16-05-2024 | Original Research
Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With and Without Food Insecurity
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Compared to traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans impose out-of-pocket cost limits and offer extra benefits, potentially providing financial relief for MA enrollees, especially for those with food insecurity.
Objective
To examine whether the prevalence of food insecurity differs between TM and MA enrollees at baseline and then examine whether MA enrollment in a baseline year is associated with less financial hardships in the following year, relative to TM enrollment, especially for those experiencing food insecurity.
Design
We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.
Participants
Our analysis included 2807 Medicare beneficiaries (weighted sample size, 23,963,947) who maintained continuous enrollment in either TM or MA in both 2020 and 2021 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
Main Measures
We assessed outcomes related to financial hardships in health care and non-health care domains (measured in 2021). Our primary independent variables were food insecurity and MA enrollment (measured in 2020).
Results
The point estimate of food insecurity prevalence was greater among MA enrollees than TM enrollees, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.1 percentage points [95% CI, − 1.0, 3.4]). Furthermore, there is evidence that compared to TM enrollment, MA enrollment did not mitigate the risk of financial hardship, particularly for food-insecure enrollees. Rather, food-secure MA enrollees faced greater financial hardship in the following year than food-secure TM enrollees (11.2% [8.9–13.6] and 7.6% [6.9–8.3] for problems paying medical bills and 5.5% [4.6–6.4] and 2.8% [2.1–3.6] for paying medical bills over time). Moreover, the point estimate of financial hardship was higher among food-insecure MA enrollees than food-insecure TM enrollees (21.5% [5.4–37.5] and 11.2% [4.1–18.4] and 23.7% [9.6–37.9] and 6.9% [0.5–13.3]) despite the lack of statistical significance.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that the promise of financial protection offered by MA plans has not been fully realized, particularly for those with food insecurity.
