Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries Research Articles

Audio-Only Telehealth Use Among Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

This cross-sectional study analyzes how use of audio-only telehealth services by Medicare beneficiaries changed from 2020 to 2022 and assesses which patients would be most affected by policy reforms.

High-need beneficiary enrollment patterns in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

High-need Medicare beneficiaries require elevated levels of care and coordination to manage their conditions. We evaluated the extent to which high-need beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) or traditional Medicare (TM) accountable care organizations (ACOs) relative to TM non-ACOs. Using Medicare claims and MA encounter data, we identified 3 groups of high-need beneficiaries: (1) individuals younger than 65 years with a disability or end-stage kidney disease, (2) frail individuals, and (3) older individuals with major complex or multiple noncomplex chronic conditions. For comparison, we included non-high-need beneficiaries in the analysis, including those with minor complex chronic conditions. Descriptive analysis of Medicare enrollment patterns and beneficiary characteristics of high-need and other beneficiaries between 2016 and 2019. In 2019, high-need beneficiaries accounted for 18 million or 32% of enrollees in TM and MA, an increase of approximately 1 million since 2016, driven by growth in MA. A larger share of beneficiaries in TM ACOs was high need (38%) compared with MA (24%). Although the totalcount of high-need beneficiaries in TM remained stable from 2016 to 2019, ACOs saw an increase of almost 1.5 million high-need beneficiaries (39% increase), and TM non-ACOs saw a decrease of 1.9 million (23% decrease). We found that high-need beneficiaries were more likely to be in TM non-ACOs than in MA through 2019. However, an increasing number of these beneficiaries are enrolling in MA or aligned with a TM ACO. A projected increase in the population of older adults will increase the economic burden of caring for high-need individuals.

Where Are All the Specialists? Current Challenges of Integrating Specialty Care Into Population-Based Total Cost of Care Payment Models.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center (CMMI) has set the goal for 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries to be part of an accountable care relationship by 2030. Lack of meaningful financial incentives, intolerable or unpredictable risk, infrastructure costs, patient engagement, voluntary participation, and operational complexity have been noted by the provider and health care delivery community as barriers to participation or reasons for exiting programs. In addition, most piloted and implemented population-based total cost of care (PB-TCOC) payment models have focused on the role of the primary care physician being the accountability (that is, attributable) leader of a patient's multifaceted care team as well as acting as the mayor of the "medical neighborhood," leaving the role of specialty care physicians undefined. Successful provider specialist integration into PB-TCOC models includes meaningful participation of specialists in achieving whole-person, high-value care where all providers are financially motivated to participate; there is unambiguous prospective attribution and clearly defined accountability for each participating party throughout the care journey or episode; there is a known care attribution transition accountability plan; there is actionable, transparent, and timely data available with appropriate data development and basic analytic costs covered; and there is advanced payment to the accountable person or entity for management of the care episode that is part of a longitudinal care plan. Payment models should be created to address the 7 challenges raised here if specialists are to be incented to join TCOC models that achieve CMMI's goal.

Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns for Urinary Tract Infections and Pneumonia by Prescriber Type and Specialty in Nursing Home Care, 2016–2018

