Medicare Advantage Patients Research Articles

The Spillover Effect of the Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program on Joint Replacement Outcomes: Analysis of Patients with Commercial Insurance and Medicare Advantage.

To improve the value and efficiency of care among traditional Medicare enrollees, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has implemented alternative payment models designed to control health-care spending and improve quality. These models may affect care beyond traditional Medicare enrollees, "spilling over" into other populations. Established in April 2016, the Medicare mandatory bundled payment program, called the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of care for traditional Medicare joint-replacement patients during care episodes that span from the index hospitalization to 90 days post-discharge. We assessed the extent to which the CJR model was associated with outcomes for patients enrolled in commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage plans. With use of Health Care Cost Institute claims data from 2012 through 2017, we assessed the association of the CJR model with total expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, and readmissions among commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage joint-replacement patients. The exposure variable was the implementation of the CJR model in 67 randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas compared with 103 similar areas without CJR implementation. We utilized difference-in-differences models to estimate the spillover effects of the CJR model by comparing outcomes between these areas before and after CJR implementation. The study included 174,893 joint-replacement episodes of care in commercial insurance enrollees and 202,070 episodes in Medicare Advantage enrollees. Among both commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage enrollees, CJR implementation was associated with no meaningful changes in total episode expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, or readmissions. We found no evidence for spillover effects of the CJR model on commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage patients, suggesting that alternative payment models targeting traditional Medicare patients may have limited effects on the cost and quality of care for patients outside of the traditional Medicare system.

Association of opioid fills with centers for disease control and prevention opioid guidelines and payer coverage policies: physician, insurance and geographic factors.

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines and certain healthcare payers have made pharmacy coverage changes (PCC) focusing on regulating prescription opioids. Aim We evaluated differences in the rate of first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and first-time opioid fills with benzodiazepine fill overlap following the CDC guidelines and following a PCC between provider types, geographic locations, and insurance types. Method We used OptumLabs® Data Warehouse claims data between 2014 and 2018. Subjects were opioid naïve non-cancer care patients, 18 years and older who had an identified chronic pain condition ICD diagnosis within 2 weeks prior to their first-time opioid fill. We used multiple treatment period segmented regression analysis with interaction terms to test the differences between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialist providers (SPs), urban and rural primary care service areas (PCSAs), and Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercially insured patients (CIPs) in their first-time opioid fill patterns. Results Prescribing first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50MME/day declined following the CDC guidelines and PCC, the decline was greater among SPs than PCPs and in rural PCSAs than urban PCSAs. Also, following the CDC guidelines, the decline was greater among MA patients however following the PCC the decline was greater among CIPs. There were no differences in rate of first-time opioid fill with benzodiazepine overlap between groups. Conclusion Responses to the CDC opioid guidelines and a PCC differed between PCPs and SPs, urban and rural PCSAs, and when prescribing to MA and CIPs. Understanding these differences is important to help inform future guidelines.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-021-01360-w.

A Comparison of Home Health Utilization, Outcomes, and Cost Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.

Home health use is rising rapidly in the United States as the population ages, the prevalence of chronic disease increases, and older Americans express their desire to age at home. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare (TM) has grown as well, from 13% of total Medicare enrollment in 2004 to 39% in 2020. Despite these shifts, little is known about outcomes and costs following home health in MA as compared with TM. The objective of this study was to measure the association of MA enrollment with outcomes and costs for patients using home health. This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients enrolled in plans offered by 1 large, national MA organization and patients enrolled in TM, with at least 1 home health visit between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. MA enrollment. We compared the intensity of home health services and types of care delivered. The main outcome measures were hospitalization, the proportion of days in the home, and total allowed costs during the 180-day period following the first qualifying home health visit during the study period. Among patients who used home health, our models demonstrated enrollment in MA was associated with 14%, and 6% decreased odds of 60- and 180-day hospitalization, respectively, a 12.8% and 14.7% decrease in medical costs exclusive and inclusive of home health costs, respectively, and a 0.27% increase in the proportion of days at home during the 180-day follow-up, equivalent to an additional half-day at home. There were few differences in home health care delivered for MA and TM [mean number of visits in the first episode of care (17.1 vs. 17.3) and mean visits per week (3.2 vs. 3.3)]. The mean number of visits by visit type and percent of patients with each type was similar between MA and TM as well. Compared with enrollment in TM, enrollment in MA was associated with improved patient-centered outcomes and lower cost and utilization, despite few differences in the way home health was delivered. These findings might be explained by structural components of MA that encourage better care management, but further investigation is needed to clarify the mechanisms by which MA enrollment may lead to higher value home health care.

