Park Sungchul, Meyers David J, Park Yubin, Trivedi Amal N
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 Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2025 Jun;60(3):e14393. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14393. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
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.
We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States.
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.
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.
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.
研究农村和城市地区传统医疗保险(TM)受益人与医疗保险优势计划(MA)受益人在获得医疗服务和经济负担方面的差异,然后探讨城乡MA福利是否存在潜在差异。
我们在美国医疗保险环境中进行了一项横断面研究。
2017 - 2021年来自三个不同来源的数据:医疗保险当前受益人调查、MA格局数据和计划福利包数据。我们的样本包括43343个医疗保险受益人年,涵盖城乡地区的TM和MA受益人。
我们的调整分析表明,与农村TM(9.5% [8.8 - 10.2])、城市MA(7.9% [7.4 - 8.4])和城市TM(7.9% [7.5 - 8.2])受益人相比,农村MA受益人因费用导致延迟就医的比例更高(10.0% [95%置信区间(CI):8.8 - 11.1])。同样,与农村TM(9.4% [8.7 - 10.1])、城市MA(8.1% [7.7 - 8.6])和城市TM(7.8% [7.5 - 8.2])受益人相比,农村MA受益人(11.4% [95% CI:10.3 - 12.5])报告支付医疗账单困难更大。这种差异与农村MA计划中不太慷慨的财务结构有关。与城市MA计划相比,农村MA计划对网络内医疗的自付费用上限更低(5918美元对5439美元),但共付额更高(5天住院为1686美元对1724美元,专科就诊为37美元对41美元,心理健康就诊为35美元对38美元)。然而,医疗质量和补充福利提供方面的差异较小。
农村医疗保险受益人报告的医疗经济负担比城市医疗保险受益人更大,但农村地区MA受益人的负担最为显著。一个可能的机制可能是农村MA计划提供的财务结构不太慷慨。这些发现表明需要制定政策来解决农村MA受益人医疗费用可承受性的问题。