The spillover effects of Medicare managed care: Medicare Advantage and hospital utilization

More than a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which was created in large part to improve the efficiency of health care delivery by promoting competition among private managed care plans. This paper explores the spillover effects of the Medicare Advantage program on the traditional Medicare program and other patients, taking advantage of changes in Medicare Advantage payment policy to isolate exogenous increases in Medicare Advantage enrollment and trace out the effects of greater managed care penetration on hospital utilization and spending throughout the health care system. We find that when more seniors enroll in Medicare managed care, hospital costs decline for all seniors and for commercially insured younger populations. Greater managed care penetration is not associated with fewer hospitalizations, but is associated with lower costs and shorter stays per hospitalization. These spillovers are substantial – offsetting more than 10% of increased payments to Medicare Advantage plans.     

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.     

Low cognitive ability and poor skill with numbers may prevent many from enrolling in medicare supplemental coverage

Because traditional Medicare leaves substantial gaps in coverage, many people obtain supplemental coverage to limit their exposure to out-of-pocket costs. However, some Medicare beneficiaries may not be well equipped to navigate the complex supplemental coverage landscape successfully because of their lower cognitive ability or numeracy-that is, the ability to work with numbers. We found that people in the lower third of the cognitive ability and numeracy distributions were at least eleven percentage points less likely than those in the upper third to enroll in a supplemental Medicare insurance plan. This result means that many Medicare beneficiaries do not have the financial protections and other benefits that would be available to them if they were enrolled in a supplemental insurance plan. Our findings suggest that policy makers may want to consider alternatives tailored to these high-need groups, such as enhanced education and enrollment programs, simpler sets of plan choices, or even some type of automatic enrollment with an option to decline coverage.     

Risk-adjustment system for the Medicare capitated ESRD program

Medicare is the principal payer for medical services for those in the U.S. population suffering from end-stage renal disease (ESRD). By law, beneficiaries diagnosed with ESRD may not subsequently enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, however, the potential benefits of managed care for this population have stimulated interest in changing the law and developing demonstration plans. We describe a new risk-adjustment system developed for Medicare to pay for ESRD beneficiaries in managed care plans. The model improves on current payment methodology by adjusting payments for treatment status and comorbidities.     

Open enrollment periods and plan choices

Open enrollment periods are pervasively used in insurance markets to limit adverse selection risks resulting when enrollees can switch plans at will. We exploit a change in the open enrollment rules of Medicare Advantage to analyze how beneficiaries responded to the option of switching to a 5‐star‐rated plan at anytime, in a setting where insurers adjusted premiums and benefit design to counterbalance the increased selection risk. We present three findings: Within‐year switches to 5‐star plans increase by 7–16%; demand for 5‐star plans across the years does not decline; and the enrollees who switch to a 5‐star plan during the year are in better health status than those who do not switch.     

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare Advantage Plan Availability and Enrollment

Objective

To assess the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act''s (ACA) changes in Medicare Advantage (MA) payment rates on the availability of and enrollment in MA plans.

Data Sources

Secondary data on MA plan offerings, contract offerings, and enrollment by state and county, in 2010–2011.

Study Design

We estimated regression models of the change in the number of plans, the number of contracts, and enrollment as a function of quartiles of FFS spending and pre-ACA MA payment generosity. Counties in the lowest quartile of spending are treated most generously by the ACA.

Principal Findings

Relative to counties in the highest quartile of spending, the number of plans in counties in the first, second, and third quartiles rose by 12 percent, 7.6 percent, and 5.4 percent, respectively. Counties with more generous MA payment rates before the ACA lost significantly more plans. We did not find a similar impact on the change in contracts or enrollment.

Conclusions

The ACA-induced MA payment changes reduced the number of plan choices available for Medicare beneficiaries, but they have yet affected enrollment patterns.     

Medicare+Choice: an interim report card.

While the aim of Medicare+Choice (M+C) was to expand choice, the choices available to Medicare beneficiaries have diminished since its inception: Existing plans have withdrawn from M+C, few new plans have entered the program from among the newly authorized plan types, greater choice has not developed in areas that lacked choice, and the inequities in benefits and offerings between higher- and lower-paid areas of the country have widened rather than narrowed. Operational constraints probably explain the most immediate declines in M+C enrollment, but Congress's ability to foster success for M+C will ultimately depend on the way in which historical tensions related to competing goals and ideologies for the Medicare program are resolved.     