Treatment Experiences with CDK4&6 Inhibitors Among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PurposeTo describe patients’ perspectives on the use of and potential challenges and barriers with adherence/persistence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4&6i’s) to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC).MethodsThis qualitative study consisted of 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with MBC in the US who were either current or recent CDK4&6i users, identified from administrative claims of survey-eligible commercial and Medicare Advantage patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between November 1, 2018 and November 1, 2019. Patients were recruited by email and/or mailed letter. The 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted by a trained facilitator using a study-developed interview discussion guide that included topics impacting treatment choice and adherence/persistence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.ResultsAll 462 eligible patients were sent a recruitment email and/or letter to which 36 patients responded, consented to participate, and met study inclusion criteria; 25 patients scheduled interviews, and 24 completed them. Study participants were predominately white, non-Hispanic (96%) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Participants reported a largely positive experience and mentioned very few adherence/persistence issues. They further reported appreciating the ease and convenience of oral oncolytics, coped with side effects, had strong medical and social support, and experienced few cost issues.ConclusionThe few adherence/persistence issues reported by participants contrasts with other findings of suboptimal oral oncolytic use. Interview themes indicated several factors that likely contributed to the lack of adherence/persistence issues: trusted relationship with oncologist, belief in importance of medication, positive medication views, strong medical and social support, and minimal personal drug cost. Future research should focus on whether and how much these factors impact adherence/persistence in more diverse populations. If adherence/persistence issues are identified in these populations, then it would be appropriate to study the development of interventions that target factors associated with better adherence/persistence.

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the US in 2020

Many insurers waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations during 2020. Nonetheless, patients may have been billed if their plans did not implement waivers or if waivers did not capture all hospitalization-related care. Assessment of out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020 may show the financial burden that patients may experience if insurers allow waivers to expire, as many chose to do during 2021. To estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020. This cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics Database, a national claims database representing 7.7 million privately insured patients and 1.0 million Medicare Advantage patients, regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations for privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients from March to September 2020. Mean total out-of-pocket spending, defined as the sum of out-of-pocket spending for facility services billed by hospitals (eg, accommodation charges) and professional and ancillary services billed by clinicians and ancillary providers (eg, clinician inpatient evaluation and management, ambulance transport). Analyses included 4075 hospitalizations; 2091 (51.3%) were for male patients, and the mean (SD) age of patients was 66.8 (14.8) years. Of these hospitalizations, 1377 (33.8%) were for privately insured patients. Out-of-pocket spending for facility services, professional and ancillary services, or both was reported for 981 of 1377 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (71.2%) and 1324 of 2968 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (49.1%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $788 ($1411) for privately insured patients and $277 ($363) for Medicare Advantage patients. In contrast, out-of-pocket spending for facility services was reported for 63 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (4.6%) and 36 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (1.3%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $3840 ($3186) for privately insured patients and $1536 ($1402) for Medicare Advantage patients. Total out-of-pocket spending exceeded $4000 for 2.5% of privately insured hospitalizations compared with 0.2% of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations. In this cross-sectional study, few patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 2020 were billed for facility services provided by hospitals, suggesting that most were covered by insurers with cost-sharing waivers. However, many patients were billed for professional and ancillary services, suggesting that insurer cost-sharing waivers may not have covered all hospitalization-related care. High cost sharing for patients who were billed by facility services suggests that out-of-pocket spending may be substantial for patients whose insurers have allowed waivers to expire.

