
==== Front
JAMA Netw Open
JAMA Netw Open
JAMA Network Open
2574-3805
American Medical Association

39302676
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707
zoi241031
Research
Original Investigation
Online Only
Oncology
Resource Use and Care Quality Differences Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Chemotherapy
Resource and Quality Variations in Medicare Beneficiaries Receiving Chemotherapy
Resource and Quality Variations in Medicare Beneficiaries Receiving Chemotherapy
Kalidindi Yamini PhD 1
Jung Jeah PhD 2
Feldman Roger PhD 3
Carlin Caroline PhD 4
Song Ge MS 2
Mitchell Aaron MD MPH 5
1 McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC
2 Department of Health Administration and Policy, College of Public Health, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
3 Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
4 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
5 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 20, 2024.

Published: September 20, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Kalidindi Y et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, The McDermott Building, 500 North Capitol St NW, Washington, DC 20001-1531 (pallavi.yamini@gmail.com).
Author Contributions: Dr Carlin and Ms Song had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Kalidindi, Jung, Feldman, Carlin, Mitchell.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kalidindi, Jung, Song.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Kalidindi, Jung, Feldman, Carlin, Mitchell.

Statistical analysis: Feldman, Song.

Obtained funding: Jung.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Carlin.

Supervision: Jung.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Kalidindi reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study and being an independent researcher working as senior manager at McDermott+ Consulting. Dr Jung reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Carlin reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study. Dr Mitchell reported receiving grants from The Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 1R01AG069352-01A1 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health to Dr Jung.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Aging or McDermott+ Consulting.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

20 9 2024
9 2024
20 9 2024
7 9 e243470717 5 2024
20 7 2024
Copyright 2024 Kalidindi Y et al. JAMA Network Open.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
jamanetwopen-e2434707.pdf

Key Points

Question

Are there differences in resource use and quality of care between patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) vs traditional Medicare (TM)?

Findings

In this cohort study of 96 501 MA and 206 274 TM beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy, MA enrollment was associated with $8718 lower adjusted total resource use during a 6-month chemotherapy episode, mostly due to lower resource use for chemotherapy. The findings on quality of care were mixed, and there was no difference in survival among MA and TM beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy.

Meaning

In this study, MA enrollment was associated with lower resource use but not shorter survival among Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy.

This cohort study examines whether there are differences in resource use or care quality between patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.

Importance

Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown significantly over the last decade; however, MA’s performance for patients with serious conditions, such as cancer, remains unclear.

Objective

To compare resource use and care quality between MA and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries undergoing cancer chemotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used TM claims and MA encounter records from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were MA and TM beneficiaries who initiated cancer chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting balanced characteristics between MA and TM beneficiaries, and regression estimation was used. The analysis was conducted between August 2023 and May 2024.

Exposure

Chemotherapy initiation after a 1-year washout period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation. Resource use was measured using standardized prices for services in both MA and TM, covering hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, Part D drugs, and hospice services. Chemotherapy utilization was examined for Part B chemotherapy, Part B supportive drugs, and Part D chemotherapy. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations, avoidable ED visits, preventable hospitalizations during the 6-month episode, and survival days up to 18 months from chemotherapy initiation.

Results

The study comprised 96 501 MA enrollees contributing to 98 872 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.9 [7.6] years; 55 859 [56.5%] female; 7371 [7.5%] Hispanic, 14 778 [14.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 75 130 [75.0%] non-Hispanic White participants) and 206 274 TM beneficiaries, contributing 212 969 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [8.3] years; 121 263 [56.9%] female; 8356 [3.9%] Hispanic, 16 693 [7.8%] non-Hispanic Black, and 182 228 [85.6%] non-Hispanic White participants). Adjusted total resource use per enrollee during the 6-month episode was $8718 (95% CI, $8343 to $9094) lower in MA than TM ($62 599 vs $71 317). Part B chemotherapy resource use accounted for most of the difference in total resource use, with MA enrollees having $5032 (95% CI, $4772 to $5293) lower use than TM beneficiaries. Lower resource use for Part B chemotherapy in MA was associated with both fewer chemotherapy visits (−1.06 visits; 95% CI, −1.10 to −1.02 visits) and less expensive chemotherapy per visit (−$277; 95% CI, −$275 to −$179). Findings on quality were mixed, but importantly, survival did not differ between MA and TM patients who initiated chemotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, MA enrollment was associated with lower resource use but not shorter survival.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

A significant shift in health care enrollment is occurring in the US Medicare program. Private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans enrolled more than half of the Medicare population in 2023,1 and MA enrollment is projected to reach 61% by 2032.2 While MA plans offer enhanced coverage, such as lower cost sharing and supplemental benefits, increased MA enrollment raises important questions regarding how MA may impact health care spending and care quality.