The costs of decedents in the Medicare program: implications for payments to Medicare + Choice plans

OBJECTIVE: To discuss and quantify the incentives that Medicare managed care plans have to avoid (through selective enrollment or disenrollment) people who are at risk for very high costs, focusing on Medicare beneficiaries in the last year of life-a group that accounts for more than one-quarter of Medicare's annual expenditures. DATA SOURCE: Medicare administrative claims for 1994 and 1995. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated the payment a plan would have received under three risk-adjustment systems for each beneficiary in our 1995 sample based on his or her age, gender, county of residence, original reason for Medicare entitlement, and principal inpatient diagnoses received during any hospital stays in 1994. We compared these amounts to the actual costs incurred by those beneficiaries. We then looked for clinical categories that were predictive of costs, including costs in a beneficiary's last year of life, not accounted for by the risk adjusters. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: The analyses were conducted using claims for a 5 percent random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who died in 1995 and a matched group of survivors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Medicare is currently implementing the Principal Inpatient Diagnostic Cost Groups (PIP-DCG) risk adjustment payment system to address the problem of risk selection in the Medicare+Choice program. We quantify the strong financial disincentives to enroll terminally ill beneficiaries that plans still have under this risk adjustment system. We also show that up to one-third of the selection observed between Medicare HMOs and the traditional fee-for-service system could be due to differential enrollment of decedents. A risk adjustment system that incorporated more of the available diagnostic information would attenuate this disincentive; however, plans could still use clinical information (not included in the risk adjustment scheme) to identify beneficiaries whose expected costs exceed expected payments. CONCLUSIONS: More disaggregated prospective risk adjustment methods and alternative payment systems that compensate plans for delivering care to certain classes of patients should be considered to ensure access to high-quality managed care for all beneficiaries.     

Issues regarding health plan payments under Medicare and recommendations for reform.

The failures of the market for current Medicare health plans include poor information and price distortions and can be attributed to government policy. Reforms that could improve its structure are annual open enrollment periods, premium rebates from health management organizations (HMOs) to members, and termination of the federal government's subsidy of Medicare supplementary insurance. However, the price for a basic Medicare benefits package would still be distorted because Medicare bases its contribution on the cost of a comparable package in the fee-for-service (FFS) sector rather than on the cost of the most efficient plan available to beneficiaries in each market area. The present Medicare HMO program almost certainly increases total Medicare costs and actually discourages HMO growth by shielding beneficiaries from the true price difference between basic benefits in the HMO and FFS sectors. Lacking payment reforms, the Medicare HMO program should be terminated.     

Will Choice‐Based Reform Work for Medicare? Evidence from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

OBJECTIVE:. To examine the effect of premiums and benefits on the health plan choices of older enrollees who choose Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) health plans as their primary payer. DATA SOURCES: Administrative enrollment data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and plan premiums and benefits data taken from the Checkbook Guide to health plans. STUDY DESIGN: We estimate individual plan choice models where the choice of health plan is a function of out-of-pocket premium, actuarial value, plan attributes, and individual characteristics. Plan attributes include plan structure (fee-for-service/preferred provider organization, point-of-service, or health maintenance organization), drug benefit structure, and whether or not the plan covers other types of spending such as dental services and diabetic supplies. The models are estimated by conditional logit. Our study focuses on three populations that currently choose FEHBP as their primary health care coverage and are similar to the Medicare population: current employees and retirees who are approaching the age of Medicare eligibility (ages 60-64) and current federal employees age 65+. Current employees age 65+ are eligible for Medicare, but their FEHBP plan is their primary payer. Retirees and employees 60-64 are not yet eligible for Medicare but are similar in many respects to recently age-eligible Medicare beneficiaries. We also estimate our model for current employees age 55 and younger as a comparison group. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We select a random sample of retirees and employees age 60-64, as well as all current employees age 65+, from the OPM administrative database for the calendar year 2001. The plan choices available to each person are determined by the plans participating in their metropolitan statistical area. We match plan premium and attribute information from the Checkbook Guide to each plan in the enrollee's list of choices. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that current workers 65+, 60-64, and non-Medicare eligible retirees are sensitive to variation in plan premiums. The premium elasticities for these groups are similar in magnitude to those of the age 55 and under employee group. Older workers and retirees not yet eligible for Medicare are willing to pay a substantial amount for plans with open provider networks. The willingness to pay for open networks is significantly greater for these groups than for younger employees. Willingness to pay for open network plans varies significantly by income, but varies little by age within group. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that older workers and non-Medicare eligible retirees are sensitive to plan premiums suggests that choice-based reform of Medicare would lead to cost-conscious choices by Medicare beneficiaries. However, our finding that these groups are willing to pay more for open network plans than younger employees suggest that higher risk individuals may migrate toward higher benefit, higher cost plans. Our findings on the relationship between income and willingness to pay for open network plans suggest that means testing is a viable reform for lowering Medicare program costs.     