Trends in Chronic Kidney Disease Care in the US by Race and Ethnicity, 2012-2019

Significant racial and ethnic disparities in chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and outcomes are well documented, as is low use of guideline-recommended CKD care. To examine guideline-recommended CKD care delivery by race and ethnicity in a large, diverse population. In this serial cross-sectional study, adult patients with CKD that did not require dialysis, defined as a persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urine albumin-creatinine ratio of 30 mg/g or higher for at least 90 days, were identified in 2-year cross-sections from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national data set of administrative and electronic health record data for commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients, were used. The independent variables were race and ethnicity, as reported in linked electronic health records. On the basis of guideline-recommended CKD care, the study examined care delivery process measures (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker prescription for albuminuria, statin prescription, albuminuria testing, nephrology care for CKD stage 4 or higher, and avoidance of chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescription) and care delivery outcome measures (blood pressure and diabetes control). A total of 452 238 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [10.2] years; 262 089 [58.0%] female; a total of 7573 [1.7%] Asian, 49 970 [11.0%] Black, 15 540 [3.4%] Hispanic, and 379 155 [83.8%] White). Performance on process measures was higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients compared with White patients for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker use (79.8% for Asian patients, 76.7% for Black patients, and 79.9% for Hispanic patients compared with 72.3% for White patients in 2018-2019), statin use (72.6% for Asian patients, 69.1% for Black patients, and 74.1% for Hispanic patients compared with 61.5% for White patients), nephrology care (64.8% for Asian patients, 72.9% for Black patients, and 69.4% for Hispanic patients compared with 58.3% for White patients), and albuminuria testing (53.9% for Asian patients, 41.0% for Black patients, and 52.6% for Hispanic patients compared with 30.7% for White patients). Achievement of blood pressure control to less than 140/90 mm Hg was similar or lower among Asian (71.8%), Black (63.3%), and Hispanic (69.8%) patients compared with White patients (72.9%). Achievement of diabetes control with hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0% was 50.1% in Asian patients, 49.3% in Black patients, and 46.0% in Hispanic patients compared with 50.3% for White patients. Higher performance on CKD care process measures among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients suggests that differences in medication prescription and diagnostic testing are unlikely to fully explain known disparities in CKD progression and kidney failure. Improving care delivery processes alone may be inadequate for reducing these disparities.

Rural Residency Training as a Strategy to Address Rural Health Disparities: Barriers to Expansion and Possible Solutions.

Rural Residency Training as a Strategy to Address Rural Health Disparities: Barriers to Expansion and Possible Solutions.

Prescription Opioids Dispensed to Patients with Cancer with Bone Metastasis: 2011-2017.

Opioid therapy is a first-line approach for moderate-to-severe pain associated with cancer with bone metastasis (CBM). The decade-long decline in opioid prescribing in the U.S. would not be expected to affect patients with CBM. We investigated trends in opioids dispensed to patients with CBM using data from a large commercial claims database. From 2011 quarter 2 to 2017 quarter 4, the percentage of patients with CBM prescribed at least 1 day of opioids in a quarter declined from 28.1% to 24.5% (p<.001) for privately insured patients aged 18-64 years and from 39.1% to 30.5% (p<.001) for Medicare Advantage (MA) patients aged 65 years or older. Among patients with at least 1 day of opioids in a quarter, the average morphine milligram equivalents dispensed declined by 37% and 11% (p<.001 for both) for privately insured and MA patients, respectively. Our findings raise concerns about potential unintended consequences related to population-level reduction in opioid prescribing.

Diagnostic Coding of Elder Mistreatment: Results From a National Database of Medicare Advantage and Private Insurance Patients, 2011-2017.

