Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries Research Articles

Is social capital protective against hospital readmissions?

BackgroundTo evaluate the association between social capital and 30-day readmission to the hospital among Medicare beneficiaries overall, beneficiaries with dementia and related memory disorders, and beneficiaries with dual eligibility for Medicaid.MethodsUsing Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data linked with 2008–2015 Medicare claims from traditional Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized during the study period (1246 unique respondents, 2212 total responses), we examined whether dementia and related memory disorders and dual eligibility were associated with social capital. We then estimated a multiple regression model to test whether social capital was associated with a reduced likelihood of readmission.ResultsDementia was associated with an − 0.241 standard deviation (sd) change in social capital (95% CI: − 0.378, − 0.103), dual eligibility with a − 0.461 sd change (95% CI: − 0.611, − 0.310), and the occurrence of both was associated with an additional − 0.236 sd change (95% CI: − 0.525, − 0.053). 30-day readmission rates were 14.47% over the study period. In both adjusted and unadjusted models, social capital was associated with small and nonsignificant differences in 30-day readmissions. These effects did not vary across dementia status and socioeconomic status.ConclusionsDementia and dual eligibility were associated with lower social capital, but social capital was not associated with the risk of readmission for any population.

Assessment of Differences in Inpatient Rehabilitation Services for Length of Stay and Health Outcomes Between US Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

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

Dental, Vision, And Hearing Services: Access, Spending, And Coverage For Medicare Beneficiaries.

Among Medicare beneficiaries, dental, vision, and hearing services could be characterized as high need, high cost, and low use. While Medicare does not cover most of these services, coverage has increased recently as a result of changes in state Medicaid programs and increased enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, many of which offer these services as supplemental benefits. Using data from the 2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, this analysis shows that MA plans are filling an important gap in dental, vision, and hearing coverage, particularly among low- and middle-income beneficiaries. In 2016 only 21percent of beneficiaries in traditional Medicare had purchased a stand-alone dental plan, whereas 62percent of MA enrollees were in plans with a dental benefit. Among Medicare beneficiaries with coverage overall, out-of-pocket expenses still made up 70percent of dental spending, 62percent of vision spending, and 79percent of hearing spending. While Medicare beneficiaries are enrolling in private coverage options, they are not getting adequate financial protection. This article examines these findings in the context of recent proposals in Congress to expand Medicare coverage of dental, vision, and hearing services.

Abstract 185: Trends in Care Delivery and Outcomes for Acute Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attacks Among Rural and Urban Medicare Beneficiaries, 2008-2017

