2021 July2021 Medpac Databook Sec

Health Care Spending
and the
Medicare Program
The MedPAC Data Book provides information on national health care and Medicare spending as
well as Medicare beneficiary demographics, dual-eligible beneficiaries, quality of care in the
Medicare program, and Medicare beneficiary and other payer liability. It also examines provider
settings—such as hospitals and post-acute care—and presents data on Medicare spending,
beneficiaries’ access to care in the setting (measured by the number of beneficiaries using the
service, number of providers, volume of services, length of stay, or through direct surveys), and
the sector’s Medicare profit margins, if applicable. In addition, it covers the Medicare Advantage
program and prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries, including Part D.
MedPAC began producing its annual Data Book at the suggestion of congressional staff. Some
of the information it contains is derived from MedPAC’s March and June reports to the
Congress; other information is unique to the Data Book. The information is presented in tables
and figures with brief discussions.
We produce a limited number of printed copies of this report. It is, however, available through
the MedPAC website: www.medpac.gov.
Changes in aggregate spending for the fee-for-service sectors presented in this Data Book partly
reflect the shift in Medicare enrollment from the traditional fee-for-service program to Medicare
Advantage. Fee-for-service spending per capita may present a more complete picture of spending
changes.
iii
............................................................................................................................
1-1 Medicare was the largest single purchaser of personal health care, 2019 ...........................................
1-2 Medicare’s share of spending on personal health care varied by type of service, 2019 ....................
1-3 Health care spending has consumed an increasing share of the country’s GDP ...............................
1-4 Trustees project Medicare spending to continue to increase as a share of GDP ...............................
1-5 Trustees and CBO project Medicare spending to exceed $1 trillion by 2022 ...................................
1-6 Factors contributing to Medicare’s projected spending growth from 2020 to 2029
(not including general economy-wide inflation) ............................................................................
1-7 Health care spending per enrollee grew faster for those who were privately insured than for
beneficiaries in traditional FFS Medicare, 2014–2018 ...................................................................
1-8 Medicare enrollment is rising while the number of workers per HI beneficiary is declining .........
1-9 General revenues have overtaken Medicare payroll taxes as the largest source
of Medicare funding ................................................................................................................
1-10 Increases in payroll tax or decreases in Part A spending needed to maintain
HI Trust Fund solvency for certain amounts of time ...................................................................
1-11 Medicare Part A and Part B benefits and cost sharing per FFS beneficiary, 2019 .........................
1-12 Medicare spending is concentrated in certain services and has shifted over time ..........................
1-13 Aggregate Medicare spending for FFS beneficiaries, by sector, 2010–2019 ................................
1-14 FFS program spending was highly concentrated in a small group of beneficiaries, 2018 ..............
2-1 Aged beneficiaries accounted for the greatest share of the Medicare population
and program spending, 2018 .....................................................................................................
2-2 Beneficiaries younger than 65 accounted for a disproportionate share of Medicare
spending, 2018 .........................................................................................................................
2-3 Beneficiaries who reported being in poor health accounted for a disproportionate share of
Medicare spending, 2018 .....................................................................................................................
2-4 Enrollment in the Medicare program is projected to grow rapidly through 2030 ..........................
2-5 Characteristics of the Medicare population, 2018 .......................................................................
3-1 Sources of supplemental coverage among noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, 2018 .......
3-2 Sources of supplemental coverage among noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, by
beneficiaries’ characteristics, 2018 ............................................................................................
v
3-3 Covered benefits and enrollment in standardized Medigap plans, 2019 .......................................
3-4 Total spending on health care services for noninstitutionalized FFS Medicare
beneficiaries, by source of payment, 2018..................................................................................
3-5 Per capita total spending on health care services among noninstitutionalized
FFS beneficiaries, by source of payment, 2018 ..........................................................................
3-6 Geographic variation in use of services has decreased among FFS Medicare
beneficiaries, 2008–2018 ..........................................................................................................
4-1 Dual-eligible beneficiaries accounted for a disproportionate share of Medicare spending, 2018 ...
4-2 Dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to be
under age 65 and have a disability, 2018 ....................................................................................
4-3 Dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to report
being in poor health, 2018.........................................................................................................
4-4 Demographic differences between dual-eligible beneficiaries and non-dual-eligible
beneficiaries, 2018....................................................................................................................
4-5 Differences in Medicare spending and service use between dual-eligible beneficiaries
and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, 2018...................................................................................
