Trends in Use of Low-Value Care in Traditional Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare Advantage

被引:31
|
作者
Park, Sungchul [1 ]
Jung, Jeah [2 ]
Burke, Robert E. [3 ,4 ]
Larson, Eric B. [5 ]
机构
[1] Drexel Univ, Dornsife Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Management & Policy, 3215 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Penn State Univ, Coll Hlth & Human Dev, Dept Hlth Policy & Adm, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[3] Corporal Michael J Crescenz VA Med Ctr, Ctr Hlth Equ Res & Promot, Philadelphia, PA USA
[4] Univ Penn, Dept Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Kaiser Permanente, Washington Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1762
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
This cross-sectional study compares use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in traditional Medicare and those enrolled in Medicare Advantage and examines trends in use from 2006 to 2015. Question Were there differences in use of low-value care between individuals enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM) and those enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) from 2006 to 2015? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, there were no significant differences between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA in most measures of use of low-value care. There was no significant decrease in most measures of use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM or MA over time. Meaning Use of low-value care is prevalent in TM and MA, suggesting that managed care enrollment is not associated with decreased use of low-value care. Importance Decreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care. Objectives To compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021. Exposures Being enrolled in MA or TM. Main Outcomes and Measures Binary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite). Results Among 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time. Conclusions and Relevance This cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Differences in Hospitalizations Between Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries
    Ndumele, Chima D.
    Elliott, Marc N.
    Haviland, Amelia M.
    Burkhart, Q.
    Orr, Nate
    Gaillot, Sarah
    Cleary, Paul D.
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 2019, 57 (01) : 8 - 12
  • [22] Comparing Post-Acute Care Services and Impact on Frailty between Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-service Medicare
    Shi, S.
    Oh, G.
    Olivieri-Mui, B.
    Park, C.
    Sison, S. M.
    Mccarthy, E.
    Kim, D. H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2024, 72 : S164 - S165
  • [23] Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Medicare Advantage vs Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure
    Figueroa, Jose F.
    Wadhera, Rishi K.
    Frakt, Austin B.
    Fonarow, Gregg C.
    Heidenreich, Paul A.
    Xu, Haolin
    Lytle, Barbara
    DeVore, Adam D.
    Matsouaka, Roland
    Yancy, Clyde W.
    Bhatt, Deepak L.
    Maddox, Karen E. Joynt
    [J]. JAMA CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 5 (12) : 1349 - 1357
  • [24] Cancer care service use intensity in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare
    Mitchell, Aaron Philip
    Kalidindi, Yamini
    Feldman, Roger
    Carlin, Caroline
    Song, Ge
    Jung, Jeah
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 42 (16)
  • [25] Diabetes Care among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage vs. Traditional Medicare Fee-for-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry
    Essien, Utibe
    Tang, Yuanyuan
    Litam, Terrence
    Patel, Ravi
    Wadhera, Rishi K.
    Desai, Nihar
    Mehta, Sanjeev N.
    Kosiborod, Mikhail N.
    Vaduganathan, Muthiah
    [J]. DIABETES, 2021, 70
  • [26] Primary Care Spending in the Fee-for-Service Medicare Population
    Reid, Rachel
    Damberg, Cheryl
    Friedberg, Mark W.
    [J]. JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 179 (07) : 977 - 980
  • [27] Cognitive Assessment At Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit In Fee-For-Service And Medicare Advantage Plans
    Jacobson, Mireille
    Thunell, Johanna
    Zissimopoulos, Julie
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2020, 39 (11) : 1935 - 1942
  • [28] Managed Care and the Diffusion of Endoscopy in Fee-for-Service Medicare
    Mobley, Lee Rivers
    Subramanian, Sujha
    Koschinsky, Julia
    Frech, H. E.
    Trantham, Laurel Clayton
    Anselin, Luc
    [J]. HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (06) : 1905 - 1927
  • [29] AMERICANS COMPARE MANAGED CARE, MEDICARE, AND FEE-FOR-SERVICE
    BLENDON, RJ
    KNOX, RA
    BRODIE, M
    BENSON, JM
    CHERVINSKY, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HEALTH POLICY, 1994, 4 (03): : 42 - 47
  • [30] COMPARING UTILIZATION, COST AND QUALITY IN DUAL ELIGIBLE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AND FEE-FOR-SERVICE MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES
    Teigland, C.
    Pulungan, Z.
    Sutton, B. S.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S258 - S258