Health care providers may play an important role in detection of elder mistreatment, which is common but underrecognized. We used the Health Care Cost Institute insurance claims database to describe elder mistreatment diagnosis among Medicare Advantage (MA) and private insurance patients in the United States from 2011 to 2017. We used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding to identify cases, examining the impact of transition from ICD-9 (Ninth Revision) to ICD-10 (Tenth Revision), which occurred in October 2015 and added 14 new codes for "suspected" mistreatment. 8,127 patients (0.051% of all aged ≥ 65), including 6,304 with MA (0.058%) and 1,823 with private insurance (0.026%) received elder mistreatment diagnosis. Transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 was associated with a small increase in diagnosis rate, with "suspected" codes used in 45.3% of ICD-10 versus 9.7% of ICD-9 cases. Overall rates remained low. Rates, settings, and types of diagnosis differed between MA and private insurance patients.

1102-P: Association between Insulin Utilization and Average Out-of-Pocket Cost in Medicare Advantage Patients with Diabetes

Introduction: High patient out-of-pocket (OOP) cost for insulin led to a program limiting OOP to $35/30-day supply in select Medicare Part D plans. This study assessed the association between insulin utilization and insulin OOP cost in Medicare Advantage (MA) patients with diabetes. Methods: This study included MA patients with type 1 (T1D) or 2 diabetes (T2D) in the OptumLabs® Data Warehouse, a longitudinal, real-world data asset with de-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data, from 2006-2018. Index date was January 1 following two insulin claims the prior year. Patients were grouped by average insulin OOP cost/30-day supply during the 1-year follow-up period: $0, >$0-$20, >$20-$35, >$35-$50, and >$50. The proportion of patients with a 90 continuous-day gap in insulin therapy, mean number of insulin claims, and insulin daily average consumption (DACON) were compared by OOP group using descriptive statistics. Results: The study included 7,210 T1D and 174,439 T2D patients (Table). Versus >$0-$20, patients in >$20 OOP groups filled fewer insulin claims and had lower mean DACON; more T2D patients in >$35 OOP groups experienced a gap in therapy. Similar trends were seen in T1D patients in >$35 OOP groups. Conclusions: Expanding the insulin $35 OOP cost limit in MA may help avoid gaps in insulin therapy and preserve daily insulin use in MA patients with diabetes. Disclosure N. Ruiz-negron: Research Support; Self; Genentech, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. J. Sullivan: None. J. Tucker: None. C. Mcadam-marx: None. Funding Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Health Data for Action Research Program (ID77105)

Impact of a regimen-level prior authorization tool on provider adherence to clinical guidelines’ and cost savings in a Medicare advantage population.

1522 Background: In 2019, a large national health system developed a comprehensive approach to improve the quality and cost of cancer care; this solution included a Web-based clinical decision support prior authorization (PA) tool, Novologix (NLX), which approves at the regimen rather than drug level to reduce administrative burden and elevate the quality of care. Evidence-based guidelines in NLX are updated in real-time via a partnership with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the NCCNconcordance of PAs submitted via NLX and total cost of care for Medicare Advantage (MA) patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received NCCNconcordant versus non-concordant therapies. Methods: Eligible patients included MA patients diagnosed with NSCLC; our initial analysis included only the NSCLC subset of patients. NCCN regimen concordance was identified from pharmacy and medical claims and defined as concordant if the entire prescribed treatment regimen matched an NCCNregimen; patients not receiving an NCCN recommended regimen were deemed to be non-concordant. Total cost of care for MA patients with NSCLC were calculated. Results: From April-December 2020, 279 PAs were submitted via NLX and 83% were automatically approved in real-time. PAs not automatically approved were deemed concordant after peer-to-peer consultations that led to NCCN concordance; no PA denials were made. In the first half of 2020, 2,690 MA patients with NSCLC were identified; 2,166 (81%) patients were defined as NCCN concordant. Beginning with and including the first treatment and for 30-days thereafter, total cost of care for concordant patients averaged $19,321 while non-concordant patients averaged $26,405, a statistically significant savings of $7,084 (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Preliminary findings with a MA NSCLC population suggest engaging oncology practices through an enhanced payer-provider collaboration and implementing an automated regimen-level precertification process with real-time NCCNupdates can facilitate lower cost, and more efficient oncology care. Financial savings by encouraging providers to follow NCCN guidelines may lead to a 27% reduction in total cost of care with further proper adjustment on population bias; this may lead to similar findings in other cancer types. Future studies are needed to measure the long-term impact of this program on total cost of care for other care models and cancer types.

