BACKGROUND: The Medicare Advantage (MA) program is rapidly growing. Limited evidence exists about the care experiences of MA beneficiaries with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD). Our objective was to compare care experiences for MA beneficiaries with and without ADRD. METHODS: We examined MA beneficiaries who completed the Medicare Advantage Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and used inpatient, nursing home, or home health services in the past 3 years. We classified beneficiaries with ADRD using the presence of diagnosis codes in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health records. Our key measures included overall ratings of care and health plan, and indices of receiving timely care, care coordination, receiving needed care, and customer service. We compared differences between beneficiaries with and without ADRD using regression analysis adjusting for demographic, health, and plan characteristics, and stratifying by proxy response status. RESULTS: Among beneficiaries sampled by CAHPS, 22.2% with ADRD completed the survey compared to 38.5% without ADRD. Among proxy responses, beneficiaries with ADRD were 4.2 (95% CI: 0.1-8.4) percentage points less likely to report a high score for receiving needed care, and 3.5 percentage points (95% CI: 0.2-6.9) less likely to report a high score for customer service. Among non-proxy responses, those with ADRD were 9.0 (95% CI: 5.5-12.5) percentage points less likely to report a high score for needed care, and 8.5 (95% CI: 5.4-11.5) percentage points less likely to report a high score for customer service. CONCLUSIONS: ADRD respondents to the CAHPS were more likely to be excluded from CAHPS performance measures because they did not meet eligibility requirements and rates of non-response were higher. Among responders with or without a proxy, MA enrollees with an ADRD diagnosis reported worse care experiences in receiving needed care and in customer service than those without an ADRD diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: The Medicare Advantage (MA) program is rapidly growing. Limited evidence exists about the care experiences of MA beneficiaries with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD). Our objective was to compare care experiences for MA beneficiaries with and without ADRD. METHODS: We examined MA beneficiaries who completed the Medicare Advantage Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and used inpatient, nursing home, or home health services in the past 3 years. We classified beneficiaries with ADRD using the presence of diagnosis codes in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health records. Our key measures included overall ratings of care and health plan, and indices of receiving timely care, care coordination, receiving needed care, and customer service. We compared differences between beneficiaries with and without ADRD using regression analysis adjusting for demographic, health, and plan characteristics, and stratifying by proxy response status. RESULTS: Among beneficiaries sampled by CAHPS, 22.2% with ADRD completed the survey compared to 38.5% without ADRD. Among proxy responses, beneficiaries with ADRD were 4.2 (95% CI: 0.1-8.4) percentage points less likely to report a high score for receiving needed care, and 3.5 percentage points (95% CI: 0.2-6.9) less likely to report a high score for customer service. Among non-proxy responses, those with ADRD were 9.0 (95% CI: 5.5-12.5) percentage points less likely to report a high score for needed care, and 8.5 (95% CI: 5.4-11.5) percentage points less likely to report a high score for customer service. CONCLUSIONS: ADRD respondents to the CAHPS were more likely to be excluded from CAHPS performance measures because they did not meet eligibility requirements and rates of non-response were higher. Among responders with or without a proxy, MA enrollees with an ADRD diagnosis reported worse care experiences in receiving needed care and in customer service than those without an ADRD diagnosis.
Authors: Q Burkhart; Nate Orr; Julie A Brown; Ron D Hays; Paul D Cleary; Megan K Beckett; Suzanne E Perry; Sarah Gaillot; Marc N Elliott Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Sara L Toomey; Alan M Zaslavsky; Marc N Elliott; Patricia M Gallagher; Floyd J Fowler; David J Klein; Shanna Shulman; Jessica Ratner; Caitriona McGovern; Jessica L LeBlanc; Mark A Schuster Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Brian W Powers; Jiali Yan; Jingsan Zhu; Kristin A Linn; Sachin H Jain; Jennifer Kowalski; Amol S Navathe Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Amelia M Haviland; Marc N Elliott; David J Klein; Nate Orr; Katrin Hambarsoomian; Alan M Zaslavsky Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Eric Jutkowitz; Julie P W Bynum; Susan L Mitchell; Noelle M Cocoros; Oren Shapira; Kevin Haynes; Vinit P Nair; Cheryl N McMahill-Walraven; Richard Platt; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2020-07-05
Authors: John A Graves; Leonce Nshuti; Jordan Everson; Michael Richards; Melinda Buntin; Sayeh Nikpay; Zilu Zhou; Daniel Polsky Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-12-01