Gender disparities in cardiovascular disease care among commercial and medicare managed care plans.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in cardiovascular care have been documented in studies of patients, but little is known about whether these disparities persist among managed health care plans. This study examined 1) the feasibility of gender-stratified quality of care reporting by commercial and Medicare health plans; 2) possible gender differences in performance on prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in US health plans; and 3) factors that may contribute to disparities as well as potential opportunities for closing the disparity gap. METHODS: We evaluated plan-level performance on Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures using a national sample of commercial health plans that voluntarily reported gender-stratified data and for all Medicare plans with valid member-level data that allowed the computation of gender-stratified performance data. Key informant interviews were conducted with a subset of commercial plans. Participating commercial plans in this study tended to be larger and higher performing than other plans who routinely report on HEDIS performance. RESULTS: Nearly all Medicare and commercial plans had sufficient numbers of eligible members to allow for stable reporting of gender-stratified performance rates for diabetes and hypertension, but fewer commercial plans were able to report gender-stratified data on measures where eligibility was based on recent cardiac events. Over half of participating commercial plans showed a disparity of >/=5% in favor of men for cholesterol control measures among persons with diabetes and persons with a recent cardiovascular procedure or heart attack, whereas no commercial plans showed such disparities in favor of women. These gender differences favoring men were even larger for Medicare plans, and disparities were not linked to health plan performance or region. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: Eliminating gender disparities in selected cardiovascular disease preventive quality of care measures has the potential to reduce major cardiac events including death by 4,785-10,170 per year among persons enrolled in US health plans. Health plans should be encouraged to collect and monitor quality of care data for cardiovascular disease for men and women separately as a focus for quality improvement.     

Mapping the Gaps: Gender Differences in Preventive Cardiovascular Care among Managed Care Members in Four Metropolitan Areas

Background

Prior research documents gender gaps in cardiovascular risk management, with women receiving poorer quality routine care on average, even in managed care systems. Although population health management tools and quality improvement efforts have led to better overall care quality and narrowing of racial/ethnic gaps for a variety of measures, we sought to quantify persistent gender gaps in cardiovascular risk management and to assess the performance of routinely used commercial population health management tools in helping systems narrow gender gaps.

Does quality of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes differ by gender for enrollees in managed care plans?

PURPOSE: To assess gender differences in the quality of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes for enrollees in managed care plans. METHODS: We obtained data from 10 commercial and 9 Medicare plans and calculated performance on 6 Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures of quality of care (beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction [MI], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] check after a cardiac event, and in diabetics, whether glycosylated hemoglobin [HgbA1c], LDL cholesterol, nephropathy, and eyes were checked) and a 7th HEDIS-like measure (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor use for congestive heart failure). A smaller number of plans provided HEDIS scores on 4 additional measures that require medical chart abstraction (control of LDL-C after cardiac event, blood pressure control in hypertensive patients, and HgbA1c and LDL-C control in diabetics). We used logistic regression models to adjust for age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and plan. MAIN FINDINGS: Adjusting for covariates, we found significant gender differences on 5 of 11 measures among Medicare enrollees, with 4 favoring men. Similarly, among commercial enrollees, we found significant gender differences for 8 of 11 measures, with 6 favoring men. The largest disparity was for control of LDL-C among diabetics, where women were 19% less likely to achieve control among Medicare enrollees (relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.99) and 16% less likely among commercial enrollees (RR = 0.84; 95%CI = 0.73-0.95). CONCLUSION: Gender differences in the quality of cardiovascular and diabetic care were common and sometimes substantial among enrollees in Medicare and commercial health plans. Routine monitoring of such differences is both warranted and feasible.     

Post-Acute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Plans Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectivesCompare post-acute care (PAC) utilization and outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) between beneficiaries covered by Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) plans during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year.DesignThis multiyear cross-sectional study used Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility–Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data to assess PAC delivery from January 2019 to December 2020.Setting and ParticipantsInpatient rehabilitation for stroke, hip fracture, joint replacement, and cardiac and pulmonary conditions among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older.MethodsPatient-level multivariate regression models with difference-in-differences approach were used to compare TM and MA plans in length of stay (LOS), payment per episode, functional improvements, and discharge locations.ResultsA total of 271,188 patients were analyzed [women (57.1%), mean (SD) age 77.8 (0.06) years], among whom 138,277 were admitted for stroke, 68,488 hip fracture, 19,020 joint replacement, and 35,334 cardiac and 10,069 pulmonary conditions. Before the pandemic, MA beneficiaries had longer LOS (+0.22 days; 95% CI: 0.15–0.29), lower payment per episode (−$361.05; 95% CI: −573.38 to −148.72), more discharges to home with a home health agency (HHA) (48.9% vs 46.6%), and less to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (15.7% vs 20.2%) than TM beneficiaries. During the pandemic, both plan types had shorter LOS (−0.68 day; 95% CI: 0.54–0.84), higher payment (+$798; 95% CI: 558–1036), increased discharges to home with an HHA (52.8% vs 46.6%), and decreased discharges to an SNF (14.5% vs 20.2%) than before. Differences between TM and MA beneficiaries in these outcomes became smaller and less significant. All results were adjusted for beneficiary and facility characteristics.Conclusions and ImplicationsAlthough the COVID-19 pandemic affected PAC delivery in IRF in the same directions for both TM and MA plans, the timing, time duration, and magnitude of the impacts were different across measures and admission conditions. Differences between the 2 plan types shrank and performance across all dimensions became more comparable over time.     

Reporting of CAHPS quality information to medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVES: To assess which Consumer Assessment of Health Plans (CAHPS) survey measures Medicare beneficiaries find the most meaningful, how beneficiaries and information intermediaries interpret different formats for presenting CAHPS information, and how beneficiaries have reacted to the CAHPS information included in the annual mailing to beneficiaries called Medicare & You 2000. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen focus groups of beneficiaries and State Health Insurance Assistance Program counselors, more than 200 cognitive interviews, and 122 mall-intercept interviews with beneficiaries were conducted from spring 1998 through winter 2000. STUDY DESIGN: In 1998 focus groups and cognitive interviews were conducted with Medicare beneficiaries and State Health Insurance Assistance Program counselors to determine which CAHPS measures to report to Medicare beneficiaries and how to report this information. In 1999 additional focus groups and mall-intercept interviews were conducted to determine which measures to include in Medicare & You 2000. To obtain feedback on the CAHPS information in Medicare & You 2000 additional focus groups were conducted in winter 2000. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Focus group participants indicated that getting the care they need quickly, having access to specialists, and communicating well with doctors were more important to them than nonmedical characteristics of plans. Most beneficiaries had problems interpreting quality information. Many misinterpreted star charts, and while bar charts appear easier to read, many beneficiaries still had trouble interpreting the information on these charts. Most beneficiaries did not consider quality information important to them and most were unaware of the availability of CAHPS information. CONCLUSIONS: Many challenges lie ahead in making quality information meaningful to Medicare beneficiaries. These challenges include increasing awareness of the existence of this information, educating beneficiaries about how this information can help in choosing a health plan, continuing to simplify reporting formats, assuring beneficiaries that this information comes from a credible source, and providing guidance to beneficiaries about how quality information can help with health care decisions.     

Language and regional differences in evaluations of Medicare managed care by Hispanics

