How do the experiences of Medicare beneficiary subgroups differ between managed care and original Medicare?

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 02/2011; 46(4):1039-58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01245.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine whether disparities in health care experiences of Medicare beneficiaries differ between managed care (Medicare Advantage [MA]) and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.
132,937 MA and 201,444 FFS respondents to the 2007 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.
We defined seven subgroup characteristics: low-income subsidy eligible, no high school degree, poor or fair self-rated health, age 85 and older, female, Hispanic, and black. We estimated disparities in CAHPS experience of care scores between each of these groups and beneficiaries without those characteristics within MA and FFS for 11 CAHPS measures and assessed differences between MA and FFS disparities in linear models.
The seven subgroup characteristics had significant (p<.05) negative interactions with MA (larger disparities in MA) in 27 of 77 instances, with only four significant positive interactions.
Managed care may provide less uniform care than FFS for patients; specifically there may be larger disparities in MA than FFS between beneficiaries who have low incomes, are less healthy, older, female, and who did not complete high school, compared with their counterparts. There may be potential for MA quality improvement targeted at the care provided to particular subgroups.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To produce reliable and informative health plan performance data by race/ethnicity for the Medicare beneficiary population and to consider appropriate presentation strategies. DATA SOURCES: Patient experience data from the 2008-2009 Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service (FFS) CAHPS surveys and 2008-2009 HEDIS data (MA beneficiaries only). STUDY DESIGN: Mixed effects linear (and binomial) regression models estimated the reliability and statistical informativeness of CAHPS (HEDIS) measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Seven CAHPS and seven HEDIS measures were reliable and informative for four racial/ethnic subgroups-Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders-at sample sizes of 100 beneficiaries (200 for prescription drug plans). Although many plans lacked adequate sample size for reporting group-specific data, reportable plans contained a large majority of beneficiaries from each of the four racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically reliable and valid information on health plan performance can be reported by race/ethnicity. Many beneficiaries may have difficulty understanding such reports, however, even with careful guidance. Thus, it is recommended that health plan performance data by subgroups be reported as supplemental data and only for plans meeting sample size requirements.
    Health Services Research 04/2013; 48(2pt1):417-434. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01452.x · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicare managed care enrollees who disenroll to fee-for-service (FFS) historically have worse health and higher costs than continuing enrollees and beneficiaries remaining in FFS. To examine disenrollment patterns by analyzing Medicare payments following disenrollment from Medicare Advantage (MA) to FFS in 2007. Recent growth in the MA program, introduction of limits on timing of enrollment/disenrollment, and initiation of prescription drug benefits may have substantially changed the dynamics of disenrollment. The study was based on MA enrollees who disenrolled to FFS in 2007 (N=248,779) and a sample of "FFS stayers" residing in the same counties as the disenrollees (N=551,616). Actual Medicare Part A and Part B payments (excluding hospice payments) in the six months following disenrollment were compared with predicted payments based on claims experience of local FFS stayers, adjusted for CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category (CMS-HCC) risk scores. Disenrollees incurred $1,021 per month in Medicare payments, compared with $798 in predicted payments (ratio of actual/predicted=1.28, p < 0.001). Differences between actual and predicted payments were smaller for disenrollees of Preferred Provider Organizations and Private Fee-for-Service plans than of Health Maintenance Organizations. Analysis of 10 individual MA plans revealed variation in the degree of selective disenrollment. Despite substantial changes in policies and market characteristics of the Medicare managed care program, disenrollment to FFS continues to occur disproportionately among high-cost beneficiaries, raising concerns about care experiences among sicker enrollees and increased costs to Medicare.
    01/2012; 2(4). DOI:10.5600/mmrr.002.04.a08
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the extent to which the racial/ethnic composition of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans reflects the composition of their areas of operation, given the potential incentives created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Quality Bonus Payments for such plans to avoid enrolling racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries. 2009 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) survey and administrative data from the Medicare Enrollment Database. We defined each plan's area of operation as all counties in which it had MA enrollees, and we created a matrix of race/ethnicity by plan by county of residence to assess the racial/ethnic distribution of each plan's enrollees in comparison with the racial/ethnic composition of MA beneficiaries in its operational area. There is little evidence that health plans are selectively underenrolling blacks, Latinos, or Asians to a substantial degree. A small but potentially important subset of plans disproportionately serves minority beneficiaries. These findings provide a baseline profile that will enable crucial ongoing monitoring to assess how the implementation of Quality Bonus Payments may affect MA plan coverage of minority populations.
    Health Services Research 08/2013; 49(2). DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12100 · 2.49 Impact Factor