Prior studies reported that health care spending per enrollee in MA was 9% to 36% lower than in traditional Medicare (TM).3,4,5,6 They also found that MA plans reduced spending by lowering utilization of high-cost services, such as hospitalizations. These findings are based on comparisons of total costs and service utilization in broad populations, as opposed to condition-specific outcomes.

Other prior work on MA-TM differences in service utilization focused on specific conditions managed in the primary care setting, such as diabetes or cardiovascular diseases.7,8,9 Evidence is limited on MA performance for patients with serious chronic conditions, such as cancer, which requires specialist care and expensive treatments.

Expectations are mixed about whether MA patients may have different patterns of resource use for specialist-focused conditions. Some argue that MA reduces resource use primarily for conditions for which primary care management helps prevent resource-intensive services but not for conditions requiring unavoidable high-cost services or specialist interventions.10 Substantial cost savings might be achievable by navigating patients toward lower-cost specialists or services.11 However, some express concern that MA plans may restrict access to medically necessary high-cost services.12

A recent analysis found that MA enrollment was associated with lower costs for inpatient cancer surgery, but the study also found potential drawbacks to MA enrollment, such as reduced access to high-volume hospitals and increased 30-day mortality rates.13 However, this prior analysis was limited to patients receiving cancer surgery in one state and did not examine the association of MA enrollment with cancer treatment costs. The financial burden of cancer care is substantial, estimated at $208.9 billion in 2020.14 A considerable portion of cancer care cost stems from chemotherapy, as new and high-priced treatments become available.15 Given that MA plans use various utilization management techniques, such as prior authorization, step therapies, and quantity limits16,17 while also promoting care coordination and quality incentives,18 there is a pressing need to examine whether patterns of chemotherapy-related costs and quality for patients with cancer differ between MA and TM.

To address this gap, we used national Medicare data to compare resource use and care quality between MA and TM beneficiaries with cancer, focusing on those receiving chemotherapy. We also examine sources of MA-TM differences in resource use for chemotherapy: treatment intensity and costliness of chemotherapeutic agent. To our knowledge, our study provides the first information about the association between MA enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Methods

The George Mason University institutional review board determined this study did not involve human participants and waived the requirement for informed consent. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

Data

We used 100% national MA encounter data and TM claims data from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Following prior work, we used MA encounter data only from contracts with highly complete data.19 The 2015 data were used only to identify patients with a 1-year washout period (no chemotherapy for 1 year prior to identification) and to construct health risk scores based on prior-year claims.

The Medicare Beneficiary Summary File supplied information on death dates and patient demographic characteristics. The Area Health Resources File provided area-level health care environment variables, and the American Community Survey supplied zip code–level socioeconomic variables.

Study Population

The study population comprised Medicare beneficiaries who had 1 of 7 cancers: breast cancer, chronic leukemia, colorectal or small intestine cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and prostate cancer, identified following the Enhancing Oncology Model,20 and who initiated chemotherapy between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, after at least a 1-year washout period with no chemotherapy, with coverage observed through the end of the 1-year observation period. We use the term chemotherapy to include cytotoxic, targeted, and immunotherapy agents. We excluded patients who received only hormonal therapy. To assign cancer types and identify chemotherapy, we followed the approaches used in the oncology care model by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).20,21 Further details on these approaches are included in the eMethods in Supplement 1.

We defined the index date as the first chemotherapy date after the washout period and a chemotherapy episode as the 6-month period from the index date, or until death if it occurred earlier for our primary analyses. We required the beneficiary to have continuous Parts A, B, or D coverage during the washout period and the 1-year observation period following chemotherapy initiation; stay in one program (either MA or TM) during the entire chemotherapy washout period and 1-year period following chemotherapy initiation; not have end-stage kidney disease; and reside in the 50 US states or the District of Columbia. We imposed a 1-year coverage restriction after chemotherapy initiation because one of our sensitivity analyses used a 1-year episode and holding the coverage constant allowed for better comparison of the primary and sensitivity analyses.

