Work

Nationwide Availability of and Enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans With Exclusively Aligned Enrollment

Year: 2024

Type: article

Abstract: Importance: In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services designated a new category of dual-eligible special needs plans (D-SNPs) with exclusively aligned enrollment (receive Medicare and Medicaid benefits through the same plan or affiliated plans within the same organization). Objective: To assess the availability of and enrollment in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment and to compare the characteristics of beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment available vs beneficiaries without such enrollment available. Design, Setting, and Participants: Full-benefit beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs for 6 months or longer in 2021 or 2022. Availability of and beneficiary enrollment in D-SNPs were assessed by year and county for D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment available vs D-SNPs without exclusively aligned enrollment available. The D-SNP enrollees residing in counties with aligned plans available were compared based on demographic, social, health, and area characteristics vs D-SNP enrollees in counties without such plans available. Comparisons were also made based on beneficiaries who enrolled in the aligned D-SNPs vs those who did not enroll (were enrolled in unaligned D-SNPs). The data analyses were conducted from October 1, 2023, to August 2, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability of aligned D-SNPs and beneficiary residence by county; enrollment in exclusively aligned D-SNPs vs unaligned D-SNPs; and beneficiary demographic, social, health, and area characteristics. Results: Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. Of 2 689 045 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2022, 1 047 223 (38.9%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 318 906 (11.9%) enrolled. Beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs residing in counties without aligned enrollment available were more likely to live in rural or micropolitan areas (21.9%) vs beneficiaries in counties with aligned enrollment available (8.1%) (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.38-0.38]), be entitled to disability (44.4% vs 27.3%, respectively; SMD, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.36-0.36]), or be Black individuals (27.4% vs 21.4%; SMD, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.14-0.14]); were less likely to be Hispanic individuals (15.4% vs 33.7%; SMD, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.45-0.45]) or Asian or Pacific Islander individuals (6.1% vs 12.2%; SMD, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.22-0.22]); and lived in zip codes with a higher area deprivation index (mean, 66.8 [SD, 26.4] vs mean, 43.2 [SD, 29.0]; SMD, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.86-0.86]). Beneficiaries enrolled in aligned D-SNPs were more likely to be receiving long-term institutionalized care vs beneficiaries in nonaligned D-SNPs (4.3% vs 1.0%, respectively; SMD, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.24-0.25]) or have dementia or Alzheimer disease (9.2% vs 5.9%; SMD, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.13-0.13]). Conclusions: This study found that availability of and enrollment in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment are increasing, but the overall proportion enrolled remains low. Further reforms are needed to promote aligned enrollment.

Source: JAMA Health Forum

DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.3546