OBJECTIVES: This study uses the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS((R))) survey to examine the experiences of Hispanics enrolled in Medicare managed care. Evaluations of care are examined in relationship to primary language (English or Spanish) and region of the country. DATA SOURCES: CAHPS 3.0 Medicare managed care survey data collected in 2002. STUDY DESIGN: The dependent variables consist of five CAHPS multi-item scales measuring timeliness of care, provider communication, office staff helpfulness, getting needed care, and health plan customer service. The main independent variables are Hispanic primary language (English or Spanish) and region (California, Florida, New York/New Jersey, and other states). Ordinary least squares regression is used to model the effect of Hispanic primary language and region on CAHPS scales, controlling for age, gender, education, and self-rated health. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The analytic sample consists of 125,369 respondents (82 percent response rate) enrolled in 181 Medicare managed care plans across the U.S. Of the 125,369 respondents, 8,463 (7 percent) were self-identified as Hispanic. The survey was made available in English and Spanish, and 1,353 Hispanics completed one in Spanish. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Hispanic English speakers had less favorable reports of care than whites for all dimensions of care except provider communication. Hispanic Spanish speakers reported more negative experiences than whites with timeliness of care, provider communication, and office staff helpfulness, but better reports of care for getting needed care. Spanish speakers in all regions except Florida had less favorable scores than English-speaking Hispanics for provider communication and office staff helpfulness, but more positive assessments for getting needed care. There were greater regional variations in CAHPS scores among Hispanic Spanish speakers than among Hispanic English speakers. Spanish speakers in Florida had more positive experiences than Spanish speakers in other regions for most dimensions of care. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanics in Medicare managed care face barriers to care; however, their experiences with care vary by language and region. Spanish speakers (except FL) have less favorable experiences with provider communication and office staff helpfulness than their English-speaking counterparts, suggesting language barriers in the clinical encounter. On the other hand, Spanish speakers reported more favorable experiences than their English-speaking counterparts with the managed care aspects of their care (getting needed care and plan customer service). Medicare managed care plans need to address the observed disparities in patient experiences among Hispanics as part of their quality improvement efforts. Plans can work with their network providers to address issues related to timeliness of care and office staff helpfulness. In addition, plans can provide incentives for language services, which have the potential to improve communication with providers and staff among Spanish speakers. Finally, health plans can reduce the access barriers faced by Hispanics, especially among English speakers.     

Health plan characteristics and consumers' assessments of quality

Many purchasers and consumers of health care have become concerned about the quality of care being delivered in managed care plans. Little is known, however, about the health plan characteristics that are associated with better performance. We used survey responses from 82,583 Medicare beneficiaries from 182 health plans to study the association of consumers' assessments of care with health plan characteristics. For-profit and nationally affiliated health plans received much worse scores on the outcomes of interest, particularly for overall ratings of the health plan and composite measures of customer service and access to care. Health plans accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance did not receive higher scores.     

Beneficiary reported experience and voluntary disenrollment in Medicare managed care

Disenrollment rates have often been used as indicators of health plan quality, because they are readily available and easily understood by purchasers, health plans, and consumers. Over the past few years, however, indicators that more directly measure technical quality and consumer experiences with care have become available. In this observational study, we examined the relationship between voluntary disenrollment rates from Medicare managed care (MMC) plans and other measures of health plan quality. The results demonstrate that voluntary disenrollment rates are strongly related to direct measures of patient experiences with care and are an important complement to other measures of health plan performance.     

Effects of forced disruption in Medicaid managed care on children with asthma

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a forced disruption to Medicaid managed care plans and provider networks on health utilization and outcomes for children with persistent asthma.Data SourcesMedicaid managed care administrative claims data from 2013 to 2016, obtained from a southeastern state.Study DesignA difference‐in‐difference analysis compared patients’ outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department (ED) utilization and receipt of recommended services before and after implementation of a statewide redistribution of patients among nine managed care plans.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsEnrollment data for children with asthma were linked to the administrative claims. Children were included if they had a diagnosis of persistent asthma in 2013 and if they were enrolled continuously throughout 2014‐2016.Principal FindingsAmong the 28 537 children with asthma, 26% were forced to switch their managed care plan after the redistribution. Of these, 67% also switched their primary care provider (PCP). Relative to those who remained in their plan, disruption was associated with an additional 2.1 percentage‐point decrease in the number of children who had an outpatient visit per quarter [95%CI −2.8, −1.3], from 71% to 66% (compared to plan stayers: 74% to 71%). Among children experiencing a change to their plan, there was overall a decrease in the proportion of children receiving an asthma‐specific visit per quarter, but there was less of a decrease in children that also changed their PCP [1.6 percentage points, 95%CI 0.7, 2.5], from 9.7% to 8.3% (compared to those who did not switch their PCP: 12% to 8.6%). Indicators of asthma care quality and emergent care utilization were not significantly different between the two periods.ConclusionsWhile there was a decrease in the number of outpatient visits associated with forced disruption of Medicaid managed care plans for children with persistent asthma, there were no consistent associations with worse asthma quality performance or higher emergent health care utilization.     

