Favorable Selection of Veterans in Medicare Advantage: Risk-Adjusted Cost Differences of Dual Veteran Health Administration Enrollees.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Allison Dorneo, Steven D Pizer, Melissa M Garrido, Paul R Shafer, Austin B Frakt, Yevgeniy Feyman
{"title":"Favorable Selection of Veterans in Medicare Advantage: Risk-Adjusted Cost Differences of Dual Veteran Health Administration Enrollees.","authors":"Allison Dorneo, Steven D Pizer, Melissa M Garrido, Paul R Shafer, Austin B Frakt, Yevgeniy Feyman","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prior literature has shown that favorable selection of enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) that is not accounted for under the Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk adjustment model can result in significant overpayments to MA plans. Detailed data from the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Nosos risk score can measure previously undetected favorable selection in a unique cohort of patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze characteristics associated with Veteran enrollment in MA versus Traditional Medicare (TM) and quantify previously undetected favorable selection.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>Pooled, cross-sectional study using nationally representative VHA survey data and VHA administrative data, 2016-2019.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Dual VHA-Medicare enrollees.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Enrollee characteristics, risk scores, and VHA inpatient and outpatient costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with VHA-TM enrollees, VHA-MA enrollees were older [73.8 (8.5) vs. 72.2 (8.2) y; SMD=0.19], more likely to have Medicaid coverage (13.7% vs. 4.7%; SMD=0.31), less likely to use VHA care (67.4% vs. 74.3%; SMD=0.26), and more likely to be in the lowest priority group (facing VHA copays) (21.4% vs. 17.6%; SMD=0.15). However, in 2019, MA enrollees had Nosos scores that were 25.6 percentage points lower (95% CI: -35.7, -15.5) than TM enrollees, signaling a healthier population. In adjusted comparisons, MA enrollees had $453.79 lower VHA costs (95% CI: $832.30, $75.27) than TM enrollees.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MA plans enroll Veterans who are healthier and less costly than TM-enrolled Veterans. Our findings underscore plans' potential selection of enrollees based on characteristics unobservable in the HCC risk adjustment model. Policymakers may consider opportunities to adopt additional risk-adjustment factors specifically for dual VHA-MA enrollees.</p>","PeriodicalId":18364,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prior literature has shown that favorable selection of enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) that is not accounted for under the Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk adjustment model can result in significant overpayments to MA plans. Detailed data from the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Nosos risk score can measure previously undetected favorable selection in a unique cohort of patients.

Objective: To analyze characteristics associated with Veteran enrollment in MA versus Traditional Medicare (TM) and quantify previously undetected favorable selection.

Research design: Pooled, cross-sectional study using nationally representative VHA survey data and VHA administrative data, 2016-2019.

Subjects: Dual VHA-Medicare enrollees.

Measures: Enrollee characteristics, risk scores, and VHA inpatient and outpatient costs.

Results: Compared with VHA-TM enrollees, VHA-MA enrollees were older [73.8 (8.5) vs. 72.2 (8.2) y; SMD=0.19], more likely to have Medicaid coverage (13.7% vs. 4.7%; SMD=0.31), less likely to use VHA care (67.4% vs. 74.3%; SMD=0.26), and more likely to be in the lowest priority group (facing VHA copays) (21.4% vs. 17.6%; SMD=0.15). However, in 2019, MA enrollees had Nosos scores that were 25.6 percentage points lower (95% CI: -35.7, -15.5) than TM enrollees, signaling a healthier population. In adjusted comparisons, MA enrollees had $453.79 lower VHA costs (95% CI: $832.30, $75.27) than TM enrollees.

Conclusions: MA plans enroll Veterans who are healthier and less costly than TM-enrolled Veterans. Our findings underscore plans' potential selection of enrollees based on characteristics unobservable in the HCC risk adjustment model. Policymakers may consider opportunities to adopt additional risk-adjustment factors specifically for dual VHA-MA enrollees.

退伍军人在医疗保险优势中的有利选择:双重退伍军人健康管理参保者的风险调整成本差异。
背景:先前的文献表明,在分层条件类别(HCC)风险调整模型中未考虑的医疗保险优势(MA)的有利选择可能导致MA计划的显着超额支付。来自退伍军人健康管理局(VHA) Nosos风险评分的详细数据可以衡量以前未被发现的有利选择的独特队列患者。目的:分析退伍军人参加MA与传统医疗保险(TM)的相关特征,并量化以前未被发现的有利选择。研究设计:采用2016-2019年全国代表性VHA调查数据和VHA管理数据进行汇总横断面研究。受试者:双重VHA-Medicare参保者。测量:入组者特征、风险评分、VHA住院和门诊费用。结果:与VHA-TM参选者相比,VHA-MA参选者年龄更大[73.8(8.5)比72.2 (8.2);SMD=0.19],更有可能获得医疗补助(13.7% vs. 4.7%; SMD=0.31),更不可能使用VHA护理(67.4% vs. 74.3%; SMD=0.26),更有可能处于最低优先组(面对VHA共同支付)(21.4% vs. 17.6%; SMD=0.15)。然而,在2019年,MA入选者的Nosos评分比TM入选者低25.6个百分点(95% CI: -35.7, -15.5),表明人群更健康。在调整后的比较中,MA患者的VHA费用比TM患者低453.79美元(95% CI: 832.30美元,75.27美元)。结论:MA计划招募的退伍军人比tm计划招募的退伍军人更健康,费用更低。我们的研究结果强调了基于HCC风险调整模型中不可观察到的特征的计划的潜在选择。政策制定者可能会考虑采取额外的风险调整因素,特别是对于双重VHA-MA登记者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Care
Medical Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
228
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Rated as one of the top ten journals in healthcare administration, Medical Care is devoted to all aspects of the administration and delivery of healthcare. This scholarly journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers documenting the most current developments in the rapidly changing field of healthcare. This timely journal reports on the findings of original investigations into issues related to the research, planning, organization, financing, provision, and evaluation of health services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信