Search

Abstract Background While the traditional Medicare program imposes a deductible for hospital admissions, many Medicare Advantage plans have instituted per-diem copayments for hospital care. Little evidence exists about the effects of changes in cost-sharing for hospital care among the elderly. Changing inpatient benefits from a deductible to a per diem may benefit enrollees with shorter lengths of stay, but adversely affect the out-of-pocket burden for hospitalized enrollees with longer lengths of stay. Methods We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study to compare longitudinal changes in proportion hospitalized, inpatient admissions and days per 100 enrollees, and hospital length of stay between enrollees in MA plans that changed inpatient benefit from deductible at admission to per diem, intervention plans, and enrollees in matched control plans – similar plans that maintained inpatient deductibles. The study population included 423,634 unique beneficiaries enrolled in 23 intervention plans and 36 matched control plans in the 2007–2010 period. Results The imposition of per-diem copayments were associated with adjusted declines of 1.3 admissions/100 enrollees (95% CI − 1.8 to − 0.9), 6.9 inpatient days/100 enrollees (95% CI − 10.1 to − 3.8) and 0.7 percentage points in the probability of hospital admission (95% CI − 1.0 to − 0.4), with no significant change in adjusted length of stay in intervention plans relative to control plans. For persons with 2 or more hospitalizations in the year prior to the cost-sharing change, adjusted declines were 3.5 admissions/100 (95% CI − 8.4 to 1.4), 31.1 days/100 (95% CI − 75.2 to 13.0) and 2.2 percentage points in the probability of hospitalization (95% CI − 3.8 to − 0.6) in intervention plans relative to control plans. Conclusions Instituting per-diem copayments was associated with reductions in number of admissions and hospital stays, but not length of stay once admitted. Effects of inpatient cost-sharing changes were magnified for persons with greater baseline use of hospital care.

Abstract Background The initial days of a Medicare-covered skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay may have no cost-sharing or daily copayments depending on beneficiaries’ enrollment in traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage. Some policymakers have advocated imposing first-dollar cost-sharing to reduce post-acute expenditures. We examined the relationship between first-dollar cost-sharing for a SNF stay and use of inpatient and SNF services. Methods We identified seven Medicare Advantage plans that introduced daily SNF copayments of $25-$150 in 2009 or 2010. Copays began on the first day of a SNF admission. We matched these plans to seven matched control plans that did not introduce first-dollar cost-sharing. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in SNF and inpatient utilization for the 172,958 members of intervention and control plans. Results In intervention plans the mean annual number of SNF days per 100 continuously enrolled inpatients decreased from 768.3 to 750.6 days when cost-sharing changes took effect. Control plans experienced a concurrent increase: 721.7 to 808.1 SNF days per 100 inpatients (adjusted difference-in-differences: −87.0 days [95% CI (−112.1,-61.9)]). In intervention plans, we observed no significant changes in the probability of any SNF service use or the number of inpatient days per hospitalized member relative to concurrent trends among control plans. Conclusions Among several strategies Medicare Advantage plans can employ to moderate SNF use, first-dollar SNF cost-sharing may be one influential factor. Trial registration Not applicable.

Background: The initial days of a Medicare-covered skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay may have no cost-sharing or daily copayments depending on beneficiaries' enrollment in traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage. Some policymakers have advocated imposing first-dollar cost-sharing to reduce post-acute expenditures. We examined the relationship between first-dollar cost-sharing for a SNF stay and use of inpatient and SNF services.Methods: We identified seven Medicare Advantage plans that introduced daily SNF copayments of $25-$150 in 2009 or 2010. Copays began on the first day of a SNF admission. We matched these plans to seven matched control plans that did not introduce first-dollar cost-sharing. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in SNF and inpatient utilization for the 172,958 members of intervention and control plans.Results: In intervention plans the mean annual number of SNF days per 100 continuously enrolled inpatients decreased from 768.3 to 750.6 days when cost-sharing changes took effect. Control plans experienced a concurrent increase: 721.7 to 808.1 SNF days per 100 inpatients (adjusted difference-in-differences: -87.0 days [95% CI (-112.1,-61.9)]). In intervention plans, we observed no significant changes in the probability of any SNF service use or the number of inpatient days per hospitalized member relative to concurrent trends among control plans.Conclusions: Among several strategies Medicare Advantage plans can employ to moderate SNF use, first-dollar SNF cost-sharing may be one influential factor.Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]