How patients' sociodemographic characteristics affect comparisons of competing health plans in California on HEDIS quality measures.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate effects of patient sociodemographic characteristics on differential performance within and between plans in a single market area on the HEDIS quality of care measures, widely used for purchasing and accreditation decisions in the United States. DESIGN: Using logistic regression, we modeled associations of age, sex, and zip-code-linked sociodemographic characteristics of health plan members with HEDIS measures of screening and preventive services. We calculated the impact of adjusting for these associations on measures of health plan performance. SETTING: Twenty-two California health plans provided individual-level HEDIS data and zip codes of residence for up to 2 years. PARTICIPANTS: 110 541 commercially insured health plan members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ten HEDIS quality-of-care measures. RESULTS: Performance on quality measures was negatively associated with percent receiving public assistance in the local area (seven out of 10 measures), percent Black (three measures), and percent Hispanic (four measures), and positively associated with percent college educated (six measures), and percent urban (three measures), controlling for plan, while associations with percent Asian were positive for three measures and negative for one (P < 0.05 for six associations, P < 0.01 for four, P < 0.001 for 17). Associations were consistent across plans and over time. Adjustment for these characteristics changed rates for most plans and measures by <5 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for socioeconomic case mix has little impact on the measured performance of most plans in California, but substantially affects a few. The impact of case mix on indicators should be considered when making comparisons of health plan quality.     

Do Medicare Advantage enrollees tend to be admitted to hospitals with better or worse outcomes compared with fee-for-service enrollees?

The hospitals selected by or for Medicare beneficiaries might depend on whether the patient is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan. A theoretical model of profit maximization by MA plans takes into account the tradeoffs of consumer preferences for annual premium versus outcomes of care in the hospital and other attributes of the plan. Hospital discharge databases for 13 states in 2006, maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, are the main source of data. Risk-adjusted mortality rates are available for all non-maternity adult patients in each of 15 clinical categories in about 1,500 hospitals. All-adult postoperative safety event rates covering 9 categories of events are calculated for surgical cases in about 900 hospitals. Instrumental variables are used to address potential endogeneity of the choice of a MA plan. The key findings are these: enrollees in MA plans tend to be treated in hospitals with lower resource cost and higher risk-adjusted mortality compared to Fee-for-Service (FFS) enrollees. The risk-adjusted mortality measure is about 1.5 percentage points higher for MA plan enrollees than the overall mean of 4%. However, the rate of safety events in surgical patients favors MA plan enrollees—the rate is 1 percentage point below the average of 3.5%. These discrepant results are noteworthy and are plausibly due to greater discretion by the health plan in approving patients for elective surgery and as well as selecting hospitals for surgical patients. Emergency patients are generally excluded for the safety outcome measures. In addition, the current mortality measures may not adequately represent all surgical patients. Such caveats should be prominently highlighted when presenting comparative data. With that proviso, the study justifies informing Medicare beneficiaries about the mortality and safety outcome measures for hospitals being used by a MA plan compared to hospitals used by FFS enrollees.     

An economic history of Medicare part C

Context: Twenty‐five years ago, private insurance plans were introduced into the Medicare program with the stated dual aims of (1) giving beneficiaries a choice of health insurance plans beyond the fee‐for‐service Medicare program and (2) transferring to the Medicare program the efficiencies and cost savings achieved by managed care in the private sector. Methods: In this article we review the economic history of Medicare Part C, known today as Medicare Advantage, focusing on the impact of major changes in the program's structure and of plan payment methods on trends in the availability of private plans, plan enrollment, and Medicare spending. Additionally, we compare the experience of Medicare Advantage and of employer‐sponsored health insurance with managed care over the same time period. Findings: Beneficiaries’ access to private plans has been inconsistent over the program's history, with higher plan payments resulting in greater choice and enrollment and vice versa. But Medicare Advantage generally has cost more than the traditional Medicare program, an overpayment that has increased in recent years. Conclusions: Major changes in Medicare Advantage's payment rules are needed in order to simultaneously encourage the participation of private plans, the provision of high‐quality care, and to save Medicare money.     