ObjectiveTo identify whether differences in antibiotic prescribing practices by prescriber type and specialization in nursing home (NH) care exist for urinary tract infection (UTI) and pneumonia. DesignRetrospective cohort. Setting and ParticipantsThis national study included antibiotic dispensings to traditional Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with UTI or pneumonia infections residing long-term (≥100 days) in US NHs between 2016 and 2018. MethodsMinimum Data Set assessment data were linked to Medicare data [Part D prescription drug, inpatient hospital (MedPAR), prescriber characteristics, and enrollment]. We compared antibiotic prescribing patterns by prescriber type [physician vs advanced practice practitioner (AP)] and NH specialization (≥90% vs <90% of all associated medication dispensings to NH residents). Antibiotic dispensing measures included the total number of dispensings and duration of therapy (median number of days supplied) by antibiotic class. ResultsThere were 264,735 antibiotic dispensings prescribed by 32,437 prescribers for 140,360 residents in 14,035 NHs. NH specialists were less likely to prescribe fluoroquinolones for UTI (22.9% NH specialist physician, 23.9% non-NH specialist physician, 21.3% NH specialist AP, 24.2% non-NH specialist AP), but more likely to prescribe fluoroquinolones for pneumonia (38.9%, 37.8%, 38.8%, 37.3%, respectively). Over time, NH specialists reduced fluoroquinolone prescribing for pneumonia to a greater extent than non-NH specialists. The duration of therapy was similar across prescriber groups for UTI, but longer among non-NH specialist APs for several antibiotic classes for pneumonia, including tetracyclines, glycopeptides and lipoglycopeptides, and metronidazole. Conclusions and ImplicationsThere were differences in antibiotic prescribing patterns by prescriber type and specialization in NH care between 2016 and 2018. Understanding how antibiotic prescribing differs based on prescriber characteristics is essential to inform antibiotic stewardship efforts. Tailoring antibiotic stewardship efforts to prescribers by NH specialization is rational given differences in antibiotic prescribing patterns based on NH specialization.

Dental Use and Spending in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare, 2010-2021

This cross-sectional study examines Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries’ use of and spending for dental services.

Abstract TP80: Differences in Access to Post Acute Care Services Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries in Michigan

Introduction: In recent years, Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment in the US has increased dramatically relative to traditional Medicare (TM). There is evidence to suggest that MA stroke patients are less likely to receive inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) based care in favor of home health. To evaluate potential gaps in quality of care, we compared post-acute care use patterns following hospitalization for acute stroke between TM and MA populations. Methods: We probabilistically linked data from Michigan’s Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry and Michigan Value Collaborative multipayer claims data registry for 16,231 TM and MA beneficiaries discharged alive following acute stroke (ICD-10 I61-I63) between 2016-2020. We used discharge claims to identify the initial discharge destination classified as home, home health, IRF, skilled nursing facility (SNF) or other. Unadjusted differences in proportions and time trends between TM and MA populations were assessed using chi square statistical tests. Results: TM and MA-insured patients constituted 75.1% and 24.9% of the 16,231 stroke discharges, respectively. Compared with TM, MA beneficiaries were older (77.4 vs 75.8, P &lt;0.001), less likely to be female (50.3% vs 55.3%, P &lt;0.001), and more likely to be white (87.0% vs 82.4%, P &lt;0.001). Over the study period, the proportion of MA patients increased from 21.2% in 2016 to 32.4% in 2020 ( P &lt;0.001) (Table). Overall, significant differences in discharge destination were due to more MA patients discharged to home and home health ( P &lt;0.001). Despite significant differences between MA and TM populations, there were no consistent time trends in discharge patterns. However, the exception was in 2020 where increased utilization of home health was accompanied by decreases in IRF and SNF discharge. Conclusions: We did not find clinically meaningful differences in discharge patterns between TM and MA populations. Changes in 2020 were likely attributed to COVID-19.

The mechanics of risk adjustment and incentives for coding intensity in Medicare.

To study diagnosis coding intensity across Medicare programs, and to examine the impacts of changes in the risk model adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for 2024. Claims and encounter data from the CMS data warehouse for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. We created cohorts of MA enrollees, TM beneficiaries attributed to Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and TM non-ACO beneficiaries. Using the 2019 Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) software from CMS, we computed HCC prevalence and scores from base records, then computed incremental prevalence and scores from health risk assessments (HRA) and chart review (CR) records. We used CMS's 2019 random 20% sample of individuals and their 2018 diagnosis history, retaining those with 12 months of Parts A/B/D coverage in 2018. Measured health risks for MA and TM ACO individuals were comparable in base records for propensity-score matched cohorts, while TM non-ACO beneficiaries had lower risk. Incremental health risk due to diagnoses in HRA records increased across coverage cohorts in line with incentives to maximize risk scores: +0.9% for TM non-ACO, +1.2% for TM ACO, and + 3.6% for MA. Including HRA and CR records, the MA risk scores increased by 9.8% in the matched cohort. We identify the HCC groups with the greatest sensitivity to these sources of coding intensity among MA enrollees, comparing those groups to the new model's areas of targeted change. Consistent with previous literature, we find increased health risk in MA associated with HRA and CR records. We also demonstrate the meaningful impacts of HRAs on health risk measurement for TM coverage cohorts. CMS's model changes have the potential to reduce coding intensity, but they do not target the full scope of hierarchies sensitive to coding intensity.

BIAS AND GENERALIZABILITY IN MEDICARE-BASED ANALYSES ACROSS THREE POLICY PERIODS

Abstract Administrative Big Health data such as that drawn from the Medicare program is an invaluable resource for the study of population health. Although the Medicare program provides near universal health coverage for older U.S. adults age 65+, for most types of care data is collected only for individuals enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM) plans, with those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans being effectively censored in terms of the extent of available data. This presents two potential problems for health outcomes research: bias and generalizability. In this study we use Health and Retirement Study data (1998-2015) to assess the presence and magnitude of group-specific differences between MA and TM beneficiaries as well as plan switchers across three policy-specific periods (Balanced Budget Act; Medicare Modernization Act; Affordable Care Act). We found that the MA population was characterized by higher diversity, adverse behavioral habits, lower education, and economic disadvantage. Initially, lower morbidity levels converged with the TM average over time. Individuals, switching into MA after TM had much larger morbidity levels and mortality risk than any other Medicare group. We found significant loss of generalizability with respect to the Hispanic population; such estimates could be further biased to the extent that MA Hispanics differ from TM Hispanics. Of great concern is the combination of low education and low economic status in MA beneficiaries – a combination also found in many disadvantaged minorities. Care is needed in the design of TM-based studies, especially those focused on ethnic differences.

EXAMINING VETERANS’ CHOICES OF HIGH-QUALITY MEDICARE SKILLED HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCIES

Abstract Medicare-certified skilled home health helps Veterans restore function post-hospitalization. Our objective was to understand the quality of VA contracted home health agencies (HHAs) available to Veterans (i.e., had at least 1 VA-paid episode of care in the 12 months) relative to the local market. For comparison, about one-third (30.4%) of traditional Medicare beneficiaries received care from high-quality HHAs (4- or 5-stars on quality of care) in 2015 (Schwartz et al., 2019). We used the Home Health CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) 2016-2019 quarterly patient experience of care overall ratings (possible values: 1-5) to define a high-quality agency as those with 4- or 5-star ratings. We matched the quarterly ratings with the discharge date from a VA Medical Center to create HHA choice sets per eligible Veteran discharge. A choice set contains all contracted and non-contracted HHAs that serve a Veteran’s Zip Code. Among HHAs proximal to Veterans’ homes across all years (N= 10,507 unique HHAs), 54.8% were high-quality (n=12,449 HHA-years), 30.1% were 3-star quality (n=6,835 HHA-years), and 15.1% were low-quality (1- or 2- stars) (n=3,444 HHA-years). Among discharges, 53.2% (n=28,081) of the discharges went to high-quality HHAs and 15.7% (n=8,294) went to low-quality HHAs. Veterans tended to live in areas with access to high-quality home health care, and most discharges mapped to high-quality HHAs. However, there is room to improve Veterans’ access to high-quality skilled home health and more to understand about VA contracting practices and the HHA selection process.

Estimates of diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence among diverse beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

AbstractBackgroundApproximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) ‐ a private plan alternative to Traditional Medicare (TM). Yet little is known about diagnosed dementia rates among Medicare Advantage enrollees, limiting population estimates.Methods100% claims of Medicare beneficiaries using Encounter data for MA and claims for TM were used to quantify diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence rates in MA, compare rates to TM, and provide estimates for the entire Medicare population and for different racial/ethnic populations.ResultDementia incidence and prevalence among MA beneficiaries was 2.54% (95%CI 2.53‐2.55) and 7.04% (95%CI 7.03‐7.06). Comparison to TM adjusted for sociodemographic and health differences among beneficiaries in MA and TM; the prevalence of diagnosed dementia among beneficiaries in MA was lower (7.1%; 95%CI 7.12‐7.13) than in TM (8.7%; 95%CI 8.71‐8.72). Diagnosed dementia incidence rate was also lower in MA (2.50%; 95%CI 2.50‐2.50) compared to TM (2.99%; 95%CI 2.99‐2.99). There were lower rates in MA compared to TM for men and women and White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native persons. Diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence for the entire Medicare population was 7.9% (95%CI: 7.91‐7.93) and 2.8% (95%CI: 2.77‐2.78).ConclusionLower diagnosed dementia rates in MA compared to TM may exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities in diagnosed dementia. Rates tracked over time will provide understanding of impact on dementia diagnosis of 2020 MA risk adjustment for dementia.

Measuring restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage networks: A claims-based approach.

To develop and validate a measure of provider network restrictiveness in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population. Prescription drug event data and beneficiary information for Part D enrollees from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with prescriber identifiers; geographic variables from the Area Health Resources Files. A prediction model was used to predict the unique number of primary care providers that would have been seen by MA beneficiaries absent network restrictions. The model was trained and validated on Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. A pseudo-Poisson and a random forest model were evaluated. An observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio was calculated as the number of unique providers seen by MA beneficiaries divided by the number expected based the TM prediction model. Multivariable linear models were used to assess the relationship between network restrictiveness and plan and market factors. Prescription drug event data were obtained for a 20% random sample of beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug coverage from 2011 to 2017. Health Maintenance Organization plans were more restrictive (O/E = 55.5%; 95% CI 55.3%-55.7%) than Health Maintenance Organization-Point of Service plans (67.2%; 95% CI 66.7%-67.8%) or Preferred Provider Organization plans (74.7%; 95% CI 74.3%-75.1%), and rural areas had more restrictive networks (31.6%; 95% CI 29.0%-34.2%) than metropolitan areas (61.5%; 95% CI 61.3%-61.7%). Multivariable results confirmed these findings, and also indicated that increased provider supply was associated with less restrictive networks. We developed a means of estimating provider network restrictiveness in MA from claims data. Our results validate the approach, providing confidence for wider application (e.g., for other markets and specialties) and use for regulation.

Role of Patient Sorting in Avoidable Hospital Stays in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare

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.

Home-Based Medical Care Use In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare In 2018.

The use of home-based medical care differed in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare in 2018. Having exactly one such visit was thirty-one times as likely for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries (18.6percent) as for traditional Medicare beneficiaries (0.6percent), likely reflecting incentives in the Medicare Advantage program to code all accurate diagnoses. Multiple home-based medical care visits were less likely in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare (1.6percent versus 2.1percent of beneficiaries, respectively).

Postacute Care Services Use and Outcomes Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

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.

Association of Medicare Program Type with Health Care Access, Utilization, and Affordability among Cancer Survivors.

The Medicare Advantage program provides care to nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries, including a rapidly growing population of cancer survivors. Despite its increased adoption, it is still unknown whether or not the program improves healthcare access, outcomes, and affordability for cancer survivors. We performed a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years with a self-reported history of cancer from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between Medicare program type (Medicare Advantage vs. traditional Medicare) and measures of healthcare access, acute care utilization, and affordability. We identified 4451 beneficiaries with a history of cancer, corresponding to 26.6 million weighted cancer survivors in 2019. Of the beneficiaries, 35.8% were enrolled in Medicare Advantage, whereas 64.2% were enrolled in traditional Medicare. The age, sex, racial and ethnic composition, household income, primary site of cancer, and comorbidity burden of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries were similar. In the adjusted analysis, there were no differences in healthcare access or acute care utilization between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. However, cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare Advantage were more likely to worry about (34.3% vs. 29.4%; aOR, 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.5)) or have problems paying (13.6% vs. 11.1%; aOR, 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.8)) medical bills. We found no evidence that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with cancer had better healthcare access, affordability, or acute care utilization than traditional Medicare beneficiaries did. Furthermore, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to report financial strain and have difficulty paying for their medical bills than were those with traditional Medicare. Despite the generous benefits and attractive incentives, Medicare Advantage plans may not be more cost-effective than traditional Medicare is for cancer survivors. Our study informs ongoing congressional deliberations to re-evaluate the role of Medicare Advantage in promoting equity among beneficiaries with cancer.

Estimates of diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence among diverse beneficiaries in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). Yet little is known about diagnosed dementia rates among MA enrollees, limiting population estimates. All (100%) claims of Medicare beneficiaries using encounter data for MA and claims for TM for the years 2015 to 2018 were used to quantify diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence rates in MA, compare rates to TM, and provide estimates for the entire Medicare population and for different racial/ethnic populations. In 2017, dementia incidence and prevalence among MA beneficiaries were 2.54% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.53 to 2.55) and 7.04% (95% CI: 7.03 to 7.06). Comparison to TM adjusted for sociodemographic and health differences among beneficiaries in MA and TM; the prevalence of diagnosed dementia among beneficiaries in MA was lower (7.1%; 95% CI: 7.12 to 7.13) than in TM (8.7%; 95% CI: 8.71 to 8.72). The diagnosed dementia incidence rate was also lower in MA (2.50%; 95% CI: 2.50 to 2.50) compared to TM (2.99%; 95% CI: 2.99 to 2.99). There were lower rates in MA compared to TM for men and women and White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native persons. Diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence for the entire Medicare population was 7.9% (95% CI: 7.91 to 7.93) and 2.8% (95% CI: 2.77 to 2.78). Lower diagnosed dementia rates in MA compared to TM may exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities in diagnosed dementia. Rates tracked over time will provide understanding of the impact on dementia diagnosis of 2020 MA risk adjustment for dementia.

Use of High-Risk Medications Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans vs Traditional Medicare

Limiting the use of high-risk medications (HRMs) among older adults is a national priority to provide a high quality of care for older beneficiaries of both Medicare Advantage and traditional fee-for-service Medicare Part D plans. To evaluate the differences in the rate of HRM prescription fills among beneficiaries of traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Part D plans and to examine the extent to which these differences change over time and the patient-level factors associated with higher rates of HRMs. This cohort study used a 20% sample of Medicare Part D data on filled drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2017 and a 40% sample from 2018. The sample comprised Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage or traditional Medicare Part D plans. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2022, and April 15, 2023. The primary outcome was the number of unique HRMs prescribed to older Medicare beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiaries. Linear regression models were used to model the primary outcome, adjusting for patient characteristics and county characteristics and including hospital referral region fixed effects. The sample included 5 595 361 unique Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who were propensity score-matched on a year-by-year basis to 6 578 126 unique traditional Medicare beneficiaries between 2013 and 2018, resulting in 13 704 348 matched pairs of beneficiary-years. The traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage cohorts were similar in age (mean [SD] age, 75.65 [7.53] years vs 75.60 [7.38] years), proportion of males (8 127 261 [59.3%] vs 8 137 834 [59.4%]; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.002), and predominant race and ethnicity (77.1% vs 77.4% non-Hispanic White; SMD = 0.05). On average in 2013, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries filled 135.1 (95% CI, 128.4-142.6) unique HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries compared with 165.6 (95% CI, 158.1-172.3) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries for traditional Medicare. In 2018, the rate of HRMs had decreased to 41.5 (95% CI, 38.2-44.2) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and to 56.9 (95% CI, 54.1-60.1) HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare. Across the study period, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries received 24.3 (95% CI, 20.2-28.3) fewer HRMs per 1000 beneficiaries per year compared with traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations were more likely to receive HRMs than other groups. Results of this study showed that HRM rates were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Higher use of HRMs among female, American Indian or Alaska Native, and White populations is a concerning disparity that requires further attention.

Association of participation in Medicare’s Oncology Care Model with spending, utilization, and quality outcomes among commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members: A national difference-in-differences analysis.

1596 Background: Medicare’s Oncology Care Model (OCM) was a voluntary, episode-based model between 2016 and 2021 that provided participating practices with additional payments to fund care enhancements such as extended clinical hours and urgent care. While it resulted in net losses for traditional Medicare beneficiaries, the OCM may have had “spillover” improvements on spending, utilization, and quality for commercially insured (CM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) members who were not targeted by the program. Methods: This retrospective analysis used claims from Elevance Health, a large national payer, to identify commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancer initiating systemic therapy between 2014 to 2021. We identified 85 OCM practices and 581 matched non-OCM practices based on episode, practice, demographic, and market factors. The exposure variable was participation in the OCM model. All outcomes were defined in 6-month episodes; the primary outcome was overall inflation-adjusted spending; secondary outcomes included hospitalization and emergency room visits, and end-of-life acute care utilization. We utilized adjusted difference-in-differences linear probability models, with state-level fixed effects to control for market price variability, to estimate the association between OCM participation and all outcomes. Results: We studied 45,296 episodes of care in OCM practices and 122,231 episodes in non-OCM practices among CM and MA members during the post-implementation period. OCM participation was associated with a $5,275 (SE $749.40) reduction in total allowed spending (p&lt;0.001), driven by reductions in outpatient and systemic therapy spending. OCM was associated with improvements in end-of-life utilization and ED visits but none in hospitalizations and timely chemotherapy initiation. Conclusions: Participation in the OCM was associated with modest spillover spending benefit onto CM and MA members, but minimal utilization and quality benefits. Resultant practice innovations may have benefited non-targeted patients. Evaluations limited to targeted patients may have underestimated the full impact of the OCM.[Table: see text]

Hospital-physician integration and clinical volume in traditional Medicare.

To test the effect of hospital-physician integration on primary care physicians' (PCP) clinical volume in traditional Medicare. Nationwide retrospective longitudinal study using Medicare claims and other data sources from 2010 to 2016. We identified 70,000 PCPs, some of whom remained non-integrated and some who became hospital-integrated during this study period. We used an event study design to identify the effect of integration on key measures of physicians' clinical volume, including the number of claims, work-relative value units (RVUs), professional revenue generated, number of patients treated, and facility fee revenue generated. Per-physician clinical volume declined by statistically and economically significant margins. Relative to the comparison group who remained non-integrated, work RVUs fell by 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.6% to -5.5%); the number of patients treated fell by 4% (95% CI: -5.8% to -2.6%); and claims volume among PCPs who became hospital-integrated fell by over 15% (95% CI: -16.8% to -13.5%). Though professional revenue declined by $29,165 (95% CI: -$32,286 to -$26,044), this loss was almost entirely offset by increased facility fee revenue of $28,556 (95% CI: 26,909 to 30,203). Hospital-physician integration may affect the quantity of clinical services delivered by PCPs to traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Reductions in clinical volume associated with integration may have long-term consequences for the supply of physician services and patient access to primary care. Future research on physician time use and patient access following hospital integration would further add to the evidence base.

Spillover effect of the Patient Drive Payment Model on skilled nursing facility therapy delivery among Medicare Advantage enrollees.

In a multi-payer health care system, economic theory suggests that different payers can impose spillover effects on one another. This study aimed to evaluate the spillover effect of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) on Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees, despite it being designed for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. We applied a regression discontinuity approach by comparing therapy utilization before and after the implementation of PDPM in October 2019 focusing on patients newly admitted to skilled nursing facilities. The results showed that both TM and MA enrollees experienced a decrease in individual therapy minutes and an increase in non-individual therapy minutes. The estimated reduction in total therapy use was 9min per day for TM enrollees and 3min per day for MA enrollees. The effect of PDPM on MA beneficiaries varied depending on the level of MA penetration, with the smallest effect in facilities with the highest MA penetration quartile. In summary, the PDPM had directionally similar effects on therapy utilization for both TM and MA enrollees, but the magnitudes were smaller for MA beneficiaries. These results suggest that policy changes intended for TM beneficiaries may spillover to MA enrollees and should be assessed accordingly.