Offiaeli Kendra, Meyers David J, Macneal Eliza, Johnston Kenton J, Brown-Podgorski Brittany, Roberts Eric T
Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Apr 1;8(4):e255791. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5791.
A growing proportion of full-benefit dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (ie, individuals receiving Medicare and full Medicaid) are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA). MA plans vary in capacity and incentives to coordinate Medicare and Medicaid services, but little is known about the characteristics of dual-eligible beneficiaries across plan types.
To compare the health and demographic characteristics of full-benefit dual-eligible beneficiaries across 4 MA plan types varying in Medicare-Medicaid service coordination and spending requirements.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study analyzed Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) data from 2017 to 2019, including 147 923 full-benefit dual-eligible beneficiaries (mean response rate, 29%) enrolled in MA in January of the survey year. Analyses were conducted from January 2024 to January 2025.
Enrollment in different MA plans.
This study examined beneficiary characteristics and enrollment across 4 MA plan types: standard MA plans serving dual and nondual beneficiaries; coordination-only dual-eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) with Medicaid contracts and care coordination requirements serving dual-eligibles; D-SNP look-alikes, marketed to dual-eligible beneficiaries but exempt from D-SNP regulations; and fully integrated D-SNPs (FIDE-SNPs), which integrate Medicare and Medicaid services and spending. Beneficiary characteristics included demographics, self-reported comorbidities, functional status, living arrangements, and community-level factors, like the Area Deprivation Index (ADI).
The study included 147 923 dual-eligible beneficiaries with full Medicaid (mean (SD) age, 67.7 [13.9] years; 93 803 [63.4%] female), distributed across FIDE-SNPs (25 755 beneficiaries), coordination-only D-SNPs (65 220 beneficiaries), D-SNP look-alike plans (5193 beneficiaries), and standard MA plans (51 755 beneficiaries). Overall, 14 215 respondents (9.6%) were aged 85 years or older, and 9618 respondents (6.5%) lived with a caregiver. Respondents had a mean (SD) of 4.2 (2.7) comorbidities and 2.3 (2.8) difficulties with activities of daily living (measured on a 0-12 scale). FIDE-SNPs enrolled more beneficiaries aged 85 years or older (eg, FIDE-SNP: 59.0% [95% CI, 58.0%-59.9%]; coordination-only D-SNP: 16.1% [95% CI, 15.3%-16.8%]), living with a caregiver (eg, FIDE-SNP: 56.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-58.0%]; coordination-only SNP: 15.3% [95% CI, 14.3%-16.2%]), and FIDE-SNP beneficiaries had more comorbidities (mean [SD], FIDE-SNP: 4.6 [2.7]; coordination-only SNP: 4.1 [2.7]) and higher scores of difficulties with activities of daily living (mean [SD], FIDE-SNP: 3.1 [3.1]; coordination-only SNP: 2.1 [2.6]) vs beneficiaries with other plan types. In counties offering FIDE-SNPs, 38.4% (95% CI, 37.5%-39.3%) of individuals in areas with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantage were enrolled in coordination-only D-SNPs and 41.3% (95% CI, 40.2-42.4) were enrolled in FIDE-SNPs. In areas with the least socioeconomic disadvantage, 32.0% (95% CI, 31.3%-32.8%) of respondents were enrolled in coordination-only D-SNPs and 43.2% (95% CI, 42.4%-43.9%) respondents were enrolled in FIDE-SNPs. Most differences remained in multivariate analyses.
In this cross-sectional study of full-benefit dual-eligible beneficiaries, substantial health burdens were reported, with notable differences across plan types. These findings highlight the need for tailored interventions to improve care and further research to understand MA plan selection in this population.
享受全额福利的双重资格医疗保险和医疗补助受益人(即同时享受医疗保险和全额医疗补助的个人)中,加入医疗保险优势(MA)计划的比例越来越高。MA计划在协调医疗保险和医疗补助服务的能力及激励措施方面存在差异,但对于不同计划类型下双重资格受益人的特征了解甚少。
比较4种MA计划类型中享受全额福利的双重资格受益人的健康和人口统计学特征,这4种计划在医疗保险 - 医疗补助服务协调和支出要求方面各不相同。
设计、设置和参与者:这项横断面研究分析了2017年至2019年医疗保险健康结果调查(HOS)的数据,包括在调查年份1月加入MA的147923名享受全额福利的双重资格受益人(平均回复率为29%)。分析于2024年1月至2025年1月进行。
加入不同的MA计划。
本研究考察了4种MA计划类型下受益人的特征和参保情况:为双重资格和非双重资格受益人服务的标准MA计划;仅提供协调服务的双重资格特殊需求计划(D - SNP),这类计划有医疗补助合同且有针对双重资格受益人的护理协调要求;类似D - SNP的计划,面向双重资格受益人进行营销,但不受D - SNP法规约束;以及完全整合的D - SNP(FIDE - SNP),这类计划整合了医疗保险和医疗补助服务及支出。受益人特征包括人口统计学信息、自我报告所患的合并症、功能状态、居住安排以及社区层面的因素,如地区贫困指数(ADI)。
该研究纳入了147923名享受全额医疗补助的双重资格受益人(平均(标准差)年龄为67.7[13.9]岁;93803名[63.4%]为女性),分布在FIDE - SNP(25755名受益人)、仅提供协调服务的D - SNP(65220名受益人)、类似D - SNP的计划(5193名受益人)和标准MA计划(51755名受益人)中。总体而言,14215名受访者(9.6%)年龄在85岁及以上,9618名受访者(6.5%)与护理人员同住。受访者平均(标准差)患有4.2(2.7)种合并症,日常生活活动困难评分为2.3(2.8)(评分范围为0 - 12分)。与其他计划类型的受益人相比,FIDE - SNP纳入了更多年龄在85岁及以上的受益人(例如,FIDE - SNP:59.0%[95%置信区间,58.0% - 59.9%];仅提供协调服务的D - SNP:16.1%[95%置信区间,15.3% - 16.8%])、与护理人员同住的受益人(例如,FIDE - SNP:56.6%[95%置信区间,55.3% - 58.0%];仅提供协调服务的SNP:15.3%[95%置信区间,14.3% - 16.2%]),且FIDE - SNP受益人的合并症更多(平均[标准差],FIDE - SNP:4.6[2.7];仅提供协调服务的SNP:4.1[2.7]),日常生活活动困难评分更高(平均[标准差],FIDE - SNP:3.1[3.1];仅提供协调服务的SNP:2.1[2.6])。在提供FIDE - SNP的县,社会经济劣势最大地区的38.4%(95 %置信区间,37.5% - 39.3%)的个人加入了仅提供协调服务的D - SNP,41.3%(95%置信区间,40.2 - 42.4)的个人加入了FIDE - SNP。在社会经济劣势最小的地区,32.0%(95%置信区间,31.3% - 32.8%)的受访者加入了仅提供协调服务的D - SNP,43.2%(95%置信区间,42.4% - 43.9%)的受访者加入了FIDE - SNP。大多数差异在多变量分析中仍然存在。
在这项针对享受全额福利的双重资格受益人的横断面研究中,报告了沉重的健康负担,不同计划类型之间存在显著差异。这些发现凸显了需要采取针对性干预措施来改善护理,并进一步开展研究以了解该人群中MA计划的选择情况。