Medicare Advantage Coupled with Dual Eligibility is Associated with Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Differences

ImportanceMedicare-Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries experience pronounced disparities in stroke recovery. However, it remains unclear whether inpatient rehabilitation services and outcomes are comparable between dual-eligible beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) versus Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. ObjectiveTo compare rehabilitation therapy utilization and associated outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries enrolled in FFS versus MA plans with stroke. DesignRetrospective cohort study. SettingInpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRF). ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries admitted to IRF with stroke (n=125,782) between 2017 and 2019. ExposureDual-eligible beneficiaries enrolled in FFS versus MA plans. Main Outcome MeasuresTotal number of minutes of physical and occupational therapy provided within the first 2 weeks of IRF stay, self-care and mobility change scores, and 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. ResultsFor the first 2 weeks of therapy utilization, we did not find significant differences between the four groups. Using the non-dual FFS beneficiaries and low category of change as a reference, we found significantly lower likelihood of achieving high change in self-care scores for the dual FFS (OR=0.73, 95% CI=0.69-0.76), and dual MA (OR=0.93, 95% CI=0.88-0.98). However, non-dual MA patients had a higher likelihood of changes in self-care scores (OR=1.17, 95% CI=1.13-1.22). Similar trends were found for the mobility change scores, compared to non-dual FFS: dual FFS (OR=0.72, 95% CI=0.68-0.75), and dual MA (OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.86-0.96) and non-dual MA (OR=1.16, 95% CI=1.12-1.20). For 30-day readmission risk, dual FFS showed a higher likelihood of readmission (OR=1.19, 95% CI=1.08-1.31), while non-dual MA had a significantly lower likelihood (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.71-0.83). Conclusions and RelevanceAlthough no differences in rehabilitation therapy utilization for stroke among dual-eligible beneficiaries, they had poorer functional recovery and higher 30-day readmission risk irrespective of FFS vs MA. Whereas non-dual-eligible MA beneficiaries experienced favorable outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of addressing post-IRF discharge needs among disadvantaged populations.