Introduction: Over the last decade substantial investments have been made in implementing stroke systems of care to improve access and quality of care. We sought to determine if these interventions have narrowed the rural-urban disparities in care over time for patients with acute stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Methods: Descriptive observational study using data from all traditional Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008-17 who presented to a hospital emergency department and were admitted either under observation stay or inpatient admission. Patients were classified as rural or urban based on home zip code. The main outcomes were rates of presentation to a certified stroke center, neurology consultation during admission, IV altepase, 90-day mortality, days living independently in the first 90 days post stroke, and 90-day spending. Results: We identified 3.31 million hospital stays for TIA and stroke in the study period. Rural and urban patients had similar age, race, gender, Medicaid status and presence of chronic conditions. In 2008, 24.4% and 60.4% of rural and urban patients respectively were cared for at a certified stroke center (disparity -36.1%). By 2017 this disparity had narrowed by 8.6% points (95% CI 6.6%,10.7%) (Fig). Between 2008 and 2017, the disparity in neurologist evaluation during admission narrowed by 7.4% (5.2%, 9.6%). However, there was no substantive change in disparity in alteplase use -0.1% (95% CI -0.5%,0.3%), mortality at 90 days 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%, 0.7%), or days living independently within 90 days -0.7 days (95% CI -1.1, 0.2). Spending in the first 90 days differentially increased among rural patients by $867 (95% CI 85, 1649). Conclusions: In the last decade, rural residents are more likely to receive care at a certified stroke center and receive neurologist consultation. However, disparities in outcomes are persistent, highlighting more work is needed to equitably extend stroke expertise to all Americans.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care. To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries. This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019. Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings. Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars). Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]). Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Morehouse Choice Accountable Care Organization and Education System (MCACO-ES): Integrated Model Delivering Equitable Quality Care.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) seek sustainable innovation through the testing of new care delivery methods that promote shared goals among value-based health care collaborators. The Morehouse Choice Accountable Care Organization and Education System (MCACO-ES), or (M-ACO) is a physician led integrated delivery model participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) offered through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center. The MSSP establishes incentivized, performance-based payment models for qualifying health care organizations serving traditional Medicare beneficiaries that promote collaborative efficiency models designed to mitigate fragmented and insufficient access to health care, reduce unnecessary cost, and improve clinical outcomes. The M-ACO integration model is administered through participant organizations that include a multi-site community based academic practice, independent physician practices, and federally qualified health center systems (FQHCs). This manuscript aims to present a descriptive and exploratory assessment of health care programs and related innovation methods that validate M-ACO as a reliable simulator to implement, evaluate, and refine M-ACO’s integration model to render value-based performance outcomes over time. A part of the research approach also includes early outcomes and lessons learned advancing the framework for ongoing testing of M-ACO’s integration model across independently owned, rural, and urban health care locations that predominantly serve low-income, traditional Medicare beneficiaries, (including those who also qualify for Medicaid benefits (also referred to as “dual eligibles”). M-ACO seeks to determine how integration potentially impacts targeted performance results. As a simulator to test value-based innovation and related clinical and business practices, M-ACO uses enterprise-level data and advanced analytics to measure certain areas, including: 1) health program insight and effectiveness; 2) optimal implementation process and workflows that align primary care with specialists to expand access to care; 3) chronic care management/coordination deployment as an effective extender service to physicians and patients risk stratified based on defined clinical and social determinant criteria; 4) adoption of technology tools for patient outreach and engagement, including a mobile application for remote biometric monitoring and telemedicine; and 5) use of structured communication platforms that enable practitioner engagement and ongoing training regarding the shift from volume to value-based care delivery.

Hospital Readmission Rates in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis.

Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program reports risk-standardized readmission rates for traditional Medicare but not Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. To compare readmission rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). 4748 U.S. acute care hospitals. Patients aged 65 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n= 841613), congestive heart failure (CHF) (n= 1458652), or pneumonia (n= 2020365) between 2011 and 2014. 30-day readmissions. Among admissions for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia identified in MedPAR, 29.2%, 38.0%, and 37.2%, respectively, did not have a corresponding record in HEDIS. Of these, 18.9% for AMI, 23.7% for CHF, and 18.3% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission that was identified in MedPAR. However, among index admissions appearing in HEDIS, 14.4% for AMI, 18.4% for CHF, and 13.9% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission. Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates than those in traditional Medicare for all 3 conditions (16.6% vs. 17.1% for AMI, 21.4% vs. 21.7% for CHF, and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). However, after standardization, patients in Medicare Advantage had higher readmission rates than patients in traditional Medicare for AMI (17.2% vs. 16.9%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point]), CHF (21.7% vs. 21.4%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point]), and pneumonia (16.5% vs. 16.0%; difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.6 percentage point]). Rate differences increased between 2011 and 2014. Potential unobserved differences between populations. The HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for 3 common medical conditions, and readmission rates were higher among patients with underreported admissions. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. National Institute on Aging.

Sample Selection for Medicare Risk Adjustment Due to Systematically Missing Data.

To assess the issue of nonrepresentative sampling in Medicare Advantage (MA) risk adjustment. Medicare enrollment and claims data from 2008 to 2011. Risk adjustment predictor variables were created from 2008 to 2010 Part A and B claims and the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File. Spending is based on 2009-2011 Part A and B, Durable Medical Equipment, and Home Health Agency claims files. A propensity-score matched sample of Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries who resembled MA enrollees was created. Risk adjustment formulas were estimated using multiple techniques, and performance was evaluated based on R2 , predictive ratios, and formula coefficients in the matched sample and a random sample of TM beneficiaries. Matching improved balance on observables, but performance metrics were similar when comparing risk adjustment formula results fit on and evaluated in the matched sample versus fit on the random sample and evaluated in the matched sample. Fitting MA risk adjustment formulas on a random sample versus a matched sample yields little difference in MA plan payments. This does not rule out potential improvements via the matching method should reliable MA encounter data and additional variables become available for risk adjustment.

Comparison of physician networks constructed from thresholded ties versus shared clinical episodes

ObjectiveTo compare standard methods for constructing physician networks from patient-physician encounter data with a new method based on clinical episodes of care.Data sourceWe used data on 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries from 51 nationally representative geographical regions for the years 2005–2010.Study designWe constructed networks of physicians based on their shared patients. In the fixed-threshold networks and adaptive-threshold networks, we included data on all patient-physician encounters to form the physician-physician ties, and then subsequently thresholded some proportion of the strongest ties. In contrast, in the episode-based approach, only those patient-physician encounters that occurred within shared clinical episodes treating specific conditions contributed towards physician-physician ties.Data collection/extraction methodsWe extracted clinical episodes in the Medicare data and investigated structural properties of the patient-sharing networks of physicians, temporal dynamics of their ties, and temporal stability of network communities across the two approaches.Principal findingsThe episode-based networks accentuated ties between primary care physicians (PCPs) and medical specialists, had ties that were more likely to reappear in the future, and appeared to have more fluid community structure.ConclusionsConstructing physician networks around shared episodes of care is a clinically sound alternative to previous approaches to network construction that does not require arbitrary decisions about thresholding. The resulting networks capture somewhat different aspects of patient-physician encounters.

Hospice Care of Veterans in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Risk-Adjusted Analysis.

To compare the quality of end-of-life care in Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM), specifically, receipt and length of hospice care. Retrospective analysis of administrative data. Hospice care. Veterans dually enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and MA or TM who died between 2008 and 2013 (N = 1,515,441). Outcomes studied included use and duration of hospice care. Use of a VHA-enrolled population allowed for risk adjustment that is otherwise challenging when studying MA. Adjusted analyses revealed that MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive hospice than TM beneficiaries; results corroborate published non-risk-adjusted analyses. MA beneficiaries had shorter hospice duration; this is an opposite direction of effect than non-risk-adjusted analyses. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses limiting the cohort to individuals in MA and TM who had equal opportunity for their comorbidities to be captured. Removing risk adjustment resulted in results that mirrored those in the existing published literature. Our work provides two important insights regarding MA that are important to consider as enrollment in this insurance mechanism grows. First, MA beneficiaries received poorer-quality end-of-life care than TM beneficiaries, as ascertained by exposure to hospice. Second, any comparisons made between MA and TM require proper risk adjustment to obtain correct directions of effect. We encourage the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to make comorbidity data specific to MA enrollees available to researchers for these purposes.

Getting What We Pay For: How Do Risk-Based Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans Compare with Alternative Measures of Beneficiary Health Risk?

To estimate the relative health risk of Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries compared to those in Traditional Medicare (TM). Medicare claims and enrollment records for the sample of beneficiaries enrolled in Part D between 2008 and 2015. We assigned therapeutic classes to Medicare beneficiaries based on their prescription drug utilization. We then regressed nondrug health spending for TM beneficiaries in 2015 on demographic and therapeutic class identifiers for 2014 and used coefficients from this regression to predict relative risk of both MA and TM beneficiaries. Based on prescription drug utilization data, beneficiaries enrolled in MA in 2015 had 6.9 percent lower health risk than beneficiaries in TM, but differences based on coded diagnoses suggested MA beneficiaries were 6.2 percent higher risk. The relative health risk based on drug usage of MA beneficiaries compared to those in TM increased by 3.4 p.p. from 2008 to 2015, while the relative risk using diagnoses increased 9.8 p.p. Our results add to a growing body of evidence suggesting MA receives favorable, or, at worst, neutral selection. If MA beneficiaries are no healthier and no sicker than similar beneficiaries in TM, then payments to MA plans exceed what is warranted based on their health status.