Association of febrile neutropenia (FN) risk factors (RFs) with incident FN in U.S. commercial and Medicare advantage patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapy for non-myeloid cancers between 2009 and 2019.

e18607 Background: FN after myelosuppressive chemotherapy may result in significant morbidity/mortality and increase healthcare costs due to interventions such as hospitalization. For patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate-risk of FN, guidelines recommend assessing patient-specific FN RFs to decide whether to provide primary prophylaxis. However, there is a paucity of real-world data that quantifies the FN risk based on patient RFs when receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapy. Thus, we examined the association of FN RFs with incident FN in the first and subsequent cycles in patients at intermediate-risk of chemotherapy-induced FN within the real-world. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Optum Research Database to identify US commercial and Medicare Advantage patients with a non-myeloid malignancy who were treated between 01 Jan 2009 and 31 Dec 2019 with a first-line intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimen. The following FN RFs were identified based on ICD or procedure codes on claims during the 6 months prior to chemotherapy, unless otherwise stated: radiation, neutropenia, liver dysfunction, renal dysfunction, age &gt; 65 years, metastases to the bone, and surgery during the 30 days prior. FN was defined as ICD codes for neutropenia and fever on a claim. Patients without previous FN were followed for FN from five days after index through the earliest of the following: 1) FN, 2) 31 Dec 2019, 3) death, 4) health plan disenrollment, or 5) end of chemotherapy line or cycle (depending on time frame of interest). Cox regression was used to calculate HRs for incident FN. Results: The study included 13,937 patients, and the most common RFs were 1) recent surgery (84%), 2) age &gt; 65 (67%), and 3) liver dysfunction (31%). Compared to patients with no individual RFs, each additional RF was associated with a greater risk of FN during both the first and subsequent cycles, although confidence intervals were large (Table). Conclusions: Among patients at intermediate-risk of chemotherapy-induced FN, patients with more individual RFs for FN had a higher risk of FN during both the first and all cycles. These results underscore the importance of RF analysis in prophylaxis decisions for patients at intermediate-risk of chemotherapy-induced FN.[Table: see text]

The effects of vertically integrated care on health care use and outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

To understand the effects of receiving vertically integrated care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) on health care use and outcomes. Medicare enrollment, claims, and IRF patient assessment data from 2012 to 2014. We estimated within-IRF differences in health care use and outcomes between IRF patients admitted from hospitals vertically integrated with the IRF (parent hospital) vs patients admitted from other hospitals. For hospital-based IRFs, the parent hospital was defined as the hospital that owned the IRF and co-located with the IRF. For freestanding IRFs, the parent hospital(s) was defined as the hospital(s) that was in the same health system. We estimated models for freestanding and hospital-based IRFs and for fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. Dependent variables included hospital and IRF length of stay, functional status, discharged to home, and hospital readmissions. We identified Medicare beneficiaries discharged from a hospital to IRF. In adjusted models with hospital fixed effects, our results indicate that FFS patients in hospital-based IRFs discharged from the parent hospital had shorter hospital (-0.7 days, 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.6) and IRF (-0.7 days, 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.6) length of stay were less likely to be readmitted (-1.6%, 95% CI: -2.7% to -0.5%) and more likely to be discharged to home care (1.4%, 95% CI: 0.7% to 2.0%), without worse patient clinical outcomes, compared to patients discharged from other hospitals and treated in the same IRFs. We found similar results for MA patients. However, for patients in freestanding IRFs, we found little differences in health care use or patient outcomes between patients discharged from a parent hospital compared to patients from other hospitals. Our results indicate that receiving vertically integrated care in hospital-based IRFs shortens institutional length of stay while maintaining or improving health outcomes.

Compared to commercially insured patients, Medicare advantage patients adopt newer diabetes drugs more slowly and adhere to them less.

