes than those with Medicare alone. We identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who were discharged from US acute-care hospitals with a principal diagnosis of ischemic stroke in 2014. Medicare beneficiaries with ≥1 month of Medicaid coverage were considered dual eligible. We mapped risk-standardized stroke hospitalization rates and percentages of beneficiaries with dual eligibility. Mixed models and Cox regression were used to evaluate relationships between dual-eligible status and outcomes up to 1 year after stroke, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. At the national level, 12.5% of beneficiaries were dual eligible. Dual-eligible rates were highest in Maine, Alaska, and the southern half of the United States, whereas stroke hospitalization rates were highest in the South and parts of the Midwest (Pearson's r = 0.469, p<0.001). Among 254,902 patients hospitalized for stroke, 17.4% were dual eligible. In adjusted analyses, dual-eligible patients had greater risk of all-cause readmission within 30 days (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09) and 1 year (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05) and had greater odds of death within 1 year (odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.17-1.23) when compared with Medicare-only patients; there was no difference in in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Dual-eligible stroke patients had higher readmissions and long-term mortality than other patients, even after comorbidity adjustment. A better understanding of the factors contributing to these poorer outcomes is needed.