{"title":"按计划选择的医疗保险当前受益人调查的受访者中使用家庭医疗保健的医疗保险参保人的百分比和访问次数。","authors":"Tami M Videon, Robert J Rosati","doi":"10.1177/10775587251318404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using beneficiary reports of health care utilization from the 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Cost Supplement, we compare the prevalence of home-based care and number of visits among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older, by plan option, excluding dual-eligible beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries were significantly more likely to receive home-based medical visits (10.4% vs. 8.0%) with greater differences observed in vulnerable subgroups. While average number of visits were comparable for TM (35.6) and Medicare Advantage (MA) (34.9) beneficiaries, the distribution of the number of visits varied by plan option. Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were 4.5 times more likely to receive a single home-based medical visit (17.5% vs. 3.9%) and roughly 1.5 times more likely to have the fewest (two to four visits; 12.2% vs. 8.0%) and greatest number of home visits (90+ visits; 11.1% vs. 7.7%). Access to, and number of, home-based medical care differs significantly by plan option.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"252-259"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percent of Medicare Enrollees Who Use Home-Based Health Care and Number of Visits Among Respondents to the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey by Plan Option.\",\"authors\":\"Tami M Videon, Robert J Rosati\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10775587251318404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Using beneficiary reports of health care utilization from the 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Cost Supplement, we compare the prevalence of home-based care and number of visits among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older, by plan option, excluding dual-eligible beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries were significantly more likely to receive home-based medical visits (10.4% vs. 8.0%) with greater differences observed in vulnerable subgroups. While average number of visits were comparable for TM (35.6) and Medicare Advantage (MA) (34.9) beneficiaries, the distribution of the number of visits varied by plan option. Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were 4.5 times more likely to receive a single home-based medical visit (17.5% vs. 3.9%) and roughly 1.5 times more likely to have the fewest (two to four visits; 12.2% vs. 8.0%) and greatest number of home visits (90+ visits; 11.1% vs. 7.7%). Access to, and number of, home-based medical care differs significantly by plan option.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Care Research and Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"252-259\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Care Research and Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587251318404\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care Research and Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587251318404","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
使用2019年医疗保险当前受益人调查成本补充中的医疗保健利用受益人报告,我们比较了65岁及以上医疗保险受益人中家庭护理的流行程度和就诊次数,按计划选择,不包括双重资格受益人。传统医疗保险(TM)受益人更有可能接受基于家庭的医疗访问(10.4%对8.0%),在弱势亚组中观察到更大的差异。虽然TM(35.6次)和MA(34.9次)受益人的平均就诊次数相当,但就诊次数的分布因计划选择而异。与TM受益人相比,MA受益人接受单次家庭医疗访问的可能性是其4.5倍(17.5% vs. 3.9%),而接受最少访问(2至4次)的可能性大约是其1.5倍;12.2% vs. 8.0%)和最多的家访次数(90次以上;11.1% vs. 7.7%)。获得家庭医疗服务的机会和数量因计划选择而有很大差异。
Percent of Medicare Enrollees Who Use Home-Based Health Care and Number of Visits Among Respondents to the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey by Plan Option.
Using beneficiary reports of health care utilization from the 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Cost Supplement, we compare the prevalence of home-based care and number of visits among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older, by plan option, excluding dual-eligible beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries were significantly more likely to receive home-based medical visits (10.4% vs. 8.0%) with greater differences observed in vulnerable subgroups. While average number of visits were comparable for TM (35.6) and Medicare Advantage (MA) (34.9) beneficiaries, the distribution of the number of visits varied by plan option. Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were 4.5 times more likely to receive a single home-based medical visit (17.5% vs. 3.9%) and roughly 1.5 times more likely to have the fewest (two to four visits; 12.2% vs. 8.0%) and greatest number of home visits (90+ visits; 11.1% vs. 7.7%). Access to, and number of, home-based medical care differs significantly by plan option.
期刊介绍:
Medical Care Research and Review (MCRR) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal containing critical reviews of literature on organizational structure, economics, and the financing of health and medical care systems. MCRR also includes original empirical and theoretical research and trends to enable policy makers to make informed decisions, as well as to identify health care trends. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 25 days