Health Care Utilization and Equity in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare
Résumé fourni par la source
Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans use health care utilization management and other approaches that may be associated with different utilization patterns among beneficiaries from different racial and ethnic groups compared with traditional Medicare (TM). Objective: To measure the MA-TM utilization gap across racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older continuously enrolled in MA and a 20% random sample of TM beneficiaries during 2021. TM beneficiaries were matched to MA beneficiaries by geographic location, age, and sex separately for Black, Hispanic, and White beneficiaries. Data analysis was conducted between August 2025 and January 2026. Exposure: MA vs TM enrollment. Main Outcome and Measures: Utilization rates per 1000 beneficiaries for 3 discretionary procedures (hip, knee replacement, and back surgery), 3 less discretionary cardiac procedures (cardiac catheterizations, percutaneous coronary interventions, and coronary artery bypass grafting), and 2 overall measures (emergency department visits and hospitalizations). MA utilization was measured using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set data; TM utilization measures were created following the exact same specifications. Results: The final matched samples included 4 366 556 MA beneficiaries (2 442 688 [56.0%] female; 1 254 260 [28.7%] aged 71-75 years; 2 84 774 [6.5%] Black, 226 798 [5.2%] Hispanic, and 3 854 984 [88.3%] White) and 4 366 556 TM beneficiaries (2 442 688 [56.0%] female; 1 254 260 [28.7%] aged 71-75 years; 284 774 [6.5%] Black, 226 798 [5.2%] Hispanic, and 3 854 984 [88.3%] White). The MA-TM gap was largest for White beneficiaries for discretionary procedures. For example, there were 2.51 fewer (95% CI, -2.52 to -2.49) knee replacements per 1000 beneficiaries for White beneficiaries in MA vs TM, 1.26 fewer (95% CI, -1.32 to -1.21) for Black compared with White beneficiaries (P < .001), and 0.60 fewer (95% CI, -0.66 to -0.55) for Hispanic compared with White beneficiaries (P < .001). Among Hispanic and White beneficiaries, rates of coronary artery bypass grafting were marginally higher in MA vs TM (1.84 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.02] vs 1.41 [95% CI, 1.25 to 1.56] per 1000 beneficiaries [P < .001]; 2.22 [95% CI, 2.17 to 2.26] vs 2.12 [95% CI, 2.05 to 2.20] per 1000 beneficiaries [P = .004], respectively) but not significantly different among Black beneficiaries in MA vs TM (1.37 [95% CI, 1.23 to 1.52] vs 1.45 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.20]; P = .44). Compared with White beneficiaries, the MA-TM gap was significantly different but of similar magnitude for Black (0.09 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.10] vs -0.07 [95% CI, -0.15 to 0.00];P < .001) and Hispanic (0.09 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.10] vs 0.44 [95% CI, -0.40 to 0.47]; P = .007) beneficiaries. Hospitalizations showed similar MA-TM gaps across race and ethnicity. Emergency department visit rates were lower in the MA group, with the greatest difference among Black beneficiaries. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of MA and TM beneficiaries, exposure to MA was associated with a narrowing of utilization gaps for discretionary procedures with similar impacts on utilization across racial and ethnic groups for less discretionary procedures and overall utilization. Observed reductions in disparities in utilization possibly reflect reductions in discretionary use of procedures among White beneficiaries rather than increased access for Black and Hispanic beneficiaries.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Health Care Utilization and Equity in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare
- Date Crossref
- 09/09/2026
- Éditeur
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.