医疗保险优势项目中农村受益人的护理经济负担最重。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.14393
Sungchul Park, David J Meyers, Yubin Park, Amal N Trivedi
{"title":"医疗保险优势项目中农村受益人的护理经济负担最重。","authors":"Sungchul Park, David J Meyers, Yubin Park, Amal N Trivedi","doi":"10.1111/1475-6773.14393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine differences in access to care and financial burden between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries in rural and urban areas and then explore whether there were potential differences in MA benefits between urban and rural areas.</p><p><strong>Study setting and design: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States.</p><p><strong>Data sources and analytical sample: </strong>Data from three distinct sources for 2017-2021: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, the MA landscape data, and the Plan Benefit Package data. Our sample comprised 43,343 Medicare beneficiary-years, including TM and MA beneficiaries in urban and rural areas.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Our adjusted analysis showed that rural MA beneficiaries experienced higher rates of delayed care due to costs (10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1]) compared with rural TM (9.5% [8.8-10.2]), urban MA (7.9% [7.4-8.4]), and urban TM (7.9% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. Similarly, rural MA beneficiaries (11.4% [95% CI: 10.3-12.5]) reported more difficulty paying medical bills compared with rural TM (9.4% [8.7-10.1]), urban MA (8.1% [7.7-8.6]), and urban TM (7.8% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. This disparity was associated with less generous financial structures in rural MA plans. Compared to urban MA plans, rural MA plans offered lower out-of-pocket maximums for in-network care ($5918 vs. $5439), but required higher copayments ($1686 vs. $1724 for a 5-day hospitalization, $37 vs. $41 for a specialist visit, and $35 vs. $38 for a mental health visit). However, differences in quality of care and provision of supplemental benefits were small.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rural Medicare beneficiaries reported a greater financial burden of care than urban Medicare beneficiaries, but the most significant burden was observed among MA beneficiaries in rural areas. One possible mechanism could be the less generous financial structures offered by rural MA plans. These findings suggest the need for policies addressing the affordability of care for rural MA beneficiaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":55065,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financial burden of care greatest among rural beneficiaries in Medicare advantage.\",\"authors\":\"Sungchul Park, David J Meyers, Yubin Park, Amal N Trivedi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1475-6773.14393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine differences in access to care and financial burden between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries in rural and urban areas and then explore whether there were potential differences in MA benefits between urban and rural areas.</p><p><strong>Study setting and design: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States.</p><p><strong>Data sources and analytical sample: </strong>Data from three distinct sources for 2017-2021: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, the MA landscape data, and the Plan Benefit Package data. Our sample comprised 43,343 Medicare beneficiary-years, including TM and MA beneficiaries in urban and rural areas.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>Our adjusted analysis showed that rural MA beneficiaries experienced higher rates of delayed care due to costs (10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1]) compared with rural TM (9.5% [8.8-10.2]), urban MA (7.9% [7.4-8.4]), and urban TM (7.9% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. Similarly, rural MA beneficiaries (11.4% [95% CI: 10.3-12.5]) reported more difficulty paying medical bills compared with rural TM (9.4% [8.7-10.1]), urban MA (8.1% [7.7-8.6]), and urban TM (7.8% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. This disparity was associated with less generous financial structures in rural MA plans. Compared to urban MA plans, rural MA plans offered lower out-of-pocket maximums for in-network care ($5918 vs. $5439), but required higher copayments ($1686 vs. $1724 for a 5-day hospitalization, $37 vs. $41 for a specialist visit, and $35 vs. $38 for a mental health visit). However, differences in quality of care and provision of supplemental benefits were small.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rural Medicare beneficiaries reported a greater financial burden of care than urban Medicare beneficiaries, but the most significant burden was observed among MA beneficiaries in rural areas. One possible mechanism could be the less generous financial structures offered by rural MA plans. These findings suggest the need for policies addressing the affordability of care for rural MA beneficiaries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14393\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14393","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究背景与设计:我们在美国医疗保险(Medicare)范围内进行了横断面研究:数据来源和分析样本:数据来自 2017-2021 年的三个不同来源:医疗保险当前受益人调查、医疗保险状况数据和计划福利包数据。我们的样本包括 43,343 个医疗保险受益人年,包括城市和农村地区的 TM 和 MA 受益人:我们的调整分析表明,与农村临时医疗保险受益人(9.5% [8.8-10.2])、城市医疗保险受益人(7.9% [7.4-8.4])和城市临时医疗保险受益人(7.9% [7.5-8.2])相比,农村医疗保险受益人因费用问题而延迟护理的比例更高(10.0% [95% 置信区间 (CI):8.8-11.1])。同样,农村医疗保险受益人(11.4% [95% CI:10.3-12.5])与农村医疗保险受益人(9.4% [8.7-10.1])、城市医疗保险受益人(8.1% [7.7-8.6])和城市医疗保险受益人(7.8% [7.5-8.2])相比,在支付医疗费用方面遇到了更多困难。这种差异与农村医疗保险计划中较宽松的财务结构有关。与城市医保计划相比,农村医保计划为网络内医疗提供的自付最高限额较低(5918 美元对 5439 美元),但要求的共付额较高(5 天住院 1686 美元对 1724 美元,专科医生就诊 37 美元对 41 美元,心理健康就诊 35 美元对 38 美元)。然而,医疗质量和补充福利的提供方面的差异很小:农村医疗保险受益人报告的医疗经济负担大于城市医疗保险受益人,但农村地区的医疗补助受益人的负担最重。其中一个可能的原因是农村医疗保险计划提供的财务结构不够宽松。这些发现表明,有必要制定政策来解决农村医疗保险受益人的医疗负担问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Financial burden of care greatest among rural beneficiaries in Medicare advantage.