Effect of Medicare advantage payments on dually eligible Medicare beneficiaries

This study estimates the effect of Medicare Advantage (MA) payments and State Medicaid policies on the choice by Medicaid eligible Medicare beneficiaries to either join a MA plan, remain in the fee-for-service (FFS) and enroll in Medicaid (dually enrolled), or remain in FFS Medicare without joining Medicaid. Individual plan choice was modeled using a multinomial logit. The sample includes Medicaid-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (including specified low income Medicare beneficiaries [SLMBs] and qualified Medicare beneficiaries [QMBs]) drawn from the 2000 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). We find a $10 increase in monthly MA payment reduces the probability of dual enrollment by four percentage points, and FFS Medicare enrollment by 11 percentage points.     

How Successful Is Medicare Advantage?

Context

Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage (MA), now almost 30 years old, has generally been viewed as a policy disappointment. Enrollment has vacillated but has never come close to the penetration of managed care plans in the commercial insurance market or in Medicaid, and because of payment policy decisions and selection, the MA program is viewed as having added to cost rather than saving funds for the Medicare program. Recent changes in Medicare policy, including improved risk adjustment, however, may have changed this picture.

Methods

This article summarizes findings from our group''s work evaluating MA''s recent performance and investigating payment options for improving its performance even more. We studied the behavior of both beneficiaries and plans, as well as the effects of Medicare policy.

Findings

Beneficiaries make “mistakes” in their choice of MA plan options that can be explained by behavioral economics. Few beneficiaries make an active choice after they enroll in Medicare. The high prevalence of “zero-premium” plans signals inefficiency in plan design and in the market''s functioning. That is, Medicare premium policies interfere with economically efficient choices. The adverse selection problem, in which healthier, lower-cost beneficiaries tend to join MA, appears much diminished. The available measures, while limited, suggest that, on average, MA plans offer care of equal or higher quality and for less cost than traditional Medicare (TM). In counties, greater MA penetration appears to improve TM''s performance.

Conclusions

Medicare policies regarding lock-in provisions and risk adjustment that were adopted in the mid-2000s have mitigated the adverse selection problem previously plaguing MA. On average, MA plans appear to offer higher value than TM, and positive spillovers from MA into TM imply that reimbursement should not necessarily be neutral. Policy changes in Medicare that reform the way that beneficiaries are charged for MA plan membership are warranted to move more beneficiaries into MA.     

Medicare HMO marketing and information: keeping the focus on what consumers need

Across the country, Medicare beneficiaries face complicated choices about health insurance and HMOs, but too often they lack the information they need to make good decisions. Instead, they rely on marketing information that is frequently inadequate, sometimes downright misleading. This issue of States of Health looks at efforts to improve the ways that HMOs market their Medicare plans and assesses whether "choice" really benefits beneficiaries.     

Do Medicare Advantage plans select enrollees in higher margin clinical categories?

The CMS-HCC risk adjustment system for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans calculates weights, which are effectively relative prices, for beneficiaries with different observable characteristics. To do so it uses the relative amounts spent per beneficiary with those characteristics in Traditional Medicare (TM). For multiple reasons one might expect relative amounts in MA to differ from TM, thereby making some beneficiaries more profitable to treat than others. Much of the difference comes from differences in how TM and MA treat different diseases or diagnoses. Using data on actual medical spending from two MA-HMO plans, we show that the weights calculated from MA costs do indeed differ from those calculated using TM spending. One of the two plans (Plan 1) is more typical of MA-HMO plans in that it contracts with independent community providers, while the other (Plan 2) is vertically integrated with care delivery. We calculate margins, or average revenue/average cost, for Medicare beneficiaries in the two plans who have one of 48 different combinations of medical conditions. The two plans’ margins for these 48 conditions are correlated (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Both plans have margins that are more positive for persons with conditions that are managed by primary care physicians and where medical management can be effective. Conversely they have lower margins for persons with conditions that tend to be treated by specialists with greater market power than primary care physicians and for acute conditions where little medical management is possible. The two plan's margins among beneficiaries with different observable characteristics vary over a range of 160 and 98 percentage points, respectively, and thus would appear to offer substantial incentive for selection by HCC. Nonetheless, we find no evidence of overrepresentation of beneficiaries in high margin HCC's in either plan. Nor, using the margins from Plan 1, the more typical plan, do we find evidence of overrepresentation of high margin HCC's in Medicare more generally. These results do not permit a conclusion on overall social efficiency, but we note that selection according to margin could be socially efficient. In addition, our findings suggest there are omitted interaction terms in the risk adjustment model that Medicare currently uses.     

Trends in Medicare health maintenance organization enrollment: 1986-93

This study examines Medicare health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollment under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 (Public Law 97-248) from 1986 to 1993. It shows that there was moderate growth in the number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the TEFRA risk program, reaching 1 in 20 beneficiaries in 1993. Medicare HMO enrollment is heavily concentrated in a few large plans, resulting in heavy concentrations geographically. California and Florida accounted for over one-third of Medicare HMO enrollees. One-half of the States have no Medicare HMO enrollment and one-fifth of the States have fewer than 15,000 Medicare HMO enrollees.