4-6 Both Medicare and total spending were concentrated among dual-eligible beneficiaries, 2018 .....
5-1 Most Medicare beneficiaries are in managed care plans or are assigned to accountable care
organizations, 2021...................................................................................................................
5-2 The number of beneficiaries assigned to MSSP ACOs grew rapidly through 2018 and
then leveled off.........................................................................................................................
5-3 Distribution of clinicians participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, by type of
provider, 2019 ..........................................................................................................................
5-4 Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced is Medicare’s largest
episode-based payment model, 2021 .........................................................................................
5-5 Share of BPCI Advanced participants accepting financial responsibility for each
clinical episode group, 2021......................................................................................................
5-6 2,625 practices are testing the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus model, 2021 ...........................
5-7 About 70 percent of the clinicians who qualified for a 5 percent A–APM bonus in 2021
were in the Medicare Shared Savings Program ..........................................................................
6-1 Urban IPPS hospitals comprised half of short-term acute care hospitals but accounted for
over 85 percent of all-payer and Medicare FFS inpatient stays in 2019 .......................................
6-2 Fewer general short-term acute care hospitals closed in 2020 and openings increased..................
6-3 Aggregate occupancy rate at short-term acute care hospitals increased, 2015–2019 .....................
vi
6-4 All-payer inpatient visits per capita decreased while outpatient visits per capita
increased, 2015–2019 ...............................................................................................................
6-5 IPPS hospitals’ aggregate total and operating all-payer margins reached record highs in 2019 .....
6-6 Urban IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate total all-payer margin than
rural IPPS hospitals, 2015–2019................................................................................................
6-7 IPPS hospitals, including those that treat a disproportionate share of low-income
patients, reached record highs in aggregate total all-payer margin, 2019......................................
6-8 For-profit IPPS hospitals’ aggregate total all-payer margin reached an all-time high in 2019 .......
6-9 IPPS hospitals under low fiscal pressure continued to have a higher aggregate total
all-payer margin than those under higher fiscal pressure, 2015–2019 ..........................................
6-10 IPPS hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin remained negative, but increased in 2019 .....
6-11 Rural IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin than
urban IPPS hospitals, 2015–2019 ..............................................................................................
6-12 IPPS hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of low-income patients or are
teaching hospitals continued to have higher aggregate overall Medicare margins than
other hospitals, 2015–2019 .......................................................................................................
6-13 For-profit IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin than
nonprofit IPPS hospitals and increased to a positive margin in 2019 ...........................................
6-14 IPPS hospitals under high fiscal pressure continued to have a higher aggregate overall
Medicare margin than those under medium and low fiscal pressure, 2015–2019..........................
6-15 Financial pressure led to lower hospital costs per discharge in 2019 ............................................
6-16 Medicare FFS payments for inpatient services were the largest component of payments
to IPPS hospitals but not to CAHs, 2015–2019 ..........................................................................
6-17 About 15 percent of IPPS payments were from adjustments and additional payments, 2019 ........
6-18 Medicare’s uncompensated care payments to IPPS hospitals have increased from a relative
low in 2017 ..............................................................................................................................
6-19 Medicare FFS inpatient stays per capita decreased, 2015–2019...................................................
6-20 Four major diagnostic categories accounted for over half of all Medicare FFS inpatient
stays at short-term acute care hospitals, 2015–2019....................................................................
6-21 Share of one-day stays among Medicare FFS beneficiaries at short-term acute care hospitals
increased, 2015–2019 ...............................................................................................................
6-22 Number of Medicare FFS outpatient observation visits per capita remained relatively
steady, and nearly half were longer than 24 hours, 2015–2019....................................................
6-23 Medicare FFS payments to inpatient psychiatric facilities decreased in 2019 ...............................
6-24 The share of for-profit Medicare-certified inpatient psychiatric facilities increased, 2012–2019 ...
6-25 Almost three-quarters of Medicare FFS beneficiaries’ stays at IPFs were for psychosis, 2019 ......
6-26 The majority of Medicare FFS beneficiaries who received IPF services were under the
age of 65, 2019 .........................................................................................................................
7-1 Medicare spending per fee-for-service beneficiary on services in the fee schedule for
physicians and other health professionals, 2009–2019 ................................................................
7-2 Physician fee schedule–allowed charges by type of service, 2019 ...............................................
7-3 Total encounters per FFS beneficiary increased and mix of clinicians furnishing them
changed from 2014 to 2019 .......................................................................................................
vii
7-4 Medicare beneficiaries’ ability to get timely appointments with physicians was comparable
with that of privately insured individuals, 2017–2020.................................................................