ABSTRACTAimsTo compare rates of use and adherence for newer versus older second‐line diabetes drug classes in commercially insured, Medicare Advantage and dual‐eligible (covered by both Medicare and Medicaid) patients.Materials and MethodsLongitudinal cohort study using insurance claims data from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 to identify patients with a first prescription, after metformin, of a second‐line diabetes drug (eg sulphonylurea, DPP‐4 inhibitor, thiazolidinedione, SGLT‐2 inhibitor or GLP‐1 receptor agonist) and to estimate their adherence to that drug class. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to examine the association between insurance type and use of each drug class, and between insurance type and adherence to each drug class.ResultsThe study population included 96,663 patients. Trends in drug use differed by insurance type. For example, sulphonylurea use declined among the commercially insured (from 46% to 39%, p < .001) but not among Medicare Advantage or dual‐eligible patients. Patterns of adherence also differed between insurance groups. For example, compared to commercial insurance, Medicare Advantage was associated with higher adherence to sulphonylurea (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.21–1.43)) but lower adherence to SGLT‐2 inhibitors (OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33–0.56)).ConclusionsThis study finds differences in utilization and adherence for diabetes drugs across insurance types. Older medications such as sulphonylureas appear to be more used and better adhered to among Medicare Advantage recipients, while the opposite is true for newer medication classes. These findings suggest a need to personalize selection of diabetes drugs according to insurance status, particularly when adherence needs optimization.

Real-World Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide From a US Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Population

PurposePatients managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often require combination therapy to meet their blood glucose control targets. With limited real-world evidence focused on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapies, the objective of this study was to describe the association between semaglutide once weekly (OW) initiation and changes in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) levels. MethodsThis retrospective, descriptive cohort study used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment (HIRE) to examine commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who had T2DM while taking semaglutide OW from December 1, 2017, to April 30, 2019. The first semaglutide OW prescription fill was defined as the study index date. Changes in mean A1c levels and A1c target attainment were evaluated among an intention-to-treat (ITT) population (overall group). Furthermore, a persistent population (PP) analysis on the same outcomes was performed that was limited to ITT patients who were observed to continue to use semaglutide OW at the time of the postindex A1c measurement. In addition, these outcomes were explored in patients stratified based on prior use of GLP-1RA therapy (experienced vs naive) and baseline A1c values >9% (75 mmol/mol). FindingsA total of 1888 patients were identified in the overall ITT group. The mean change in the overall ITT group between preindex and postindex A1c values was −0.9% percentage points (−9.8 mmol/mol) (mean preindex A1c, 8.2% [66.1 mmol/mol]) and −1.1 percentage points (−12.0 mmol/mol) (mean preindex A1c, 8.2% [66.1 mmol/mol]) in the PP subgroup (all P < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with a baseline A1c value >9% (75 mmol/mol), percentage point changes in A1c were −2.2 (−24.0 mmol/mol) and −2.4 (−26.2 mmol/mol) (all P < 0.001). When accounting for prior GLP-1RA use, the GLP-1RA–naive stratum had double the mean reduction in A1c compared with the GLP-1RA–experienced stratum (−1.2 [−13.1 mmol/mol] vs −0.6 [−6.6 mmol/mol] percentage points). ImplicationsSemaglutide OW is associated with clinically and statistically significant A1C reduction and increases in reaching A1 targets using real-world data, even in GLP-1RA–experienced patients, despite more frequent use of insulin or sodium glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors in this group. Target A1c attainment significantly increased overall and within all subgroups and strata, with approximately half of all patients attaining an A1c value <7% (53 mmol/mol) and three-quarters attaining an A1c value <8% (64 mmol/mol).

