Care experiences among dually enrolled older adults with cancer: SEER-CAHPS, 2005–2013
Given the associations between poverty and poorer outcomes among older adults with cancer, we sought to understand the effects of dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid—as a marker of poverty—on self-reported care experiences among seniors diagnosed with cancer.
Retrospective, observational study using cancer registry, Medicare claims, and care experience survey data (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER]—Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CAHPS®]) for a national sample of fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees aged 65 or older. We included people with one incident primary, malignant cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2011, surveyed within 2 years after diagnosis (n = 9,800; 995 dual enrollees). Medicare CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores.
After adjustment for potential confounders, people with cancer histories who were dually enrolled were significantly more likely to report better experiences than non-duals on 2 measures (Medicare/their health plan: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.87; prescription drug plan [PDP]: aOR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73).
Dual enrollees with cancer reported better experiences than Medicare-only enrollees in terms of their health plan (Medicare FFS or Medicare Advantage) and their PDP. Better ratings among dually enrolled beneficiaries suggest possible divergence between health outcomes and care experiences, warranting additional investigation.
KeywordsDual eligible Poverty Medicare Medicaid Cancer Patient experience
Funding for this research was provided to LML, JC, and MTH under National Cancer Institute Contract #HHSN-261–2015-00132U.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 9.Kirby J, Berdahl T (2012) Indicators of health care quality by income and insurance status among individuals with a usual source of care, 2009. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st367/stat367.shtml. Accessed 24 Mar 2014.
- 11.National Cancer Institute (2017) Health disparities. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/research-emphasis/health-disparities.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2018.
- 12.Kaiser Family Foundation (2015) State health facts: Medicare dual eligibles. Kaiser Family Foundation, San Franciso, CAGoogle Scholar
- 13.MedPAC. Dual eligible beneficiaries: an overview. Report to the congress: New approaches in Medicare, Chapter 3, pp 71–94Google Scholar
- 14.Stefanacci RG (2011) Improving the care of “dual eligibles”— what’s ahead. Ann Long Term Care Clinic Care Aging 19(9):26–30Google Scholar
- 15.MedPAC. (2016) Data book: beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. https://medpac.gov/docs/default-source/publications/january-2016-medpac-and-macpac-data-book-beneficiaries-dually-eligible-for-Medicare-and-Medicaid.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed 20 Jun 2019.
- 17.Mollica MA, Lines LM, Halpern MT et al (2017) Patient experiences of cancer care: scoping review, future directions, and introduction of a new data resource: surveillance epidemiology and end results-consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (SEER-CAHPS). Patient Exp J 4:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.National Cancer Institute (2016) SEER-Medicare publications by journal & year. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MAGoogle Scholar
- 22.National Cancer Institute (2017) Medicare CAHPS response rates. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MAGoogle Scholar
- 23.Martino SC, Elliott MN, Cleary PD et al (2009) Psychometric properties of an instrument to assess Medicare beneficiaries' prescription drug plan experiences. Health Care Financ Rev 30:41–53Google Scholar
- 24.National Cancer Institute (2017) SEER-CAHPS data documentation. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MAGoogle Scholar
- 29.Ware J, Kosinski M, Gandek B (2003) SF-36 health survey: manual & interpretation guide. Quality Metric Inc, Lincoln, RIGoogle Scholar
- 30.Zaborski LB, Zaslavsky AM (2012) MCAHPS Technical Report, appendix 2.04: individual-level weight construction. RAND, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
- 36.Koroukian SM, Bakaki PM, Owusu C, Earle CC, Cooper GS (2012) Cancer outcomes in low-income elders: is there an advantage to being on Medicaid? Medicare Medicaid Res Rev 2:2Google Scholar
- 37.Elliott M, Swartz R, Adams J, Spritzer K, Hays R (2001) Consumer evaluations of health plans and health care providers. Case-mix adjustment of the national CAHPS benchmarking data 10: a violation of model assumptions? Health Serv Res 36:555–574Google Scholar
- 39.Potetz L, DeWilde LF (2009) Cancer and Medicare: a chartbook. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar