Project description:BackgroundThe decision to screen for breast cancer among older adults with dementia is complex and must often be individualized, as these individuals have an elevated risk of harm from over-screening. Medicare beneficiaries with dementia are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans, which typically promote receipt of preventive cancer screening among their enrollees. This study examined the utilization of breast cancer screening among Medicare enrollees with dementia, in Medicare Advantage and in fee-for-service Medicare.MethodsWe conducted a pooled cross-sectional study of women with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment who were eligible for mammogram screening. We used Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data to identify utilization of biennial mammogram screening between 2012 and 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate prevalence ratios of mammogram utilization and to calculate adjusted mammogram rates for Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees with dementia, and further stratified by rurality and by dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.ResultsMammogram utilization was 16% higher (Prevalence Ratio [PR] 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29) among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia, compared to their counterparts in fee-for-service Medicare. Rural enrollees experienced no significant difference (PR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.37) in mammogram use between Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. Among urban enrollees, Medicare Advantage enrollment was associated with a 21% higher mammogram rate (PR 1.21; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.35). Dual-eligible Medicare Advantage enrollees had a 34% higher mammogram rate (PR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.63) than dual-eligible fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. Among non-dual-eligible enrollees, adjusted mammogram rates were not significantly different (PR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.24) between Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees.ConclusionsMedicare beneficiaries age 65-74 with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment had a higher mammogram use rate when they were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans compared to fee-for-service Medicare, especially when they were dual-eligible or lived in urban areas. However, some Medicare Advantage enrollees with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment may have experienced over-screening for breast cancer.

Project description:PurposeRising cancer care expenditures and technological advancement of shorter radiation therapy regimens have drawn significant attention to the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy in clinical care. We examine the costs of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) compared with conventional whole breast irradiation (CF-WBI) in the United States and investigate the influences of patient characteristics and commercial insurance on HF-WBI use.Methods and materialsIn a retrospective study using private employer-sponsored insurance claims, a pooled cross-sectional evaluation of radiation therapy in patients with commercial insurance was performed from 2008 to 2017. The study population included female patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation.ResultsA total of 15,869 women received HF-WBI, and 59,328 received CF-WBI. HF-WBI use increased from 2008 to 2017. Community-level factors such as a higher proportion of college graduates and greater mixed racial composition were associated with increased HF-WBI use. Mean insurer-paid radiation therapy expenditures were significantly lower for HF-WBI versus CF-WBI (adjusted difference, $6375; 95% confidence interval, $6147-$6603). Mean patient out-of-pocket expenditure for HF-WBI was $139 less than that for CF-WBI. Geographic variation existed across the United States in HF-WBI use (range, 9.6%-36.2%), with no consistent relationship between HF-WBI use and corresponding average cost differences between HF-WBI and CF-WBI.ConclusionsIf trends continue, HF-WBI will soon become the dominant form of radiation treatment in the United States. Although HF-WBI represents significant savings to the health care system and individual patients, no evidence indicated that a financial disincentive had slowed adoption of HF-WBI. Therefore, multilevel approaches, including individuals, the community, and health policy, should be used to promote cost-effective cancer care. Innovations to policies on cost-effective radiation therapy treatment might consider non-financial incentives to promote HF-WBI use.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) plans receive capitated per enrollee payments that create financial incentives to provide care more efficiently than traditional Medicare (TM); however, incentives could be associated with MA plans reducing use of beneficial services. Postacute care can improve functional status, but it is costly, and thus may be provided differently to Medicare beneficiaries by MA plans compared with TM.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of MA compared with TM enrollment with postacute care use and postdischarge outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cohort study using Medicare data on 4613 hospitalizations among retired Ohio state employees and 2 comparison groups in 2015 and 2016. The study investigated the association of a policy change with use of postacute care and outcomes. The policy changed state retiree health benefits in Ohio from a mandatory MA plan to subsidies for either supplemental TM coverage or an MA plan. After policy implementation, approximately 75% of retired Ohio state employees switched to TM. Hospitalizations for 3 high-volume conditions that usually require postacute rehabilitation were assessed. Data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files were used to identify all hospitalizations in short-term acute care hospitals. Difference-in-difference regressions were used to estimate changes for retired Ohio state employees compared with other 2015 MA enrollees in Ohio and with Kentucky public retirees who were continuously offered a mandatory MA plan. Data analyses were performed from September 1, 2019, to November 30, 2023.ExposuresEnrollment in Ohio state retiree health benefits in 2015, after which most members shifted to TM.Main outcomes and measuresReceived care in an inpatient rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, or home health, or any postacute care; the occurrence of any hospital readmission; the number of days in the community during the 30 days after hospital discharge; and mortality.ResultsThe study sample included 2373 hospitalizations for Ohio public retirees, 1651 hospitalizations for other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio, and 589 hospitalizations for public retirees in Kentucky. After the 2016 policy implementation, the percentage of hospitalizations covered by MA decreased by 70.1 (95% CI, -74.2 to -65.9) percentage points (pp), inpatient rehabilitation facility admissions increased by 9.7 (95% CI, 4.7 to 14.7) pp, use of only home health or skilled nursing facility care fell by 8.6 (95% CI, -14.6 to -2.6) pp, and days in the community fell by 1.6 (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.3) days for Ohio public retirees compared with other Humana MA enrollees in Ohio. There was no change in 30-day mortality or hospital readmissions; similar results were found by comparisons using Kentucky public retirees as a control group.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study indicate that after a change in retiree health benefits, most Ohio public retirees shifted from MA to TM and received more intensive postacute care with no significant change in measured short-term postdischarge outcomes. Future work should consider additional measures of postacute functional status over a longer follow-up period.

