Department of Health Policy and Management, College of Health Science, Korea University BK21 FOUR R&E Center for Learning Health Systems, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2023 Jun;58(3):560-568. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14101. Epub 2022 Nov 21.
To understand differences in financial performance, quality performance, supplemental benefits provision, and enrollee composition between integrated and non-integrated plans in the Medicare Advantage (MA) program.
We used data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for 2015-2017. We included 156 integrated MA plans (31 unique contracts) and 2096 non-integrated MA plans (392 unique contracts).
We estimated linear probably models for financial performance, quality performance, supplemental benefits provision, and enrollee composition with state fixed effects and contract random effects. We adjusted for county-level market structure-related factors, cost-related factors, and demand-related factors. Our primary independent variable was an indicator of plan-provider integration.
Integrated MA plans were associated with $19.4 (95% CI: 9.2, 29.7) and $16.6 (95% CI: 10.3, 22.9) higher Part C and Part D monthly premiums, but were associated with higher star quality ratings. There were no significant differences in revenues and plan payments per enrollee between integrated and non-integrated MA plans. Integrated MA plans were associated with $40.5 (95% CI: -54.0, -26.9) lower non-claims costs than non-integrated MA plans. There was limited evidence that integrated MA plans provided more generous supplemental benefits than non-integrated MA plans. Enrollment rates in integrated MA plans were particularly low among socially marginalized groups (3.4 [95% CI: -5.9, -1.0], 4.7 [95% CI: -8.5, -0.9], and 4.4 [95% CI: -6.4, -2.4] percentage points lower among non-Hispanic Black, Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible, and the disabled).
Our findings suggest that integrated MA plans may achieve higher efficiency and quality, but these benefits may not be experienced by all beneficiaries due to disparities in enrollment. As these models continue to spread, it is critical to develop policies to ensure that MA enrollees have equal access to integrated plans.
了解医疗保险优势计划(MA)中整合计划与非整合计划在财务绩效、质量绩效、补充福利提供和参保人构成方面的差异。
我们使用了 2015-2017 年医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的数据。我们纳入了 156 个整合型 MA 计划(31 个独特合同)和 2096 个非整合型 MA 计划(392 个独特合同)。
我们使用州固定效应和合同随机效应,对财务绩效、质量绩效、补充福利提供和参保人构成进行线性概率模型估计。我们调整了县级市场结构相关因素、成本相关因素和需求相关因素。我们的主要自变量是计划-提供者整合的指标。
整合型 MA 计划的 C 部分和 D 部分每月保费分别高出 19.4 美元(95%置信区间:9.2,29.7)和 16.6 美元(95%置信区间:10.3,22.9),但星级质量评分较高。整合型 MA 计划与非整合型 MA 计划的收入和每位参保人计划支付之间没有显著差异。整合型 MA 计划的非索赔成本比非整合型 MA 计划低 40.5 美元(95%置信区间:-54.0,-26.9)。有有限的证据表明,整合型 MA 计划提供的补充福利比非整合型 MA 计划更为慷慨。在社会边缘群体中,整合型 MA 计划的参保率特别低(非西班牙裔黑人低 3.4 个百分点[95%置信区间:-5.9,-1.0],医疗保险-医疗补助双重资格者低 4.7 个百分点[95%置信区间:-8.5,-0.9],残疾者低 4.4 个百分点[95%置信区间:-6.4,-2.4])。
我们的研究结果表明,整合型 MA 计划可能实现更高的效率和质量,但由于参保人群存在差异,这些好处可能并非所有受益人均能享受到。随着这些模式的持续推广,制定政策确保 MA 参保人平等获得整合计划至关重要。