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Influenza Hospitalizations in Medicare Advantage

IntroductionAlthough many Medicare Advantage plans have waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations, these waivers are voluntary and may be temporary. To estimate the magnitude of potential patient cost sharing if waivers are not implemented or are allowed to expire, this study assesses the level and predictors of out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations in 2018 among elderly Medicare Advantage patients.MethodsUsing the Optum De-Identified Clinformatics DataMart, investigators identified Medicare Advantage patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for influenza in 2018. For each hospitalization, out-of-pocket spending was calculated by summing deductibles, coinsurance, and copays. The mean out-of-pocket spending and the proportion of hospitalizations with out-of-pocket spending exceeding $2,500 were calculated. A 1-part generalized linear model with a log link and Poisson variance function was fitted to model out-of-pocket spending as a function of patient demographic characteristics, plan type, and hospitalization characteristics. Coefficients were converted to absolute changes in out-of-pocket spending by calculating average marginal effects.ResultsAmong 14,278 influenza hospitalizations, the mean out-of-pocket spending was $987 (SD=$799). Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2,500 for 3.0% of hospitalizations. The factors associated with higher out-of-pocket spending included intensive care use, greater length of stay, and enrollment in a preferred provider organization plan (average marginal effect=$634, 95% CI=$631, $636) compared with enrollment in an HMO plan.ConclusionsIn this analysis of elderly Medicare Advantage patients, the mean out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations was almost $1,000. Federal policymakers should consider passing legislation mandating insurers to eliminate cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations. Insurers with existing cost-sharing waivers should consider extending them indefinitely, and those without such waivers should consider implementing them immediately.

Association of Inclusion of Medicare Advantage Patients in Hospitals’ Risk-Standardized Readmission Rates, Performance, and Penalty Status

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program publicly reports and financially penalizes hospitals according to 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) exclusively among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries but not persons with Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage. Exclusively reporting readmission rates for the TM population may not accurately reflect hospitals' readmission rates for older adults. To examine how inclusion of MA patients in hospitals' performance is associated with readmission measures and eligibility for financial penalties. This is a retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set at 4070 US acute care hospitals admitting both TM and MA patients. Participants included patients admitted and discharged alive with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia between 2011 and 2015. Data analyses were conducted between April 1, 2018, and November 20, 2020. Admission to an acute care hospital. The outcome was readmission for any reason occurring within 30 days after discharge. Each hospital's 30-day RSRR was computed on the basis of TM, MA, and all patients and estimated changes in hospitals' performance and eligibility for financial penalties after including MA beneficiaries for calculating 30-day RSRRs. There were 748 033 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [83] years; 360 692 [48.2%] women) and 295 928 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.9] years; 137 422 [46.4%] women) hospitalized and discharged alive for AMI; 1 327 551 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.3] years; 735 855 [55.4%] women) and 457 341 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 79.8 [8.1] years; 243 503 [53.2%] women) for CHF; and 2 017 020 TM patients (mean [SD] age, 80.7 [8.5] years; 1 097 151 [54.4%] women) and 610 790 MA patients (mean [SD] age, 79.6 [8.2] years; 321 350 [52.6%] women) for pneumonia. The 30-day RSRRs for TM and MA patients were correlated (correlation coefficients, 0.31 for AMI, 0.40 for CHF, and 0.41 for pneumonia) and the TM-based RSRR systematically underestimated the RSRR for all Medicare patients for each condition. Of the 2820 hospitals with 25 or more admissions for at least 1 of the outcomes of AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, 635 (23%) had a change in their penalty status for at least 1 of these conditions after including MA data. Changes in hospital performance and penalty status with the inclusion of MA patients were greater for hospitals in the highest quartile of MA admissions. In this cohort study, the inclusion of data from MA patients changed the penalty status of a substantial fraction of US hospitals for at least 1 of 3 reported conditions. This suggests that policy makers should consider including all hospital patients, regardless of insurance status, when assessing hospital quality measures.

Physician variation in the de-adoption of ineffective statin and fibrate therapy.

