OBJECTIVES: To compare home health utilization and clinical outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries in the fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) programs, and to compare regional variation. STUDY DESIGN: We used the 2010 and 2011 Outcome and Assessment Information Set to identify all home health episodes begun in 2010 and to measure 7 clinical home health outcomes that are defined by CMS for public reporting. METHODS: We modeled the probability of home health use, the duration of home health episodes, and each clinical outcome measure as a function of MA versus FFS enrollment and model-specific risk adjustors. Empirical Bayes predictions from generalized linear mixed models were aggregated by hospital referral region (HRR) to create standardized regional measures of home health utilization and mean episode duration. RESULTS: We identified 30,837,130 FFS and 10,594,658 MA beneficiaries (excluding those dually eligible for Medicaid). After adjusting for demographic and clinical patient characteristics, the odds of receiving home health among FFS enrollees were 1.83 times those of MA (95% CI, 1.82-1.84). Adjusted home health duration was 34% longer for FFS (95% CI, 32%-34%). Outcomes differences were small in magnitude and inconsistent across measures. Regional variations in use and duration were substantial for both FFS and MA enrollees. Within HRRs, correlations between FFS and MA utilization rates and between FFS and MA episode durations were 0.51 and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MA beneficiaries use less home health than their FFS counterparts, but regional factors affect utilization, independent of insurance status.
OBJECTIVES: To compare home health utilization and clinical outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries in the fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) programs, and to compare regional variation. STUDY DESIGN: We used the 2010 and 2011 Outcome and Assessment Information Set to identify all home health episodes begun in 2010 and to measure 7 clinical home health outcomes that are defined by CMS for public reporting. METHODS: We modeled the probability of home health use, the duration of home health episodes, and each clinical outcome measure as a function of MA versus FFS enrollment and model-specific risk adjustors. Empirical Bayes predictions from generalized linear mixed models were aggregated by hospital referral region (HRR) to create standardized regional measures of home health utilization and mean episode duration. RESULTS: We identified 30,837,130 FFS and 10,594,658 MA beneficiaries (excluding those dually eligible for Medicaid). After adjusting for demographic and clinical patient characteristics, the odds of receiving home health among FFS enrollees were 1.83 times those of MA (95% CI, 1.82-1.84). Adjusted home health duration was 34% longer for FFS (95% CI, 32%-34%). Outcomes differences were small in magnitude and inconsistent across measures. Regional variations in use and duration were substantial for both FFS and MA enrollees. Within HRRs, correlations between FFS and MA utilization rates and between FFS and MA episode durations were 0.51 and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MA beneficiaries use less home health than their FFS counterparts, but regional factors affect utilization, independent of insurance status.
Authors: Qijuan Li; Momotazur Rahman; Pedro Gozalo; Laura M Keohane; Marsha R Gold; Amal N Trivedi Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Kali S Thomas; Margot L Schwartz; Eric Boyd; Dolly P White; Angela B Mariotto; Michael J Barrett; Joan L Warren Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2020-05-01