Comparing HEDIS Performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans to Other Coverage Types for Dually Eligible People

Amelia M Haviland, Megan Mathews, Steven C. Martino, Yvette Overton, Jacob W Dembosky, Jessica Maksut, Marc N. Elliott
{"title":"Comparing HEDIS Performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans to Other Coverage Types for Dually Eligible People","authors":"Amelia M Haviland, Megan Mathews, Steven C. Martino, Yvette Overton, Jacob W Dembosky, Jessica Maksut, Marc N. Elliott","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage (“dually eligible individuals”) have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their three most common Medicare coverage options are: Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans(D-SNP), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these three coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on six HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files).\n D-SNP and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all six measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for two measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other four measures. For the four measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNP than in non-D-SNP MA plans.","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"331 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage (“dually eligible individuals”) have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their three most common Medicare coverage options are: Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans(D-SNP), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these three coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on six HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files). D-SNP and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all six measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for two measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other four measures. For the four measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNP than in non-D-SNP MA plans.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较双合格特殊需求计划与其他双合格人群保险类型的 HEDIS 业绩
与那些有资格享受 "医疗保险 "但不享受 "医疗补助计划 "的人员相比,同时有资格享受 "医疗保险 "和 "医疗补助计划 "的人员("双重资格人员")的收入和资产水平较低,医疗保健需求和费用通常较高。他们最常见的三种医疗保险选择是他们最常见的三种联邦医疗保险选择是:联邦医疗保险优势计划(MA)"双重资格特殊需求计划"(D-SNP)、非 "双重资格特殊需求计划 "MA 计划,以及带有独立处方药计划的付费服务(FFS)联邦医疗保险。此前还没有研究对这三种保险类型中符合双重资格者的临床护理质量进行过调查。为了填补这一空白,我们使用逻辑回归法对这些承保类型的六项 HEDIS 临床护理质量指标进行了比较,这六项指标同时适用于 MA 和 FFS(根据索赔档案构建)。对于符合双重资格的个人而言,D-SNP 和非 D-SNP 医保计划在所有六项指标上的表现均明显优于 FFS,其中两项指标优于 FFS 约 5 个百分点,其他四项指标优于 FFS 18-34 个百分点。在与 FFS 相比优势最大的四项指标中,D-SNP 的绩效比非 D-SNP MA 计划高出 3-8 个百分点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to: No Surprises Act independent dispute resolution outcomes for emergency services. All-cause nursing home mortality rates have remained above pre-pandemic levels after accounting for decline in occupancy. Charting new territory: the early lessons in integrating social determinant of health (SDOH) measures into practice. Measuring hospital inpatient Procedure Access Inequality in the United States. Examining the use of telehealth to initiate buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1