Compare medicare advantage plans ma1/3/2024 We also reviewed the bibliographies of included studies and consulted subject matter experts to identify additional papers. The search was limited to English language papers published since Janu(see methods in the eAppendix ). In consultation with a research librarian, we developed a search strategy that used key words and phrases and MeSH terms. We searched MEDLINE, EBSCO, and ProQuest for original research papers that compared MA and TM on quality of care, health outcomes, and/or health spending. 3 Given the release of MA encounter data and other multipayer data sources, we updated the literature by reviewing recent studies comparing MA and TM on measures of quality of care, health, and spending. 2 Past studies have noted the difficulty in comparing MA and TM due to scarcity of available claims data. Studies found that TM patients tended to report more favorable experiences of care, whereas MA patients were more likely to receive recommended preventive care services and have fewer adverse events. Previous reviews that compared MA and TM prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) reported mixed results. 1 On the other hand, MA plans are allowed to use prior authorization, physician networks, and cost sharing, all of which can discourage utilization. On one hand, MA plans may be more efficient than Medicare in addition, they may offer disease management, care coordination, and supplemental benefits not offered by TM, such as dental, vision, and hearing, that could lead to better health outcomes and lower utilization of other health care services. Policy makers have a longstanding interest in understanding the value of Medicare Advantage (MA) relative to traditional Medicare (TM). Overall, 65% of analyses found a statistically significant relationship: 52% favored MA and 13% favored TM.Ĭonclusions: More than half of recent analyses comparing MA and TM find that MA delivers significantly better quality of care, better health outcomes, and lower costs compared with TM. Analyses compared quality of care (41%), health outcomes (44%), and spending (15%). Two-thirds of studies were of high methodological quality for observational studies, and 49% addressed selection bias. Results: Thirty-five studies including 208 analyses were included. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. To ensure consistent and complete data extraction, each article was reviewed by 2 reviewers. We also reviewed the bibliographies of included studies and consulted subject matter experts to identify additional papers.įor each eligible study, we extracted the first author, year published, study design, data sources, study years, sample sizes, relevant measures, and study quality. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were independently reviewed by 1 author and several trained research assistants. We excluded any studies that did not meet several inclusion criteria. Methods: To identify relevant research papers, we searched MEDLINE, EBSCO, and ProQuest. Study Design: Systematic review of peer-reviewed papers published between January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2020. Objectives: To compare Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM) performance on quality, health, and cost outcomes in peer-reviewed literature published since 2010.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |