Prevalence of use and characteristics of users of home‐based medical care in Medicare Advantage. Issue 2 (12th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Leff, Bruce; Ritchie, Christine; Ciemins, Elizabeth; Dunning, Stephan
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. Volume 71:Issue 2(2023)
• Page Start: 455
• Page End: 462
• Publication Date: 2022-10-12
• Subjects: home‐based medical care -- home‐based primary care -- managed care -- Medicare Advantage; Geriatrics -- Periodicals; 618.97
• DOI: 10.1111/jgs.18085
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0002-8614

Abstract

Abstract: Background/Objectives: Home‐based medical care (HBMC) is longitudinal medical care provided by physicians, advanced practice providers, and, often, inter‐professional care teams to patients in their homes. Our objective is to determine the prevalence of HBMC among older adults (≥65) insured by a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan and compare characteristics of those who receive HBMC to those who do not. Methods: Study used de‐identified medical claims and enrollment records for MA beneficiaries during calendar years 2017 and 2018 linked with socioeconomic status data in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. We defined a cohort of MA beneficiaries age ≥65 receiving HBMC for at least 2 months during 2017–2018, described the cohort using demographic, utilization, and comorbidity data and compared it to a 5% random sample of a population of MA beneficiaries age ≥65 not receiving HBMC (No HBMC). Results: Overall, 1.45% of the study cohort age ≥65 received HBMC. Compared to No HBMC ( n = 132, 147), those receiving HBMC ( n = 38, 800) were more likely to be: older (46.6% vs. 11.9% age 85+); female (70.8% vs. 58.5%); Black (12.3% vs. 11.3%); urban (90.3% vs. 81.3%); experience hospitalization (38.0% vs. 13.3%), emergency department visit (58.3% vs. 26.9%), ambulance trip (44.1% vs. 9.6%), skilled nursing facility (37.6% vs. 6.4%), or hospice care admission (21.1% vs. 3.5%). They also were more likely to experience a wide range of chronic conditions including dementia (58.1% vs. 5.2%), morbidity burden (Charlson score 3.4 vs. 1.8), and serious illness (77.1% vs. 29.5%). All comparisons p < 0.0001. Conclusions: MA beneficiaries who received HBMC are older, experience greater chronic and serious illness burden, and higher levels of facility‐based care than those who did not receive HBMC. MA plans need strategies to identify patients that would benefit from HBMC and develop approaches to deliver such care to this impactful, often invisible population.