Ever since the introduction of Medicare Advantage plans and their predecessors, certain idealogues have tried to undermine and discredit the program. And while MA may cost more for a beneficiary than the fee-for-service program would spend, the beneficiary typically gets better benefits and according to most research, better quality and coordination of care. (HA Article) In a new study the authors looked at care between 2003 and 2009 for matched beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and in the fee-for-service program. The primary measures were HEDIS data and CAHPS surveys of satisfaction. Even without accounting for spillover effects from Medicare Advantage to the fee-for-service population, MA plans shows a pretty wide gap in performance on several measures. Mammography rates were 13.5% higher; HbA1c testing for diabetic patients was 8.6% higher, eye exams for patients with diabetes were 17.1% greater, and cholesterol testing was 7% to 9% higher. Rates of flu and pneumonia vaccinations were similar. Ratings of physicians in the satisfaction surveys were basically the same, with a slight edge for MA for primary care physicians. Non-profit, larger and longer operating health plans showed the greatest gap in quality performance versus the fee-for-service program. The study used mostly process of care measures, not actual health outcomes, but it strongly suggests that fears that MA plans would be incented to skimp on care are unfounded and that it is the uncoordinated, unmanaged fee-for-service program that is delivering more sub-optimal care.
Medicare Advantage Quality
By Kevin RocheJuly 31, 2013Commentary
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at [email protected].
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
This is an outstanding report on total global drug spending and trends, with projections out to 2025. It helps you understand this important area of health care, which does much...
June 1, 2021
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Another example of over-priced companies trying to find some way to survive in the post-epidemic financial world. Transcarent, which does something, somehow to “access high quality, affordable care” is buying...
March 6, 2023
In an attempt to swiftly revive two floundering health care companies, a PE firm has announced the merger and recapitalization of Revive Health and SwiftMD. You know they are...
January 30, 2023
Investors have not yet learned their lesson, as Pearl Health gathers a new round of $75 million in capital for its business of supporting physicians who want to participate in...
January 30, 2023
Access ACO Care Management Chronic Disease Comparative Effectiveness Consumer Directed Health Consumers Devices Disease Management Drugs EHRs Elder Care End-of-Life Care FDA Financings Genomics Government Health Care Costs Health Care Quality Health Care Reform Health Insurance Health Insurance Exchange HIT HomeCare Hospital Hospital Readmissions Legislation M&A Malpractice Meaningful Use Medicaid Medical Care Medicare Medicare Advantage Mobile Pay For Performance Pharmaceutical Physicians Providers Regulation Repealing Reform Telehealth Telemedicine Wellness and Prevention Workplace
March 27, 2023
Why You Can’t Trust People Who Make Up Stuff About Vax Safety
A couple of studies offer a far better explanation for heart issues in athletes and…
March 25, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 201
Tired of March Madness? A boringly refreshing dip into some CV-19 research summaries is recommended.
March 24, 2023
The CDC Is a Font of Methodological and Statistical Error
Several times in the last three years I and others have pointed out serious flaws…