Are there significant differences in the quality of care received by patients hospitalized with heart failure who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage vs fee-for-service Medicare?
In this cohort study, among 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, no significant differences were noted in the quality of care received or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in Medicare Advantage vs fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage patients had lower use of post–acute care facilities after discharge.
Unlike care in the ambulatory setting, Medicare Advantage does not appear to be associated with the quality of care that Medicare patients receive when they are hospitalized with heart failure.
Medicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.
To determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Observational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines—Heart Failure registry.
Medicare Advantage enrollment.
Main Outcomes and Measures
In-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.
Of 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).
Conclusions and Relevance
Among patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post–acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.
Figueroa JF, Wadhera RK, Frakt AB, et al. Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Medicare Advantage vs Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure. JAMA Cardiol. Published online September 02, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3638
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: