Medicare Advantage's Provision of Expanded Supplemental Benefits and Acute Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans' provision of expanded supplemental benefits reduces enrollees' acute care utilization. Expanded supplemental benefits included non-medical primarily health-related (PHR) benefits such as in-home support services, starting in 2019, and Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI) such as food security and housing quality benefits, starting in 2020. STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design using staggered difference-in-differences models. We created indicators for offering the following benefits: Any expanded PHR, ≥ 2 expanded PHR, any SSBCI, and ≥ 2 SSBCI. Acute care utilization was measured by three binary indicators of adverse health events: annual emergency department (ED) use, hospitalizations, and re-admissions. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used 2017-2022 MA encounter data from a random 20% sample of enrollees. We estimated separate models for each benefit indicator, for all non-dual and all dual-eligible enrollees, and for highly frail patients within each non-dual and dual-eligible group. We used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics between treatment and control groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Offering expanded supplemental benefits did not generally reduce acute care utilization in all non-dual or all dual-eligible enrollees. A few significant effects were relatively small or were not robust to potential differential trends between benefit-offering and not-offering plans. However, among highly frail non-dual enrollees, offering any PHR reduced re-admissions by -2.82 percentage points (95% CI: -4.78, -0.86), offering ≥ 2 expanded PHR reduced hospitalizations by -1.79 percentage points (95% CI: -2.61, -0.98) and ED use by -1.76 percentage points (95% CI: -2.38, -1.14), and offering ≥ 2 SSBCI reduced ED use by -3.51 percentage points (95% CI: -4.96, -2.05) and hospitalizations by -2.05 percentage points (95% CI: -3.12, -0.099). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of expanded supplemental benefits may reduce acute care utilization for certain enrollees. As spending on MA supplemental benefits rises, continued efforts are needed to assess impacts of those benefits.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Services Research
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.70136
Primary Topic
Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Medicare Advantage's Provision of Expanded Supplemental Benefits and Acute Care Utilization

Daniel Polsky, Ge Song, Jeah Jung, Caroline Carlin et al.
Health Services Research
Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
article

Medicare Advantage's Provision of Expanded Supplemental Benefits and Acute Care Utilization

Daniel Polsky, Ge Song, Jeah Jung, Caroline Carlin, Hyunjee Kim, Roger Feldman
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans' provision of expanded supplemental benefits reduces enrollees' acute care utilization. Expanded supplemental benefits included non-medical primarily health-related (PHR) benefits such as in-home support services, starting in 2019, and Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI) such as food security and housing quality benefits, starting in 2020. STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design using staggered difference-in-differences models. We created indicators for offering the following benefits: Any expanded PHR, ≥ 2 expanded PHR, any SSBCI, and ≥ 2 SSBCI. Acute care utilization was measured by three binary indicators of adverse health events: annual emergency department (ED) use, hospitalizations, and re-admissions. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used 2017-2022 MA encounter data from a random 20% sample of enrollees. We estimated separate models for each benefit indicator, for all non-dual and all dual-eligible enrollees, and for highly frail patients within each non-dual and dual-eligible group. We used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics between treatment and control groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Offering expanded supplemental benefits did not generally reduce acute care utilization in all non-dual or all dual-eligible enrollees. A few significant effects were relatively small or were not robust to potential differential trends between benefit-offering and not-offering plans. However, among highly frail non-dual enrollees, offering any PHR reduced re-admissions by -2.82 percentage points (95% CI: -4.78, -0.86), offering ≥ 2 expanded PHR reduced hospitalizations by -1.79 percentage points (95% CI: -2.61, -0.98) and ED use by -1.76 percentage points (95% CI: -2.38, -1.14), and offering ≥ 2 SSBCI reduced ED use by -3.51 percentage points (95% CI: -4.96, -2.05) and hospitalizations by -2.05 percentage points (95% CI: -3.12, -0.099). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of expanded supplemental benefits may reduce acute care utilization for certain enrollees. As spending on MA supplemental benefits rises, continued efforts are needed to assess impacts of those benefits.

Health Services ResearchVol. 61(3)
University of Minnesota (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), George Mason University (US), Oregon Health & Science University (US), University of Minnesota Medical Center (US), Minnesota Department of Health (US)
National Institute on Aging
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.