On March 7, 2025, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) held the second day of the March 2025 meeting. The first session focused on examining home health care use by Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees. The second session discussed institutional special needs plans (I-SNPs). Findings from these sessions will be reported to Congress as part of MedPAC’s June 2025 report.
EXAMINING HOME HEALTH CARE ON MA ENROLLEES
MedPAC staff examined home health care use among MA enrollees, comparing it to Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries. A key focus was assessing data completeness and identifying patterns of home health care utilization. Researchers combined MA encounter data with the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) records with the goal to obtain a more comprehensive picture of usage. MedPAC staff reported that they did get a more comprehensive picture of usage; however, reporting remains incomplete. The study found that 8.5% of MA enrollees used home health care in 2021, with higher utilization among older adults, low-income individuals, and those with prior hospital stays.
On average, MA enrollees who received home health care had 18.2 visits per user. The study also found that plan characteristics influenced usage patterns, with those in preferred provider organization (PPO) plans receiving more visits per user than those in health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, while provider-sponsored plans were associated with fewer visits. Additionally, cost-sharing played a role—MA plans requiring out-of-pocket payments for home health care saw lower utilization rates. When compared to FFS, MA enrollees were less likely to use home health care following hospitalization and, on average, received fewer visits. Even when controlling for provider differences, these trends remained unchanged. MedPAC staff acknowledged that the study had some limitations, including variations in data completeness across counties and the exclusion of in-home services provided outside the Medicare home health benefit. Moreover, they noted it was not possible to determine the appropriate level of home health use for beneficiaries. Moving forward, MedPAC staff noted these findings will provide insights into post-acute care trends within MA. MedPAC Commissioners raised several key points regarding the analysis of home health care use in MA. Commissioners highlighted the challenge of determining an optimal level of care, noting the common quality issues in home health. Others inquired about the availability of more recent data beyond 2021 and whether the study could explore reasons for home health use. Commissioner Lynn Barr questioned whether costs were being shifted to beneficiaries and whether rural and urban areas were analyzed separately, given the higher costs of care delivery in rural regions. MedPAC staff indicated some uncertainty about whether it was reflected in claims. However, rural and urban areas were examined separately. Others addressed concerns about data completeness, particularly regarding claims records and prior authorization requirements, asking if denials were documented.
Commissioners emphasized the importance of clearly distinguishing the differences between MA and FFS home health use. Commissioner Gina Upchurch built on this by seeking insights into the types of providers delivering home care and the perceived quality of care among MA beneficiaries. Others raised concerns regarding discrepancies in OASIS data and variations at the county level, while others highlighted the distinction between post-acute and home health services, questioning why some required OASIS submissions were missing.
Commissioner Kenny Kan suggested expanding research into long-term care and site neutrality, noting that encounter data remains the least complete. Commissioner Robert Cherry highlighted that MA patients had a 6% higher utilization rate, and findings suggested that those without prior hospital stays might experience greater equity in access to care. Commissioner Scott Sarran said he saw no evidence that MA plans were inappropriately reducing care but acknowledged the complexities of decision-making in the system. Finally, Commissioners expressed support for continuing this research, reinforcing its importance in understanding MA’s role in home health services.
INSTITUTIONAL SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS
The second presentation from MedPAC staff focused on I-SNPs, and how these specialized MA plans for beneficiaries requiring nursing home-level care compare and contrast with other plans. MedPAC Staff noted that Commissioners previously expressed interest in examining the experiences of long-stay nursing home residents and evaluating whether private health plans, like I-SNPs, could provide better care than traditional Medicare. I-SNPs serve a relatively small market, with about 125,000 enrollees in 2024, covering roughly 12% of long-stay nursing home residents.
The presentation highlighted that only 26% of nursing homes participated in an I-SNP in 2023, with participation more common among larger, for-profit, and urban facilities. Payment structures for these plans typically include capitated payments and performance-based incentives. Demographically, I-SNP enrollees tend to have longer stays and have lower mortality rates than residents who did not enroll. Additionally, I-SNP enrollees are more likely to be black, live in urban areas, and be Medicaid-eligible compared with other long-stay residents. MedPAC Staff noted that data on quality suggested that nursing homes with I-SNPs performed better in reducing acute discharges, readmissions, and emergency department visits. However, these findings were subject to limitations in risk adjustment and data exclusions.
MedPAC staff also noted that existing research on I-SNPs is limited but indicates that these plans can reduce inpatient hospital use by shifting care to nursing homes. Compared to other Medicare plan options, MedPAC staff found that I-SNPs have higher costs and bid amounts due to the high medical needs of enrollees, yet they receive lower rebates. The research also reviewed alternative models such as Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs), Medicare-Medicaid Plans (MMPs), and the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), noting that each of these plans coordinates with Medicaid, unlike I-SNPs. Looking ahead, MedPAC plans to explore additional Medicare efforts to improve care for long-stay nursing home residents and will include an informational chapter in its June 2025 report to Congress.
MedPAC Commissioners discussed several key aspects of I-SNPs, including enrollment patterns, care quality, and potential improvements to the model. Commissioners raised questions about how patients enroll in I-SNPs compared to other plans. Others highlighted the advantage of having nurse practitioners provide care in nursing homes but expressed concerns about their employment structure and overall care quality.
There was also an emphasis from some Commissioners on the need to improve care for this vulnerable population. Commissioner Stacie Dusetzina requested additional information on the economics of nursing home care, including eligibility criteria and access. Commissioner R. Tamara Konetzka also questioned how to make the I-SNP model more widely adopted. There was common support for the concept of integrated care and exploring alternative models.
Commissioners emphasized the overlap between I-SNPs and skilled nursing facilities, highlighting the need to understand better the services provided. Commissioner Betty Rambur added that while I-SNPs help reduce hospitalizations and turnover, a major challenge lies in training future professionals, as many students do not view this field as a long-term career option. She praised the PACE model, which serves 300 nursing home-eligible individuals, stressing the importance of a team-based approach with pharmacists and nurses, as successfully implemented in Vermont and Minnesota. Commissioner Lynn Barr suggested a comparative analysis of I-SNPs, D-SNPs, and PACE to assess patient experiences and financial structures. Building on this discussion, Chairman Michael Chernew pointed to a broader challenge— determining when and how to separate these programs, given their shared focus on institutionalized beneficiaries.