Encouraging Medicare Advantage Enrollees to Switch to Higher Quality Plans: Assessing the Effectiveness of a “Nudge” Letter

There are considerable quality differences across private Medicare Advantage insurance plans, so it is important that beneficiaries make informed choices. During open enrollment for the 2013 coverage year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent letters to beneficiaries enrolled in low-quality Medicare Advantage plans (i.e., plans rated less than 3 stars for at least 3 consecutive years by Medicare) explaining the stars and encouraging them to reexamine their choices. To understand the effectiveness of these low-cost, behavioral “nudge” letters, we used a beneficiary-level national retrospective cohort and performed multivariate regression analysis of plan selection during the 2013 open enrollment period among those enrolled in plans rated less than 3 stars. Our analysis controls for beneficiary demographic characteristics, health and health care spending risks, the availability of alternative higher rated plan options in their local market, and historical disenrollment rates from the plans. We compared the behaviors of those beneficiaries who received the nudge letters with those who enrolled in similar poorly rated plans but did not receive such letters. We found that beneficiaries who received the nudge letter were almost twice as likely (28.0% [95% confidence interval = 27.7%, 28.2%] vs. 15.3% [95% confidence interval = 15.1%, 15.5%]) to switch to a higher rated plan compared with those who did not receive the letter. White beneficiaries, healthier beneficiaries, and those residing in areas with more high-performing plan choices were more likely to switch plans in response to the nudge. Our findings highlight both the importance and efficacy of providing timely and actionable information to beneficiaries about quality in the insurance marketplace to facilitate informed and value-based coverage decisions

Coordinated Health Care Interventions for Childhood Asthma Gaps in Outcomes (CHICAGO) plan

Background: Evidence-based strategies to improve outcomes in minority children with uncontrolled asthma discharged from the emergency department (ED) are needed. Objectives: This multicenter pragmatic clinical trial was designed to compare an ED-only intervention (decision support tool), an ED-only intervention and home visits by community health workers for 6 months (ED-plus-home), and enhanced usual care (UC). Methods: Children aged 5 to 11 years with uncontrolled asthma were enrolled. The change over 6 months in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Asthma Impact Scale score in children and Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles score in caregivers were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included guideline-recommended ED discharge care and self-management. Results: Recruitment was significantly lower than expected (373 vs 640 expected). Of the 373 children (64% Black and 31% Latino children), only 63% completed the 6-month follow-up visit. In multivariable analyses that accounted for missing data, the adjusted odds ratios and 98% CIs for differences in Asthma Impact Scores or caregivers’ Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles scores were not significant. However, guideline-recommended ED discharge care was significantly improved in the intervention groups versus in the UC group, and self-management behaviors were significantly improved in the ED-plus-home group versus in the ED-only and UC groups. Conclusions: The ED-based interventions did not significantly improve the primary clinical outcomes, although the study was likely underpowered. Although guideline-recommended ED discharge care and self-management did improve, their effect on clinical outcomes needs further study