Amelia M Haviland, Megan Mathews, Steven C. Martino, Yvette Overton, Jacob W Dembosky, Jessica Maksut, Marc N. Elliott
{"title":"比较双合格特殊需求计划与其他双合格人群保险类型的 HEDIS 业绩","authors":"Amelia M Haviland, Megan Mathews, Steven C. Martino, Yvette Overton, Jacob W Dembosky, Jessica Maksut, Marc N. Elliott","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage (“dually eligible individuals”) have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their three most common Medicare coverage options are: Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans(D-SNP), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these three coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on six HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files).\n D-SNP and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all six measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for two measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other four measures. For the four measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNP than in non-D-SNP MA plans.","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing HEDIS Performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans to Other Coverage Types for Dually Eligible People\",\"authors\":\"Amelia M Haviland, Megan Mathews, Steven C. Martino, Yvette Overton, Jacob W Dembosky, Jessica Maksut, Marc N. Elliott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/haschl/qxae036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage (“dually eligible individuals”) have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their three most common Medicare coverage options are: Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans(D-SNP), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these three coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on six HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files).\\n D-SNP and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all six measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for two measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other four measures. For the four measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNP than in non-D-SNP MA plans.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing HEDIS Performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans to Other Coverage Types for Dually Eligible People
People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage (“dually eligible individuals”) have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their three most common Medicare coverage options are: Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans(D-SNP), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these three coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on six HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files).
D-SNP and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all six measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for two measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other four measures. For the four measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNP than in non-D-SNP MA plans.