Characterizing Cardiac Catheterization Utilization in a US Population with Commercial or Medicare Advantage Health Plans

BackgroundHealth plans and health systems need to understand the demand for common healthcare services to ensure adequate access to care. Utilization of cardiac catheterization is of particular interest, because it is relatively common and has the potential for variation across subpopulations, similar to the level of geographical variation in heart disease in the United States.ObjectivesTo illustrate how the utilization of cardiac catheterization has changed over time in a US population with commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans, and how it differs between subpopulations.MethodsCardiac catheterization claims data from 2012 to 2018 were extracted from the database of a national healthcare organization offering commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. Contemporaneous health plan enrollment data and government data were used to determine the patients'' characteristics. Annual catheterizations per 1000 patients for the population as a whole and for subpopulations were determined using claims data. Spearman''s rank-order correlation was used to assess the monotonicity of trends. Catheterization utilization for each subpopulation was compared with that of the population average. A second, patient-level analysis was used to determine the factors predictive of patients'' catheterization utilization in 2018.ResultsAcross the overall population, the rate of cardiac catheterization was stable from 2012 to 2018. An adjusted analysis of 2018 data showed that catheterization utilization was significantly associated with older age, male sex, residence in a rural zip code, residence in a lower-income zip code, and residence in a state with a high obesity rate. The trendlines of the relative utilization of catheterization in subpopulations over time revealed similar patterns.ConclusionMarked differences were observed in the rates of cardiac catheterization utilization between the subpopulations in our study. Overall, these data show a direct correlation between geographic residence, obesity level, wealth, and the rate of cardiac catheterization utilization. To ensure adequate access to care, health plans and health systems should explore the implications of disproportionately high demand for cardiac catheterization in populations from lower-income areas, higher obesity rate states, rural patients, and older patients.     

Differences in patient perceptions of integrated care among black,hispanic, and white Medicare beneficiaries

ObjectiveThis study sought to identify potential disparities among racial/ethnic groups in patient perceptions of integrated care (PPIC) and to explore how methodological differences may influence measured disparities.Data SourceData from Medicare beneficiaries who completed the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) and were enrolled in Part A benefits for an entire year.Study DesignWe used 4‐point measures of eight dimensions of PPIC and assessed differences in dimensions among racial/ethnic groups. To estimate differences, we applied a “rank and replace” method using multiple regression models in three steps, balancing differences in health status among racial groups and adjusting for differences in socioeconomic status. We reran all analyses with additional SES controls and using standard multiple variable regression.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsNot applicable.Principal FindingsWe found several significant differences in perceived integrated care between Black versus White (three of eight measures) and Hispanic versus White (one of eight) Medicare beneficiaries. On average, Black beneficiaries perceived more integrated support for self‐care than did White beneficiaries (mean difference = 0.14, SE = 0.06, P =.02). Black beneficiaries perceived more integrated specialists’ knowledge of past medical history than did White beneficiaries (mean difference = 0.12, SE = 0.06, P =.01). Black and Hispanic beneficiaries also each reported, on average, 0.18 more integrated medication and home health management than did White beneficiaries (P <.01 and P <.01). These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses and model specifications.ConclusionsThere exist some aspects of care for which Black and Hispanic beneficiaries may perceive greater integrated care than non‐Hispanic White beneficiaries. Further studies should test theories explaining why racial/ethnic groups perceive differences in integrated care.     

Impact of Medicare managed care market withdrawal on beneficiaries

The 2001 Survey of Involuntary Disenrollees was conducted to investigate the impact of Medicare+Choice (M+C) plan withdrawals on Medicare beneficiaries. Eighty-four percent of a total of 4,732 beneficiaries whose Medicare managed care (MMC) plan stopped serving them at the end of 2000 responded to the survey. Their responses indicated that the withdrawal of plans from Medicare affected beneficiaries in terms of concerns about getting and paying for care, increased payments for premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and changes in health care arrangements. Of particular concern were the impacts on those in vulnerable subgroups such as the disabled, less educated, and minorities.     

HEDIS performance trends in Medicare managed care

The authors analyzed performance trends between 1996 and 1998 for health plans in the Medicare managed care program. Four measures from the Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) were used to track performance changes: adult access to preventive/ambulatory health services, beta blocker treatment following heart attacks, breast cancer screening, and eye exams for people with diabetes. Using a cohort analysis at the health plan level, statistically significant improvements in performance rates were observed for all measures. Health plans exhibiting relatively poor performance in 1996 accounted for the largest share of overall improvement in these measures across years.     

Systematic Review of Rural and Urban Differences in Care Provided by Home Health Agencies in the United States

ObjectiveHome health care agencies (HHAs) are skilled care providers for Medicare home health beneficiaries in the United States. Rural HHAs face different challenges from their urban counterparts in delivering care (eg, longer distances to travel to patient homes leading to higher fuel/travel costs and fewer number of visits in a day, impacting the quality of home health care for rural beneficiaries). We review evidence on differences in care outcomes provided by urban and rural HHAs.DesignSystematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for quality appraisal.SettingCare provided by urban and rural HHAs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for English-language peer-reviewed articles after 2010 on differences in urban and rural care provided by U.S. HHAs. We screened 876 studies, conducted full-text abstraction and NOS quality review on 36 articles and excluded 2 for poor study quality.ResultsTwelve studies were included; 7 focused on patient-level analyses and 5 were HHA-level. Nine studies were cross-sectional and 3 used cohorts. Urban and rural differences were measured primarily using a binary variable. All studies controlled for agency-level characteristics, and two-thirds also controlled for patient characteristics. Rural beneficiaries, compared with urban, had lower home health care utilization (4 of 5 studies) and fewer visits for physical therapy and/or rehabilitation (3 of 5 studies). Rural agencies had lower quality of HHA services (3 of 4 studies). Rural patients, compared with urban, visited the emergency room more often (2 of 2 studies) and were more likely to be hospitalized (2 of 2 studies), whereas urban patients with heart failure were more likely to have 30-day preventable hospitalizations (1 study).Conclusion and ImplicationsThis review highlights similar urban/rural disparities in home health care quality and utilization as identified in previous decades. Variables used to measure the access to and quality of care by HHAs varied, so consensus was limited. Articles that used more granular measures of rurality (rather than binary measures) revealed additional differences. These findings point to the need for consistent and refined measures of rurality in studies examining urban and rural differences in care from HHAs.     

Market Variations in Intensity of Medicare Service Use and Beneficiary Experiences with Care

Objective

Examine associations between patient experiences with care and service use across markets.

Data Sources/Study Setting

Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care (Medicare Advantage [MA]) beneficiaries in 306 markets from the 2003 Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. Resource use intensity is measured by the 2003 end-of-life expenditure index.

Study Design

We estimated correlations and linear regressions of eight measures of case-mix-adjusted beneficiary experiences with intensity of service use across markets.

Data Collection/Extraction

We merged CAHPS data with service use data, excluding beneficiaries under 65 years of age or receiving Medicaid.

Principal Findings

Overall, higher intensity use was associated (p<.05) with worse (seven measures) or no better care experiences (two measures). In higher-intensity markets, Medicare FFS and MA beneficiaries reported more problems getting care quickly and less helpful office staff. However, Medicare FFS beneficiaries in higher-intensity markets reported higher overall ratings of their personal physician and main specialist. Medicare MA beneficiaries in higher-intensity markets also reported worse quality of communication with physicians, ability to get needed care, and overall ratings of care.

Conclusions

Medicare beneficiaries in markets characterized by high service use did not report better experiences with care. This trend was strongest for those in managed care.     

The Effect of Health Plan Characteristics on Medicare+Choice Enrollment

Objective. To provide national estimates of the effect of out-of-pocket premiums and benefits on Medicare beneficiaries' choice among managed care health plans.
Data Sources/Study Setting. The data represent the population of all Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans offered to Medicare beneficiaries in the United States in 1999.
Study Design. The dependent variable is the log of the ratio of the market share of the j th health plan to the lowest cost plan in the beneficiary's county of residence. The explanatory variables are measures of premiums and benefits in the j th health plan relative to the premiums and benefits in the lowest cost plan.
Data Collection Methods. The data are from the 1999 Medicare Compare database, and M+C enrollment data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Principal Findings. A $10 increase in an M+C plan's out-of-pocket premium, relative to its competitors, is associated with a decrease of four percentage points in the j th plan's market share (i.e., from 25 to 21 percent), holding the premiums of competing plans constant.
Conclusions. Although our price elasticity estimates are low, the market share losses associated with small changes in a health plan's premium, relative to its competitors, may be sufficient to discipline premiums in a competitive market. Bidding behavior by plans in the Medicare Competitive Pricing Demonstration supports this conclusion.