Outcomes

We measured outcomes during the 6-month chemotherapy episode. We calculated resource use by applying standardized prices to services delivered in both MA and TM. Thus, differences in resource use represent differences in service utilization. Following prior work,19,22 we used mean TM payments by service type as the standardized prices. We measured total resource use and resource use separately for the following service types: hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, Part D prescription drugs, and hospice services. We identified all hospital stays for MA patients by supplementing missing hospital stays in MA encounter records with hospital stays from Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files.19 We did not examine resource use for skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies because of incomplete encounter data for those services.19

We examined resource use separately for each of the following chemotherapy services: Part B chemotherapy, Part B supportive care drugs, and Part D chemotherapy (list of chemotherapy and supportive care drugs is provided in eTable 7 in Supplement 1). Furthermore, we examined the sources of differences in resource use for Part B chemotherapy stemming from treatment intensity vs costliness of the selected chemotherapy agents. We measured intensity by Part B chemotherapy visit-days (hereafter visits) per 6-month episode and use of costly chemotherapy by resource use per Part B chemotherapy visit.

We computed 2 chemotherapy-related quality measures, chemotherapy-related ED visits and chemotherapy-related hospitalizations, used by CMS and endorsed by the National Quality Forum.23 Additionally, we computed 2 measures of adverse health events—avoidable ED visits24,25 and preventable hospitalizations26—which could be avoided through effective care management in the ambulatory care setting. Finally, we measured survival days from the index date through 18 months. Survival differences larger than 30 days are generally considered to be clinically meaningful.27 Further details regarding the quality measures are provided in the eMethods in Supplement 1.

Explanatory Variables

The key independent variable was MA enrollment. The control variables included age, gender, race and ethnicity, dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, cancer metastasis, claims-based frailty index,28 and a summary health risk score measured by hierarchical condition category scores. Race and ethnicity were recorded in the Master Beneficiary Summary File (categorized as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and other [includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and unknown]). Similar to the other covariates included as controls, race and ethnicity have often been shown to be strongly correlated with health care utilization. We also used an indicator for zip code–level rurality; zip code–level socioeconomic variables including the percentages of college-educated residents, of households living under the federal poverty line, and of people speaking English only; and county-level variables including hospital beds per 1000 residents, physicians per 1000 residents, and skilled nursing facility beds per 1000 residents. Further details on covariates are provided in the eMethods in Supplement 1.

Statistical Analysis

We compared the baseline characteristics between MA and TM patients by calculating means and t tests for continuous variables, and percentages and Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance observed covariate distributions between MA and TM. We estimated weighted linear regressions with county fixed effects to account for time-constant county factors. Using the regression results, we calculated the risk-adjusted outcomes for each program (MA and TM), setting all covariates at their mean values. Statistical significance was assessed at P < .05 from 2-sided tests. Further details on methodology are in the eMethods in Supplement 1.

We also conducted subgroup analyses by cancer type and MA plan type, defined as health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations (PPOs). The total population of TM beneficiaries was used for the analysis by plan type.

We performed 3 sensitivity checks. First, we ran regressions using 1-year chemotherapy episodes instead of 6-month episodes to assess the stability of results over a longer episode duration. Second, 6.4% of the study sample had more than 1 chemotherapy episode during the study period with no treatment for at least 1 year between the episodes. We performed the analysis including only the first episode for each beneficiary. Third, we estimated a generalized linear model for resource use and used logit analyses for the quality outcomes. We used SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute) and Stata version 17 (StataCorp) to conduct analyses.

Results

Sample Characteristics

The study comprised 96 501 MA enrollees contributing to 98 872 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.9 [7.6] years; 55 859 [56.5%] female; 7371 [7.5%] Hispanic, 14 778 [14.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 75 130 [75.0%] non-Hispanic White participants) and 206 274 TM beneficiaries, contributing 212 969 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [8.3] years; 121 263 [56.9%] female; 8356 [3.9%] Hispanic, 16 693 [7.8%] non-Hispanic Black, and 182 228 [85.6%] non-Hispanic White participants). In the unweighted populations (Table 1), TM patients were more likely to be White, have dual eligibility, and be located in zip codes with larger percentages of college-educated people compared with MA patients. The balance between the MA and TM populations improved significantly when we used inverse probability of treatment weights (Table 1).

Table 1. Population Characteristics

Characteristic	Unweighted population	Weighted populationa	
Episodes, No. (%)	P valueb	Episodes, %	P valueb	
MA	TM		MA	TM		
Gender							
Female	55 859 (56.5)	121 263 (56.9)	.02	56.9	56.8	.82	
Male	43 013 (43.5)	91 706 (43.1)	NA	43.1	43.2	NA	
Age, y							
<64	8708 (8.8)	19 788 (9.3)	NA	9.1	9.2	NA	
65 to <70	22 553 (22.8)	49 478 (23.2)	.02	23.1	23.1	.72	
70 to <75	27 872 (28.2)	57 153 (26.8)	<.001	27.3	27.3	.64	
75 to <80	21 597 (21.8)	45 034 (21.1)	<.001	21.4	21.3	.74	
80 to <85	11 928 (12.1)	26 202 (12.3)	.05	12.2	12.2	.85	
≥85	6214 (6.3)	15 314 (7.2)	<.001	6.9	6.9	.92	
Race							
Asian or Pacific Islander	1964 (2.0)	4326 (2.0)	<.001	2.0	2.0	.42	
Hispanic	7371 (7.5)	8356 (3.9)	<.001	5.0	5.0	.71	
Non-Hispanic Black	14 778 (14.9)	16 693 (7.8)	<.001	10.2	10.1	.92	
Non-Hispanic White	75 130 (75.0)	182 228 (85.6)	NA	82.2	82.3	NA	
Otherc	629 (0.6)	1366 (0.6)	.01	0.6	0.6	.65	
Cancer type							
Breast	21 282 (21.5)	42 989 (20.2)	<.001	20.6	20.6	.87	
Colorectal	12 495 (12.6)	29 964 (14.1)	<.001	13.5	13.6	.55	
Leukemia	6488 (6.6)	16 195 (7.6)	<.001	7.3	7.3	.99	
Lung	25 592 (25.9)	50 723 (23.8)	<.001	24.6	24.5	.65	
Lymphoma	17 838 (18.0)	42 830 (20.1)	<.001	19.5	19.5	.82	
Myeloma	8802 (8.9)	18 417 (8.6)	.02	8.7	8.7	.91	
Prostate	6035 (6.1)	11 088 (5.2)	<.001	5.5	5.5	.95	
Dual eligible	16 264 (16.4)	40 679 (19.1)	<.001	18.6	18.3	.11	
Metastatic cancer	34 072 (34.5)	94 537 (30.3)	<.001	31.7	31.7	.64	
Frailty index, mean (SD)	0.178 (0.06)	0.181 (0.06)	<.001	0.181 (0.06)	0.180 (0.06)	.45	
HCC score							
0 to <1	9655 (9.8)	20 880 (9.8)	NA	9.7	9.8	NA	
1 to <2	26 256 (26.6)	57 964 (27.2)	.15	27.0	27.0	.87	
2 to <3	40 301 (40.8)	86 919 (40.8)	.84	40.8	40.8	.77	
≥4	22 680 (22.9)	47 206 (22.2)	.01	22.5	22.4	.74	
County-level health care resources, mean (SD)							
Beds/1000, No.	3.1 (2.1)	3.0 (2.3)	<.001	3.0 (2.2)	3.0 (2.2)	.24	
Doctors/1000, No.	3.4 (2.3)	3.3 (2.4)	<.001	3.3 (2.3)	3.3 (2.5)	.35	
SNF beds/1000, No.	5.5 (2.9)	6.0 (3.4)	<.001	5.9 (3.3)	5.9 (3.2)	.17	
Rural	17 342 (17.5)	55 567 (26.1)	<.001	23.4	23.4	.98	
Zip code demographics, mean (SD), %							
College educated	29.5 (15.6)	32.5 (17.5)	<.001	31.4 (16.7)	31.5 (17.0)	.08	
Speaking English only	82.5 (18.3)	84.0 (16.6)	<.001	83.8 (17.0)	83.7 (17.0)	.01	
Under federal poverty level	13.8 (8.3)	12.5 (7.8)	<.001	12.9 (7.9)	12.9 (8.1)	.56	
Episodes, No.	98 872	212 969	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Beneficiaries, No.	96 501	206 274	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Abbreviations: HCC, Hierarchical Condition Category; MA, Medicare Advantage; NA, not applicable; SNF, skilled nursing facility; TM, traditional Medicare.

a Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the MA and TM populations for characteristics.

b t Tests were used for continuous variables and Pearson χ2 tests for categorical variables.

c Other race is a category defined as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or unknown in the Master Beneficiary Summary File.

MA Enrollment and Resource Use

Table 2 presents regression estimates of the association between MA enrollment and study outcomes during the 6-month chemotherapy episode. Risk-adjusted total resource use was $8718 (95% CI, $8343-$9094) lower among MA enrollees ($62 599) compared with TM ($71 317). Resource use for outpatient care was responsible for a substantial portion of the difference in total resource use, with MA enrollees having $8542 (95% CI, $8210-$8874) lower resource use for outpatient care than TM beneficiaries ($40 412 vs $48 955). We report the results for all covariates from the regression analysis for total resource use in eTable 1 in Supplement 1.

Table 2. Regression Results and Adjusted Outcomes

Outcome	Regression results, coefficient (95% CI)a	Adjusted means (SE)	
MA	TM	
Resource use, US $				
Total resource use	−8718 (−9094 to −8343)	62 599 (155.73)	71 317 (94.32)	
By service type				
Hospital inpatient services	−559 (−691 to −427)	7467 (53.06)	8026 (37.94)	
Outpatient care	−8542 (−8874 to −8210)	40 412 (137.23)	48 955 (82.72)	
Prescription drugs	355 (152 to 557)	14 474 (81.80)	14 120 (56.75)	
Hospice services	28 (14 to 43)	245 (6.16)	217 (3.88)	
Chemotherapy servicesb				
Chemotherapy services, US $				
Part B chemotherapy	−5032 (−5293 to −4772)	20 691 (103.58)	25 724 (71.73)	
Part B chemotherapy-supportive drugs	−410 (−433 to −387)	2308 (9.41)	2718 (6.06)	
Part D chemotherapy	285 (90 to 481)	12 188 (78.93)	11 903 (54.64)	
Sources of differences in part B chemotherapy				
Chemotherapy visits per episode	−1.06 (−1.10 to −1.02)	6.16 (0.02)	7.22 (0.01)	
Resource use/chemotherapy visit, US $	−227 (−275 to −179)	3481 (19.94)	3708 (10.65)	
Quality of care				
Chemotherapy-related ED visits, percentage pointsc	−2.53 (−2.86 to −2.19)	20.9 (0.14)	23.4 (0.10)	
Chemotherapy-related hospital admission, percentage pointsc	−0.71 (−0.99 to −0.44)	12.8 (0.11)	13.6 (0.08)	
Avoidable ED visits, percentage pointsc	0.50 (0.24 to 0.76)	11.0 (0.11)	10.5 (0.07)	
Preventable hospitalizations, percentage pointsc	0.01 (−0.16 to 0.18)	4.5 (0.07)	4.5 (0.05)	
Survival days	0.23 (−0.18 to 0.64)	525 (0.17)	525 (0.11)	
Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; MA, Medicare Advantage; TM, Traditional Medicare.

a Weighted linear regression with county fixed effects.

b This is a part of outpatient care.

c Estimates were multiplied by 100 to show estimates as percentage point differences.

The difference in resource use for outpatient care was associated with different resource use for Part B chemotherapy: MA enrollees had $5032 (95% CI, $4772-$5293) lower Part B chemotherapy resource use compared with TM beneficiaries ($20 691 vs $25 724). Risk-adjusted resource use for Part B chemotherapy supportive drugs was $410 (95% CI, $387-$433) lower in MA than in TM ($2308 vs $2718). MA enrollees had higher resource use for Part D drugs than TM, but only by $355 (95% CI, $152-$557; $14 474 vs $14 120). This difference was largely due to a $285 (95% CI, $90-$481) higher resource use for Part D chemotherapy ($12 188 in MA vs $11 903 in TM).

