Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL JAMA Network Open Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42633
Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli, Mark Soto, E John Orav, Thomas C Tsai, Austin Frakt, Jose F Figueroa
{"title":"Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.","authors":"Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli, Mark Soto, E John Orav, Thomas C Tsai, Austin Frakt, Jose F Figueroa","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers have greater financial incentives to reduce the delivery of low-value services (LVS); however, there is limited evidence at a national level on the prevalence of LVS utilization among MA vs TM beneficiaries and whether LVS utilization rates vary among the largest MA insurers.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether there are differences in the rates of LVS delivered to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA vs TM, overall and by the 7 largest MA insurers.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cross-sectional study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older residing in the US in 2018 with complete demographic information. Eligible TM beneficiaries were enrolled in Parts A, B, and D, and eligible MA beneficiaries were enrolled in Part C with Part D coverage. Data analysis was conducted between February 2022 and August 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Medicare plan type.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was utlization of 35 LVS defined by the Milliman Health Waste Calculator. An overdispersed Poisson regression model was used to calculate estimated margins comparing risk-adjusted rates of LVS in TM vs MA, overall and across the 7 largest MA insurers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study sample included 3 671 364 unique TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [7.7] years; 1 502 631 female [40.9%]) and 2 299 618 unique MA beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.3] years; 983 592 female [42.8%]). LVS utilization was lower among those enrolled in MA compared with TM (50.02 vs 52.48 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -2.46 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). Within MA, LVS utilization was lower among beneficiaries enrolled in HMOs vs PPOs (48.03 vs 52.66 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -4.63 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -5.53 to -3.74 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). While MA beneficiaries enrolled in UnitedHealth, Humana, Centene, and smaller MA insurers had lower rates of LVS compared with those in TM, beneficiaries enrolled in CVS, Cigna, and Anthem showed no differences. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plans had higher rates of LVS compared with TM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cross-sectional study of nearly 6 million Medicare beneficiaries, utilization of LVS was on average lower among MA beneficiaries compared with TM beneficiaries, possibly owing to stronger financial incentives in MA to reduce LVS; however, meaningful differences existed across some of the largest MA insurers, suggesting that MA insurers may have variable ability to influence LVS reduction.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"7 11","pages":"e2442633"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11530944/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42633","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Compared with traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers have greater financial incentives to reduce the delivery of low-value services (LVS); however, there is limited evidence at a national level on the prevalence of LVS utilization among MA vs TM beneficiaries and whether LVS utilization rates vary among the largest MA insurers.

Objective: To determine whether there are differences in the rates of LVS delivered to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA vs TM, overall and by the 7 largest MA insurers.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older residing in the US in 2018 with complete demographic information. Eligible TM beneficiaries were enrolled in Parts A, B, and D, and eligible MA beneficiaries were enrolled in Part C with Part D coverage. Data analysis was conducted between February 2022 and August 2024.

Exposures: Medicare plan type.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was utlization of 35 LVS defined by the Milliman Health Waste Calculator. An overdispersed Poisson regression model was used to calculate estimated margins comparing risk-adjusted rates of LVS in TM vs MA, overall and across the 7 largest MA insurers.

Results: The study sample included 3 671 364 unique TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [7.7] years; 1 502 631 female [40.9%]) and 2 299 618 unique MA beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.3] years; 983 592 female [42.8%]). LVS utilization was lower among those enrolled in MA compared with TM (50.02 vs 52.48 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -2.46 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -3.16 to -1.75 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). Within MA, LVS utilization was lower among beneficiaries enrolled in HMOs vs PPOs (48.03 vs 52.66 services per 100 beneficiary-years; adjusted absolute difference, -4.63 services per 100 beneficiary-years; 95% CI, -5.53 to -3.74 services per 100 beneficiary-years; P < .001). While MA beneficiaries enrolled in UnitedHealth, Humana, Centene, and smaller MA insurers had lower rates of LVS compared with those in TM, beneficiaries enrolled in CVS, Cigna, and Anthem showed no differences. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plans had higher rates of LVS compared with TM.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of nearly 6 million Medicare beneficiaries, utilization of LVS was on average lower among MA beneficiaries compared with TM beneficiaries, possibly owing to stronger financial incentives in MA to reduce LVS; however, meaningful differences existed across some of the largest MA insurers, suggesting that MA insurers may have variable ability to influence LVS reduction.

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
评估主要医疗保险优势保险公司和传统医疗保险的低价值服务。
重要性:与传统的医疗保险(TM)相比,医疗保险优势(MA)保险公司有更大的经济激励来减少低价值服务(LVS)的提供;然而,在全国范围内,关于医疗保险受益人与传统医疗保险受益人使用低价值服务的普遍性以及最大的医疗保险保险公司之间低价值服务使用率是否存在差异的证据却很有限:目的:确定向加入医疗保险与加入临时医疗保险的医疗保险受益人提供 LVS 的比率是否存在差异,总体上以及 7 家最大的医疗保险保险公司之间是否存在差异:这项横断面研究包括 2018 年居住在美国的 65 岁及以上、具有完整人口统计学信息的医疗保险受益人。符合条件的 TM 受益人参加了 A、B 和 D 部分,符合条件的 MA 受益人参加了 C 部分和 D 部分保险。数据分析在 2022 年 2 月至 2024 年 8 月期间进行:医疗保险计划类型:主要结果是使用 Milliman 健康浪费计算器定义的 35 种 LVS。使用过度分散泊松回归模型计算估计差值,比较 TM 与 MA 的风险调整后 LVS 率,整体以及 7 家最大的 MA 保险公司:研究样本包括 3 671 364 名 TM 受益人(平均 [SD] 年龄 75.7 [7.7] 岁;1 502 631 名女性 [40.9%])和 2 299 618 名 MA 受益人(平均 [SD] 年龄 75.3 [7.3] 岁;983 592 名女性 [42.8%])。与 TM 相比,加入 MA 的 LVS 使用率较低(50.02 vs 52.48 services per 100 beneficiary-years;调整后绝对差异,-2.46 services per 100 beneficiary-years;95% CI,-3.16 to -1.75 services per 100 beneficiary-years;P 结论及意义:在这项针对近 600 万名医疗保险受益人的横断面研究中,与 TM 受益人相比,医疗保险受益人的 LVS 使用率平均较低,这可能是由于医疗保险在减少 LVS 方面具有更强的经济激励机制;然而,一些最大的医疗保险公司之间也存在着显著差异,这表明医疗保险公司在影响减少 LVS 方面可能具有不同的能力。
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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
期刊最新文献
JAMA Network Open. Meal Timing Interventions for Weight Loss and Metabolic Health-What Does the Evidence Tell Us So Far? Saving Children's Lives Through Universal Pediatric Readiness Is a Wise Investment. Anemia Acuity Effect on Transfusion Strategies in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of the MINT Trial. Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
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