Project description:BackgroundDifferences in the control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose among the various racial and ethnic groups of Medicare enrollees may contribute to persistent disparities in health outcomes.MethodsAmong elderly enrollees in Medicare Advantage health plans in 2011 who had hypertension (94,171 persons), cardiovascular disease (112,039), or diabetes (105,848), we compared the respective age-and-sex-adjusted proportions with blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels below 100 mg per deciliter (2.6 mmol per liter), and a glycated hemoglobin value of 9.0% or lower, according to race or ethnic group. Comparisons were made nationally and within regions and health plans, and changes since 2006 were assessed.ResultsBlack enrollees in 2006 and 2011 were substantially less likely than white enrollees to have adequate control of blood pressure (adjusted absolute differences in proportions of enrollees in the 2 years, 7.9 percentage points and 10.3 percentage points, respectively), cholesterol (11.4 percentage points and 10.2 percentage points, respectively), and glycated hemoglobin (10.1 percentage points and 9.4 percentage points, respectively) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Differing distributions of enrollees among health plans accounted for 39 to 59% of observed disparities in 2011. These differences persisted in 2011 in the Northeast, Midwest, and South (6.9 to 14.1 percentage points, P<0.001 for all comparisons) but were eliminated in the West for all three measures (<1.5 percentage points, P≥0.15). Hispanic enrollees were less likely than whites in 2011 to have adequate control of blood pressure (adjusted difference, 1.6 percentage points), cholesterol (adjusted difference, 1.0 percentage points), and glycated hemoglobin (adjusted difference, 3.4 percentage points) (P≤0.02 for all comparisons). Asians and Pacific Islanders were more likely than whites to have adequate control of blood pressure (difference, 4.4 percentage points; P<0.001) and cholesterol (5.5 percentage points, P<0.001) and had similar control of glycated hemoglobin (0.3 percentage points, P=0.63).ConclusionsDisparities in control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose have not improved nationally for blacks in Medicare Advantage plans, but these disparities were eliminated in the West in 2011. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Project description:BackgroundSince 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has required all Medicare Advantage (MA) plans to report prescribing rates of high risk medications (HRM).ObjectiveTo determine predictors of receipt of HRMs, as defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance's "Drugs to Avoid in the Elderly" quality indicator, in a national sample of MA enrollees.Design and participantsRetrospective analysis of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) data for 6,204,824 enrollees, aged 65 years or older, enrolled in 415 MA plans in 2009. To identify predictors of HRM use, we fit generalized linear models and modeled outcomes on the risk-difference scale.Main outcome measuresReceipt or non-receipt of one or two HRMs.Key resultsApproximately 21 % of MA enrollees received at least one HRM and 4.8 % received at least two. In fully adjusted models, females had a 10.6 (95 % CI: 10.0-11.2) higher percentage point rate of receipt than males, and residence in any of the Southern United States divisions was associated with a greater than 10 percentage point higher rate, as compared with the reference New England division. Higher rates were also observed among enrollees with low personal income (6.5 percentage points, 95 % CI: 5.5-7.5), relative to those without low income and those residing in areas in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status (2.7 points, 95 % CI: 1.9-3.4) relative to persons residing in the highest quintile. Enrollees ? 85 years old, black enrollees, and other minority groups were less likely to receive these medications. Over 38 % of MA enrollees residing in the hospital referral region of Albany, Georgia received at least one HRM, a rate four times higher than the referral region with the lowest rate (Mason City, Iowa).ConclusionsUse of HRMs among MA enrollees varies widely by geographic region. Persons living in the Southern region of the U.S., whites, women, and persons of low personal income and socioeconomic status are more likely to receive HRMs.

Project description:BackgroundMost healthcare costs are concentrated in a small proportion of individuals with complex social, medical, behavioral, and clinical needs that are poorly met by a fee-for-service healthcare system. Efforts to reduce cost in the top decile have shown limited effectiveness. Understanding patient subgroups within the top decile is a first step toward designing more effective and targeted interventions.ObjectiveSegment the top decile based on spending and clinical characteristics and examine the temporal movement of individuals in and out of the top decile.DesignRetrospective claims data analysis.ParticipantsUnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees (N = 1,504,091) continuously enrolled from 2016 to 2019.Main measuresMedical (physician, inpatient, outpatient) and pharmacy claims for services submitted for third-party reimbursement under Medicare Advantage, available as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) and National Drug Codes (NDC) claims.Key resultsThe top decile was segmented into three distinct subgroups characterized by different drivers of cost: (1) Catastrophic: acute events (acute myocardial infarction and hip/pelvic fracture), (2) persistent: medications, and (3) semi-persistent chronic conditions and frailty indicators. These groups show different patterns of spending across time. Each year, 79% of the catastrophic group dropped out of the top decile. In contrast, 68-70% of the persistent group and 36-37% of the semi-persistent group remained in the top decile year over year. These groups also show different 1-year mortality rates, which are highest among semi-persistent members at 17.5-18.5%, compared to 12% and 13-14% for catastrophic and persistent members, respectively.ConclusionsThe top decile consists of subgroups with different needs and spending patterns. Interventions to reduce utilization and expenditures may show more effectiveness if they account for the different characteristics and care needs of these subgroups.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral policy proposals advocate introducing copayments for home health care in the Medicare program. To our knowledge, no prior studies have assessed this cost-containment strategy.ObjectiveTo determine the association of home health copayments with use of home health services.Design, setting, and participantsA difference-in-differences case-control study of 18 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans that introduced copayments for home health care between 2007 and 2011 and 18 concurrent control MA plans. The study included 135 302 enrollees in plans that introduced copayment and 155 892 enrollees in matched control plans.ExposuresIntroduction of copayments for home health care between 2007 and 2011.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of enrollees receiving home health care, annual numbers of home health episodes, and days receiving home health care.ResultsCopayments for home health visits ranged from $5 to $20 per visit, which were estimated to be associated with $165 (interquartile range [IQR], $45-$180) to $660 (IQR, $180-$720) in out-of-pocket spending for the average user of home health care. The increased copayment for home health care was not associated with the proportion of enrollees receiving home health care (adjusted difference-in-differences, -0.15 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.38 to 0.09), the number of home health episodes per user (adjusted difference-in-differences, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03), and home health days per user (adjusted difference-in-differences, -0.19; 95% CI, -3.02 to 2.64). In both intervention and control plans and across all levels of copayments, we observed higher disenrollment rates among enrollees with greater baseline use of home health care.Conclusions and relevanceWe found no evidence that imposing copayments reduced the use of home health services among older adults. More intensive use of home health services was associated with increased rates of disenrollment in MA plans. The findings raise questions about the potential effectiveness of this cost-containment strategy.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough Medicare Part D improved drug benefits for many beneficiaries, its impact on the coverage of Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees depended on their pre-existing benefits and whether they had gap coverage under Part D.ObjectiveTo examine changes in prescription drug utilization and expenditures associated with drug benefit changes resulting from the implementation of Part D.PatientsWe studied 248,773 continuously enrolled MAPD patients in eight states. Patients whose insurance product or Census block could not be identified or who had atypical benefits, low-income subsidies or Medicaid coverage were excluded.Main measuresThe main outcomes were changes in prescription drug days supply and expenditures from 2005 to 2006 and 2005 to 2007.DesignWe linked Census data with 2005-7 MAPD claims, encounter, enrollment, and benefits data and estimated associations of the outcomes with changes in drug benefits, controlling for 2005 comorbidities, demographics, and Census population characteristics.Key resultsMAPD enrollees whose drug benefits became potentially less generous after Part D had the smallest increases in drug utilization and expenditures (e.g., drug expenditures increased by $130 between 2005 and 2006), while those who potentially gained the most from Part D experienced the largest increases ($302). The differences in benefit design changes had a stronger association with drug utilization and outcomes among patients at high risk of gap entry than among the entire sample.ConclusionsAlthough Medicare Part D unambiguously improved drug coverage for many elderly, it led to heterogeneous changes in drug benefits among MAPD enrollees, who already had generic and sometimes branded drug benefits. After 2006, benefits were worse for individuals who had branded drug coverage in 2005 but now had a coverage gap, but benefits may have improved for individuals who acquired branded drug coverage. Commensurate with these differential changes in benefits following Part D, changes in drug utilization and expenditures varied substantially as well.

Dataset Information

Expenditures and Use of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Treating Breast Cancer Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees, 2009 to 2017

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets