Hospice Care of Veterans in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Risk-Adjusted Analysis.

Gidwani-Marszowski R, Kinosian B, Scott W, Phibbs CS, Intrator O. Hospice Care of Veterans in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Risk-Adjusted Analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018 Aug 8; 66(8):1508-1514.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of end-of-life care in Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare (TM), specifically, receipt and length of hospice care. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of administrative data. SETTING: Hospice care. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans dually enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and MA or TM who died between 2008 and 2013 (N = 1,515,441). MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes studied included use and duration of hospice care. Use of a VHA-enrolled population allowed for risk adjustment that is otherwise challenging when studying MA. RESULTS: Adjusted analyses revealed that MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive hospice than TM beneficiaries; results corroborate published non-risk-adjusted analyses. MA beneficiaries had shorter hospice duration; this is an opposite direction of effect than non-risk-adjusted analyses. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses limiting the cohort to individuals in MA and TM who had equal opportunity for their comorbidities to be captured. Removing risk adjustment resulted in results that mirrored those in the existing published literature. CONCLUSION: Our work provides two important insights regarding MA that are important to consider as enrollment in this insurance mechanism grows. First, MA beneficiaries received poorer-quality end-of-life care than TM beneficiaries, as ascertained by exposure to hospice. Second, any comparisons made between MA and TM require proper risk adjustment to obtain correct directions of effect. We encourage the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to make comorbidity data specific to MA enrollees available to researchers for these purposes.