Trends in Diabetes Treatment and Monitoring among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Diabetes is a costly and common condition, but little is known about recent trends in diabetes management among Medicare beneficiaries. To evaluate the use of diabetes medications and testing supplies among Medicare beneficiaries. Retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare claims from 2007 to 2014. Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of diabetes in the current or any prior year. We analyzed choices of first diabetes medication for those new to medication and patterns of adding medications. We also examined the use of testing supplies, use of statins and ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and spending. Diagnosed diabetes increased from 28.7% to 30.2% of beneficiaries from 2007 to 2014. The use of metformin as the most commonly prescribed first medication increased from 50.2% in 2007 to 70.2% in 2014, whereas long-acting sulfonylureas decreased from 16.6% to 8.2%. The use of thiazolidinediones fell considerably, while the use of new diabetes medication classes increased. Among patients prescribed insulin, long-acting insulin as the first choice increased substantially, from 38.9% to 56.8%, but short-acting or combination regimens remained common, particularly among older or sicker beneficiaries. Prescriptions of testing supplies for more than once-daily testing were also common. The mean total cost of diabetes medications per patient increased over the period due to the increasing use of high-cost drugs, particularly by those patients with costs above the 90th percentile of spending, although the median costs decreased for both medications and testing supplies. The use of metformin and long-acting insulin have increased substantially among elderly Medicare patients with diabetes, but a substantial subgroup continues to receive costly and complex treatment regimens.

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: Intended and Unintended Effects

This study examines whether the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals with excess readmissions for certain conditions, has reduced hospital readmissions and led to unintended consequences. Our analyses of Florida hospital administrative data between 2008 and 2014 find that the HRRP resulted in a reduction in the likelihood of readmissions by 1% to 2% for traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries with heart failure, pneumonia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Readmission rates for Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries and privately insured patients with heart attack and heart failure decreased even more than TM patients with the same target condition (e.g., for heart attack, the likelihood for TM beneficiaries to be remitted is 2.2% higher than MA beneficiaries and 2.3% higher than privately insured patients). We do not find any evidence of cost-shifting, delayed readmission, or selection on discharge disposition or patient income. However, the HRRP reduced the likelihood of Hispanic patients with target conditions being admitted by 2% to 4%.

Physician Reimbursement in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare and Commercial Health Insurance

Nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, yet little is known about the prices that MA plans pay for physician services. Medicare Advantage insurers typically also sell commercial plans, and the extent to which MA physician reimbursement reflects traditional Medicare (TM) rates vs negotiated commercial prices is unclear. To compare prices paid for physician and other health care services in MA, traditional Medicare, and commercial plans. Retrospective analysis of claims data evaluating MA prices paid to physicians and for laboratory services and durable medical equipment between 2007 and 2012 in 348 US core-based statistical areas. The study population included all MA and commercial enrollees with a large national health insurer operating in both markets, as well as a 20% sample of TM beneficiaries. Enrollment in an MA plan. Mean reimbursement paid to physicians, laboratories, and durable medical equipment suppliers for MA and commercial enrollees relative to TM rates for 11 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding Systems (HCPCS) codes spanning 7 sites of care. The sample consisted of 144 million claims. Physician reimbursement in MA was more strongly tied to TM rates than commercial prices, although MA plans tended to pay physicians less than TM. For a mid-level office visit with an established patient (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 99213), the mean MA price was 96.9% (95% CI, 96.7%-97.2%) of TM. Across the common physician services we evaluated, mean MA reimbursement ranged from 91.3% of TM for cataract removal in an ambulatory surgery center (CPT 66984; 95% CI, 90.7%-91.9%) to 102.3% of TM for complex evaluation and management of a patient in the emergency department (CPT 99285; 95% CI, 102.1%-102.6%). However, for laboratory services and durable medical equipment, where commercial prices are lower than TM rates, MA plans take advantage of these lower commercial prices, ranging from 67.4% for a walker (HCPCS code E0143; 95% CI, 66.3%-68.5%) to 75.8% for a complete blood cell count (CPT 85025; 95% CI, 75.0%-76.6%). Traditional Medicare's administratively set rates act as a strong anchor for physician reimbursement in the MA market, although MA plans succeed in negotiating lower prices for other health care services for which TM overpays. Reforms that transition the Medicare program toward some premium support models could substantially affect how physicians and other clinicians are paid.

Medicare Advantage Associated With More Racial Disparity Than Traditional Medicare For Hospital Readmissions.

We compared racial disparities in thirty-day readmissions between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who underwent one of six major surgeries in New York State in 2013. We found that Medicare Advantage was associated with greater racial disparity, compared to traditional Medicare. After controlling for patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics in a propensity score based approach, we found that in traditional Medicare, black patients were 33percent more likely than white patients to be readmitted, whereas in Medicare Advantage, black patients were 64percent more likely than white patients to be readmitted. Our findings suggest that the risk-reduction strategies adopted by Medicare Advantage plans have not been successful in lowering the markedly higher rate of readmission among black patients, compared to white patients.

Accountable care organizations and the use of prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening.

e18308 Background: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) were established under the Affordable Care Act as a new payment model intended to impose greater responsibility on all stakeholders for cost control and quality improvement. Preventive services are an ideal target to monitor the effectiveness of new health care delivery models. We sought to examine and compare the prevalence of breast cancer screening (BCa-S), and prostate cancer screening (PCa-S) between ACO and traditional Medicare beneficiaries. We hypothesized that the use of BCa-S is higher among beneficiaries attributed to an ACO, whereas the use of PCa-S, a non-recommended test, would be unaffected by ACO assignment. Methods: Using a random 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, we assessed BCa-S in women aged < 75, (evidence-based cancer screening), and PCa-S in men < 75 (non-recommended cancer screening) between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 with appropriate exclusion criteria following the review of guideline recommendations. ACO coverage was ascertained from the quarterly assignment in the Shared Savings Program ACO Beneficiary-level file. Propensity-score weighting was performed to balance out patient and sociodemographic covariates. Results: Following propensity-score weighting, our final cohorts of ACO and traditional Medicare beneficiaries included 52,987 and 526,063 women for BCa-S; 86,936 and 814,221 men for PCa-S, respectively. The prevalence of screening in ACO vs. traditional Medicare were 35.0% vs. 25.2% for BCa-S, and 54.6% vs. 41.7% for PCa-S (all p < 0.001) Conclusions: The ACO model appears to have a salutary effect on preventive service utilization. Our findings vis-à-vis PCa-S among ACOs are likely a reflection of improved health care access rather than vetted screening practices. There is hope that such nonrecommended screening will decrease if more ACOs are required to move towards a “two-sided” risk shared savings and loss model.

Accountable care organizations and the use of cancer screening.

Cancer preventive services, when used appropriately, result in improved health, better quality of life and decreased costs. For these reasons, cancer preventive services represent important priorities within the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Among the many provisions to improve access to preventive services the ACA introduced Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) as trajectory to deliver coordinated, high-quality care. In order to evaluate this benchmark, we analyzed (in 2016/Boston) screening prevalence of breast cancer, a recommended screening test according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and prostate cancer, for which screening is no longer recommended by the USPSTF, among traditional Medicare beneficiaries and those enrolled in ACOs. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for baseline confounders. We found that the prevalence of breast cancer screening (35.0% vs. 25.2%, p<0.001) and prostate cancer screening (54.6% vs. 41.7%, p<0.001) is higher among ACO enrollees. Our results suggest increased utilization of cancer preventive care within ACOs, regardless of whether the test is recommended or not. Better efforts may be needed within the ACO infrastructure to encourage recommended preventive care, but also penalize unnecessary use of low value services.