Objective: To examine differences in access to care and financial burden between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries in rural and urban areas and then explore whether there were potential differences in MA benefits between urban and rural areas.

Study setting and design: We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States.

Data sources and analytical sample: Data from three distinct sources for 2017-2021: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, the MA landscape data, and the Plan Benefit Package data. Our sample comprised 43,343 Medicare beneficiary-years, including TM and MA beneficiaries in urban and rural areas.

Principal findings: Our adjusted analysis showed that rural MA beneficiaries experienced higher rates of delayed care due to costs (10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1]) compared with rural TM (9.5% [8.8-10.2]), urban MA (7.9% [7.4-8.4]), and urban TM (7.9% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. Similarly, rural MA beneficiaries (11.4% [95% CI: 10.3-12.5]) reported more difficulty paying medical bills compared with rural TM (9.4% [8.7-10.1]), urban MA (8.1% [7.7-8.6]), and urban TM (7.8% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. This disparity was associated with less generous financial structures in rural MA plans. Compared to urban MA plans, rural MA plans offered lower out-of-pocket maximums for in-network care ($5918 vs. $5439), but required higher copayments ($1686 vs. $1724 for a 5-day hospitalization, $37 vs. $41 for a specialist visit, and $35 vs. $38 for a mental health visit). However, differences in quality of care and provision of supplemental benefits were small.

Conclusion: Rural Medicare beneficiaries reported a greater financial burden of care than urban Medicare beneficiaries, but the most significant burden was observed among MA beneficiaries in rural areas. One possible mechanism could be the less generous financial structures offered by rural MA plans. These findings suggest the need for policies addressing the affordability of care for rural MA beneficiaries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services Research
Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Services Research (HSR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that provides researchers and public and private policymakers with the latest research findings, methods, and concepts related to the financing, organization, delivery, evaluation, and outcomes of health services. Rated as one of the top journals in the fields of health policy and services and health care administration, HSR publishes outstanding articles reporting the findings of original investigations that expand knowledge and understanding of the wide-ranging field of health care and that will help to improve the health of individuals and communities.
期刊最新文献
Quality improvement lessons learned from National Implementation of the "Patient Safety Events in Community Care: Reporting, Investigation, and Improvement Guidebook". Connecting unstably housed veterans living in rural areas to health care: Perspectives from Health Care Navigators. A structured approach to modifying an implementation package while scaling up a complex evidence-based practice. Evaluation of regional variation in racial and ethnic differences in patient experience among Veterans Health Administration primary care users. Effect of mental health staffing inputs on initiation of care among recently separated Veterans.
×
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