Next, we examined the sources of the difference in resource use for Part B chemotherapy. MA enrollees had 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10) fewer chemotherapy visits than TM beneficiaries (6.16 vs 7.22). We multiplied the difference in visits by the average resource use per visit ($3481) in MA to estimate that fewer visits in MA resulted in $3690 lower resource use for part B chemotherapy. This is approximately 73% ($3690 of $5032) of the difference in resource use. MA enrollees received $227 (95% CI, $179-$275) less expensive chemotherapy per visit than TM enrollees ($3481 vs $3708). We multiplied the difference in resource use per visit by the average number of visits (6.16) in MA to estimate that less-expensive chemotherapy contributed $1398 to the lower resource use, approximately 27%.

MA Enrollment and Quality

The association between MA enrollment and care quality was mixed (Table 2). MA enrollees had 2.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 percentage points) less chemotherapy-related ED use than TM beneficiaries (20.9% vs 23.4%). This corresponds to 11% lower chemotherapy-related ED use in MA than the mean value. MA enrollees also had fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations: 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, 0.4-1.0 percentage points) (12.8% in MA vs 13.6% in TM) or 5.4% lower than the mean value. However, MA beneficiaries had 0.5 percentage point higher (11.0% in MA vs 10.5% in TM) avoidable ED use than TM beneficiaries (4.7% higher than mean), and MA had similar preventable hospitalizations to TM. Importantly, we found no difference in survival (525 days in both MA and TM) during 18 months after chemotherapy initiation.

Results From Additional Analyses

The subgroup analyses by cancer type showed similar results to the main analyses (eTable 2 in Supplement 1). Figure 1 shows that MA enrollees had lower adjusted total resource use during the 6-month chemotherapy episode than TM beneficiaries across all 7 cancers. Reduction in total resource use in MA ranged from −$3637 for prostate cancer to −$11 610 for lung cancer. Across cancer types, this reduction was mainly associated with less resource use for Part B chemotherapy, which ranged from −$1506 for prostate cancer to −$7222 for myeloma. Both fewer Part B chemotherapy visits and use of lower-cost chemotherapy contributed to the reduction in resource use for Part B chemotherapy in MA (eTable 3 in Supplement 1).

Figure 1. Difference in Total Resource Use and Resource Use for Part B Chemotherapy for Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare by Cancer Type

Like the overall analysis, the results on care quality by cancer type were mixed (regression coefficients are reported in eTable 2 in Supplement 1). Figure 2 shows that MA enrollees had fewer chemotherapy-related ED visits than TM beneficiaries for all cancer types (ranging from −3.14 percentage points for lung cancer to −1.65 percentage points for leukemia) except prostate cancer, where the results were not significant. There were no differences in chemotherapy-related hospitalizations or adverse health events from TM. Figure 3 indicates that MA enrollees had 1-day longer survival (95% CI, 0.23 to 1.51 days) than TM beneficiaries (530 vs 529) for breast cancer but 2.9-day shorter survival (95% CI, −5.15 to −0.70 days) for prostate cancer (525 vs 522). While statistically significant, these small differences are not considered clinically meaningful.27

Figure 2. Differences in Chemotherapy-Related Quality and Adverse Health Events Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare by Cancer Type

ED indicates emergency department; IP, inpatient.

Figure 3. Differences in Survival Days Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare by Cancer Type

Findings from the subgroup analysis by MA plan type and sensitivity checks were consistent with the main analysis. Results of the additional analyses are provided in eTables 3 to 6 in Supplement 1.

Discussion

MA patients receiving chemotherapy had significantly lower total resource use during the 6-month episode than their counterparts in TM. Lower resource use was observed for hospital inpatient services and outpatient care, with a substantial reduction in resource use for Part B chemotherapy. Lower resource use for Part B chemotherapy in MA resulted from both use of lower-cost chemotherapy drugs and fewer chemotherapy visits.

These findings are consistent with prior studies of the overall MA population or patients with diabetes.3,4,5,6 Our new finding is that MA plans had lower resource use than TM among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy—a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services.10

A reduction in resource use in MA, even for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy, is an expected outcome if MA plans apply managed care practices, such as care coordination and quantity limits to all patients. It could harm patient outcomes if MA limited necessary treatments for patients receiving chemotherapy. However, we found that MA enrollees did better on the 2 quality measures related to chemotherapy, implying that different patterns of chemotherapy use in MA did not affect chemotherapy-related quality. MA plans may have reduced clinically unnecessary services and used low-cost alternative chemotherapy regimens that do not harm patient outcomes. For example, a recent study29 found that MA enrollees generally used more biosimilars than TM beneficiaries. We also found that MA enrollees used less costly chemotherapy per visit than TM beneficiaries.

MA enrollees had slightly higher avoidable ED use than TM beneficiaries. However, they had similar rates of preventable hospitalizations and importantly, there was no difference in survival days through 18 months despite having lower resource use than TM. These findings are promising because they suggest that reducing resource use does not sacrifice survival.

It is also encouraging that our findings were consistent across 7 cancer types, MA plan types, and different specifications, given that MA has been steadily growing and now covers more than half of the Medicare population. They could be informative to CMS, which has increasingly promoted efficient delivery of cancer care through chemotherapy-episode based initiatives, such as the oncology care model or Enhancing Oncology Model.20,21 Learning about effective approaches used by MA plans could help CMS refine those initiatives to improve patient care while reducing costs, thereby increasing value for all Medicare beneficiaries.

While our findings are generally positive for MA, they do not tell us whether chemotherapy initiation differs between MA and TM. MA plans may apply strict prior authorization requirements for chemotherapy initiation and thereby limit the initiation of necessary treatments among patients with cancer. Our study did not examine this possibility; consequently, the results should be interpreted only for patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy. Future research into mechanisms by which MA influences treatment patterns for patients with cancer would be critical.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, we applied inverse-probability weighting to mitigate selection issues; however, the effectiveness of this approach is limited to balancing only observed characteristics. The findings could be affected by unobserved patient characteristics. Second, our study excludes MA enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data. Our results may not apply to the entire MA population. Third, our study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Fourth, we did not examine specific strategies and utilization management techniques that MA plans use to reduce resource use or improve quality during the chemotherapy episode. Fifth, our measures of quality are limited to those measured from the claims and encounter data, which lack patients’ cancer stage. We did not measure whether the care provided to the patient followed recommended guidelines. Furthermore, our measure of survival during an 18-month period following chemotherapy initiation might not adequately capture survival differences associated with adjuvant treatment of early-stage cancers.

Conclusions

Using national Medicare data, we found that MA is associated with lowered resource use without reduced survival for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. As MA grows, continued efforts are needed to identify mechanisms by which MA affects treatment patterns for patients with cancer to develop targeted interventions that enhance patient care and resource efficiency in Medicare.

Supplement 1. eMethods. Detailed Methodological Considerations

eTable 1. Results From the Regression Analysis of Total Resource Use

eTable 2. Regression Results and Adjusted Outcomes by Cancer Type

eTable 3. Regression Results and Adjusted Outcomes by MA Plan Type

eTable 4. Regression Results and Adjusted Outcomes: Using 12-Month Chemotherapy Episode

eTable 5. Regression Results and Adjusted Outcomes from Analysis of Using First Chemotherapy Episode

eTable 6. GLM for Resource Use and Logit for Quality Outcomes

eTable 7. Drug List

Supplement 2. Data Sharing Statement
==== Refs
References

1 Ochieng N, Biniek JF, Freed M, Damico A, Neuman T. Medicare Advantage in 2023: enrollment update and key trends. KFF. Published August 9, 2023. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-in-2023-enrollment-update-and-key-trends/
2 Congressional Budget Office. Baseline projections—Medicare. 2022. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/51302-2022-05-medicare.pdf
3 Curto V, Einav L, Finkelstein A, Levin J, Bhattacharya J. Health care spending and utilization in public and private Medicare. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2019;11 (2 ):302-332. doi:10.1257/app.20170295 31131073
4 Landon BE, Zaslavsky AM, Saunders RC, Pawlson LG, Newhouse JP, Ayanian JZ. Analysis Of Medicare Advantage HMOs compared with traditional Medicare shows lower use of many services during 2003-09. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31 (12 ):2609-2617. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0179 23213144
5 Schwartz AL, Zlaoui K, Foreman RP, Brennan TA, Newhouse JP. Health care utilization and spending in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare: a difference-in-differences analysis. JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2 (12 ):e214001. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4001 35977297
6 Jung J, Carlin C, Feldman R. Medicare Advantage has lower resource use and better quality of care than traditional medicare. Am J Health Econ. Published online March 13, 2024. doi:10.1086/730436
7 Lee SH, Brown SL, Bennett AA. The relationship between insurance and health outcomes of diabetes mellitus patients in Maryland: a retrospective archival record study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21 (1 ):495. doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06534-w 34030667
8 Essien UR, Tang Y, Figueroa JF, . Diabetes care among older adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare fee-for-service plans: the Diabetes Collaborative Registry. Diabetes Care. 2022;45 (7 ):1549-1557. doi:10.2337/dc21-1178 35796766
9 Landon BE, Zaslavsky AM, Saunders R, Pawlson LG, Newhouse JP, Ayanian JZ. A comparison of relative resource use and quality in Medicare Advantage health plans versus traditional Medicare. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21 (8 ):559-566.26295355
10 Newhouse JP, Landrum MB, Price M, McWilliams JM, Hsu J, McGuire TG. The comparative advantage of Medicare Advantage. Am J Health Econ. 2019;5 (2 ):281-301. doi:10.1162/ajhe_a_00120 31032383
11 Landon BE, Lam MB, Landrum MB, . Opportunities for savings in risk arrangements for oncologic care. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4 (9 ):e233124. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3124 37713209
12 Rahman M, Keohane L, Trivedi AN, Mor V. High-cost patients had substantial rates of leaving Medicare Advantage and joining traditional Medicare. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34 (10 ):1675-1681. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0272 26438743
13 Raoof M, Ituarte PHG, Haye S, . Medicare Advantage: a disadvantage for complex cancer surgery patients. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41 (6 ):1239-1249. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.01359 36356283
14 National Cancer Institute. Cancer trends progress report: financial burden of cancer care. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://progressreport.cancer.gov/after/economic_burden
15 American Cancer Society. The costs of cancer 2020 edition. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. 2020. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://www.fightcancer.org/sites/default/files/National%20Documents/Costs-of-Cancer-2020-10222020.pdf
16 Schwartz AL, Brennan TA, Verbrugge DJ, Newhouse JP. Measuring the scope of prior authorization policies: applying private insurer rules to Medicare Part B. JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2 (5 ):e210859. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0859 35977311
17 Anderson KE, Alexander GC, Ma C, Dy SM, Sen AP. Medicare Advantage coverage restrictions for the costliest physician-administered drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2022;28 (7 ):e255-e262. doi:10.37765/ajmc.2022.89184 35852888
18 Cotton P, Newhouse JP, Volpp KG, . Medicare Advantage: issues, insights, and implications for the future. Popul Health Manag. 2016;19 (S3 ):S1-S8. doi:10.1089/pop.2016.29013.pc 27834576
19 Jung J, Carlin C, Feldman R, Tran L. Implementation of resource use measures in Medicare Advantage. Health Serv Res. 2022;57 (4 ):957-962. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13970 35411550
20 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Enhancing oncology model. 2023. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/enhancing-oncology-model
21 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Oncology care model performance-based payment methodology version 7.1. 2021. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/files/x/ocm-pp3beyond-pymmeth.pdf
22 Jung J, Carlin C, Feldman R. Measuring resource use in Medicare Advantage using encounter data. Health Serv Res. 2022;57 (1 ):172-181. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13879 34510453
23 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS measures inventory tool - admissions and emergency department (ED) Visits For Patients Receiving Outpatient Chemotherapy. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://cmit.cms.gov/cmit/#/FamilyView?familyId=21
24 Billings J. ED utilization background. NYU Wagner. Accessed August 14, 2024. https://wagner.nyu.edu/faculty/billings/nyued-articles
25 Johnston KJ, Allen L, Melanson TA, Pitts SR Sr. A “patch” to the NYU emergency department visit algorithm. Health Serv Res. 2017;52 (4 ):1264-1276. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12638 28726238
26 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ QI: prevention quality indicators overview. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/measures/pqi_resources
27 Keating NL, Jhatakia S, Brooks GA, ; Oncology Care Model Evaluation Team. Association of participation in the oncology care model with Medicare payments, utilization, care delivery, and quality outcomes. JAMA. 2021;326 (18 ):1829-1839. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.17642 34751709
28 Kim DH, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Lipsitz LA, Rockwood K, Avorn J. Measuring frailty in Medicare data: development and validation of a claims-based frailty index. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73 (7 ):980-987. doi:10.1093/gerona/glx229 29244057
29 Kozlowski S, Kwist A, McEvoy R, . Biosimilar uptake in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4 (12 ):e234335. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4335 38153810