MP32-08 ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE USE OF PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Value of Care: Cost and Outcomes Measures II1 Apr 2017MP32-08 ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE USE OF PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING Christian P. Meyer, Anna Krasnova, Jesse D. Sammon, Philipp Gild, Nicolas von Landenberg, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Joel S. Weissman, Felix K.H. Chun, Margit Fisch, Maxine Sun, and Quoc-Dien Trinh Christian P. MeyerChristian P. Meyer More articles by this author , Anna KrasnovaAnna Krasnova More articles by this author , Jesse D. SammonJesse D. Sammon More articles by this author , Philipp GildPhilipp Gild More articles by this author , Nicolas von LandenbergNicolas von Landenberg More articles by this author , Stuart R. LipsitzStuart R. Lipsitz More articles by this author , Joel S. WeissmanJoel S. Weissman More articles by this author , Felix K.H. ChunFelix K.H. Chun More articles by this author , Margit FischMargit Fisch More articles by this author , Maxine SunMaxine Sun More articles by this author , and Quoc-Dien TrinhQuoc-Dien Trinh More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.983AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) were established under the Affordable Care Act as a new payment model intended to impose greater responsibility on all stakeholders for cost control and quality improvement. Preventive services are an ideal target to monitor the effectiveness of new health care delivery models. We sought to examine and compare the prevalence of breast cancer screening (BCa-S), and prostate cancer screening (PCa-S) between ACO and traditional Medicare beneficiaries. We hypothesized that the use of BCa-S is higher among beneficiaries attributed to an ACO, whereas the use of PCa-S, a non-recommended test, would be unaffected by ACO assignment. METHODS Using a random 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, we assessed BCa-S in those aged <75, (evidence-based cancer screening), and PCa-S in those <75 (non-recommended cancer screening) between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 with appropriate exclusion criteria. ACO coverage was ascertained from the quarterly assignment in the Shared Savings Program ACO Beneficiary-level file. RESULTS Following propensity-score weighting, our final cohorts of ACO and traditional Medicare beneficiaries included, 52,987/526,063 women for BCa-S, and 86,936/814,221 men for PCa-S, respectively. The prevalence of screening in ACO vs. traditional Medicare were 35.0% vs. 25.2% for BCa-S, and 54.6% vs. 41.7% for PCa-S (all p<.001). CONCLUSIONS The ACO model appears to have a salutary effect on preventive service utilization. Our findings vis-a-vis PCa-S among ACOs are likely a reflection of improved health care access rather than vetted screening practices. There is hope that such nonrecommended screening will decrease if more ACOs are required to move towards a “two-sided” risk shared savings and loss model. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e411 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Christian P. Meyer More articles by this author Anna Krasnova More articles by this author Jesse D. Sammon More articles by this author Philipp Gild More articles by this author Nicolas von Landenberg More articles by this author Stuart R. Lipsitz More articles by this author Joel S. Weissman More articles by this author Felix K.H. Chun More articles by this author Margit Fisch More articles by this author Maxine Sun More articles by this author Quoc-Dien Trinh More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

At least half of new Medicare advantage enrollees had switched from traditional Medicare during 2006-11.

With ongoing interest in rising Medicare Advantage enrollment, we examined whether the growth in enrollment between 2006 and 2011 was mainly due to new beneficiaries choosing Medicare Advantage when they first become eligible for Medicare. We also examined the extent to which beneficiaries in traditional Medicare switched to Medicare Advantage, and vice versa. We found that 22percent of new Medicare beneficiaries elected Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare in 2011; they accounted for 48percent of new Medicare Advantage enrollees that year. People ages65-69 switched from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage at higher-than-average rates. Dual eligibles (people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) and beneficiaries younger than age sixty-five with disabilities disenrolled from Medicare Advantage at higher-than-average rates. On average, in each year of the study period we found that fewer than 5percent of traditional Medicare beneficiaries switched to Medicare Advantage, and a similar percentage of Medicare Advantage enrollees switched to traditional Medicare. These results suggest that initial coverage decisions have long-lasting effects.

Geographic variation in cancer-related imaging: Veterans Affairs health care system versus Medicare.

Geographic variations in use of medical services have been interpreted as indirect evidence of wasteful care. Less overuse of services, however, may not be reliably associated with less geographic variation. To compare average use and geographic variation in use of cancer-related imaging between fee-for-service Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Observational analysis of cancer-related imaging from 2003 to 2005 using Medicare and VA utilization data linked to cancer registry data. Multilevel models, adjusted for sociodemographic and tumor characteristics, were used to estimate mean differences in annual imaging use between cohorts of Medicare and VA patients within geographic areas and variation in use across areas for each cohort. 40 hospital referral regions. Older men with lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer, including 34,475 traditional Medicare beneficiaries (Medicare cohort) and 6835 VA patients (VA cohort). Per-patient count of imaging studies for which lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer was the primary diagnosis (each study weighted by a standardized price), and a direct measure of overuse-advanced imaging for prostate cancer at low risk for metastasis. Adjusted annual use of cancer-related imaging was lower in the VA cohort than in the Medicare cohort (price-weighted count, $197 vs. $379 per patient; P < 0.001), as was annual use of advanced imaging for prostate cancer at low risk for metastasis ($41 vs. $117 per patient; P < 0.001). Geographic variation in cancer-related imaging use was similar in magnitude in the VA and Medicare cohorts. Observational study design. Use of cancer-related imaging was lower in the VA health care system than in fee-for-service Medicare, but lower use was not associated with less geographic variation. Geographic variation in service use may not be a reliable indicator of the extent of overuse. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Policy and Planning.