To describe physicians' variation in de-adopting concurrent statin and fibrate therapy for type 2 diabetic patients following a reversal in clinical evidence. We analyzed 2007-2015 claims data from OptumLabs® Data Warehouse, a longitudinal, real-world data asset with de-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data. We modeled fibrate use among Medicare Advantage and commercially insured type 2 diabetic statin users before and after the publication of the ACCORD lipid trial, which found statins and fibrates were no more effective than statins alone in reducing cardiovascular events among type 2 diabetic patients. We modeled fibrate use trends with physician random effects and physician characteristics such as age and specialty. We identified patient-year-quarters with one year of continuous insurance enrollment, type 2 diabetes diagnoses, and fibrate use. We designated the physician most responsible for patients' diabetes care based on evaluation and management visits and prescriptions of glucose-lowering drugs. Fibrate use increased by 0.12 percentage points per quarter among commercial patients (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14) and 0.17 percentage points per quarter among Medicare Advantage patients (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.20) before the trial and then decreased by 0.16 percentage points per quarter among commercial patients (95% CI, -0.18 to -0.15) and 0.05 percentage points per quarter among Medicare Advantage patients (95% CI, -0.06 to -0.03) after the trial. However, 45% of physicians treating commercial patients and 48% of physicians treating Medicare Advantage patients had positive trends in prescribing following the trial. Physicians' characteristics did not explain their variation (pseudo R2 =0.000). On average, physicians decreased fibrate prescribing following the ACCORD lipid trial. However, many physicians increased prescribing following the trial. Observable physician characteristics did not explain variations in prescribing. Future research should examine whether physicians vary similarly in other de-adoption settings.

Differences in High- and Low-Value Cardiovascular Testing by Health Insurance Provider.

BackgroundQuality of care incentives and reimbursements for cardiovascular testing differ between insurance providers. We hypothesized that there are differences in the use of guideline‐concordant testing between Medicaid versus commercial insurance patients <65 years, and between Medicare Advantage versus Medicare fee‐for‐service patients ≥65 years.Methods and ResultsUsing data from the Colorado All‐Payer Claims Database from 2015 to 2018, we identified patients eligible to receive a high‐value test recommended by guidelines: assessment of left ventricular function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or incident heart failure, or a low‐value test that provides minimal patient benefit: stress testing prior to low‐risk surgery or routine stress testing within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Among 145 616 eligible patients, 37% had fee‐for‐service Medicare, 18% Medicare Advantage, 22% Medicaid, and 23% commercial insurance. Using multilevel logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive high‐value testing for acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.84 [0.73–0.98]; P=0.03) and heart failure (OR, 0.59 [0.51–0.70]; P<0.01) compared with commercially insured patients. Medicare Advantage patients were more likely to receive high‐value testing for acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.35 [1.15–1.59]; P<0.01) and less likely to receive low‐value testing after percutaneous coronary intervention/ coronary artery bypass graft (OR, 0.63 [0.55–0.72]; P<0.01) compared with Medicare fee‐for‐service patients.ConclusionsGuideline‐concordant testing was less likely to occur among patients with Medicaid compared with commercial insurance, and more likely to occur among patients with Medicare Advantage compared with fee‐for‐service Medicare. Insurance plan features may provide valuable targets to improve guideline‐concordant testing.

Cost drivers of locally advanced rectal cancer treatment-An analysis of a leading healthcare insurer.

To evaluate the economic burden of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treatment from a society perspective through analysis of health insurance-derived data of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. Retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing rectal resection within a multimodal (neoadjuvant chemoradiation + adjuvant chemotherapy) treatment strategy between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2018, using the claims OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. In total, 1738 (935 commercial and 803 MA) patients were included. Overall treatment costs totaled $230,881,746 (on average $183 653 ± 82 384 per commercially insured and $73 681 ± 32 917 per MApatient). Cost distribution according to category (commercially insured patients) was: 29.92% related to outpatient care (follow-up visits/diagnostics), radiotherapy: 21.83%, index resection: 20.62%, chemotherapy: 17.44%, surgical inpatient: 6.32%, medical inpatient: 3.28%, emergency room: 0.58%. Relative cost distribution of the index resection itself differed marginally between the three approaches and was 21.49% for open, 19.30% for laparoscopic, and 20.93% for robotic surgery. Relative cost distributions of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and outpatient treatments remained unchanged, independently of the surgical approach. This representation was similar in MApatients. Index-surgery related costs were outweighed by costs related to oncological and outpatient workup/follow-up treatments independently of both surgical approach and insurance type.