7-5 Medicare and privately insured patients reported more difficulty finding a new primary care
provider than a new specialist, 2017–2020 .................................................................................
7-6 Slightly higher shares of non-White patients reported delays getting appointments
compared with White patients, regardless of insurance type, 2020 ..............................................
7-7 Slightly higher shares of non-White patients reported difficulties finding a new specialist
compared with White patients, but these differences were not statistically significant, 2020.........
7-8 Changes in physicians’ professional liability insurance premiums, 2013–2020 ............................
7-9 Spending on hospital outpatient services covered under the outpatient PPS, 2010–2020 ..............
7-10 Most hospitals provide outpatient services .................................................................................
7-11 Payments and volume of services under the Medicare hospital outpatient PPS, by type
of service, 2019 ........................................................................................................................
7-12 Hospital outpatient services with the highest Medicare expenditures, 2019 .................................
7-13 Separately payable drugs have increased as a share of total spending in the outpatient
prospective payment system, 2014–2019 ...................................................................................
7-14 Number of Medicare-certified ASCs increased by 11 percent, 2013–2019 ..................................
7-15 Between 33 and 70 low-value services were provided per 100 FFS beneficiaries in 2018;
Medicare spent between $2.4 billion and $6.9 billion on these services .....................................
7-16 Imaging and cancer screening accounted for most of the volume of low-value care in 2018 .........
7-17 Cardiovascular testing and procedures, other surgical procedures, and imaging accounted
for most of spending on low-value care in 2018 ......................................................................
8-1 The number of post-acute care providers decreased slightly in 2020 .........................................
8-2 Medicare fee-for-service spending for post-acute care was relatively stable
from 2010 to 2019 ..................................................................................................................
8-3 Freestanding SNFs and for-profit SNFs accounted for the majority of facilities, Medicare
stays, and Medicare spending in 2019......................................................................................
8-4 SNF admissions and stays continued to decline in 2019 ...........................................................
8-5 Freestanding SNF Medicare margins remained high in 2019 ....................................................
8-6 Cost and payment differences explain variation in Medicare margins for freestanding
SNFs in 2019 .........................................................................................................................
8-7 SNFs’ quality measures improved slightly between 2015 and 2019 ..........................................
8-8 Trends in the provision of home health care .............................................................................

8-9 Most home health episodes are not preceded by hospitalization or PAC stay .............................
8-10 Medicare margins for freestanding home health agencies, 2018 and 2019 .................................
viii
8-11 Since 2015, home health agencies have reported a modest improvement in the rate of
successful discharge from home health care to the community, but the rate of hospitalization
has increased ..........................................................................................................................
8-12 Number of FFS IRF cases increased in 2019 ............................................................................

8-13 Most common types of FFS inpatient rehabilitation facility cases, 2019 ....................................
8-14 Inpatient rehabilitation facilities’ Medicare margins by type of facility, 2010–2019 ...................
8-15 Low standardized costs led to high margins for both hospital-based and freestanding
IRFs, 2019 .............................................................................................................................
8-16 Risk-adjusted quality indicators for IRFs held steady or improved slightly from 2015 to 2019 ...
8-17 Twenty-five MS–LTC–DRGs accounted for more than 70 percent of LTCH discharges
in 2019...................................................................................................................................
8-18 Total Medicare FFS LTCH cases decreased by over 10 percent, and cases meeting the
LTCH-qualifying criteria decreased by 2 percent from 2016 and 2019 ......................................
8-19 The aggregate LTCH Medicare margin decreased in 2019........................................................
9-1 Enrollment in MA plans, 2003–2021 .......................................................................................

9-2 MA plans available to almost all Medicare beneficiaries, 2013–2021........................................
9-3 Average monthly rebate dollars, by plan type, 2016–2021 ........................................................
9-4 Changes in enrollment vary among major plan types ................................................................
9-5 MA and cost plan enrollment by state and type of plan, 2021 ...................................................
9-6 MA plan benchmarks, bids, and Medicare program payments relative to FFS spending, 2021 ........
9-7 Enrollment in employer group MA plans, 2008–2021 ..............................................................
9-8 Number of special needs plan enrollees, 2012–2021.................................................................
9-9 Number of SNPs and SNP enrollment rose from 2020 to 2021 .................................................
9-10 The share of Medicare beneficiaries in private plans does not differ substantially in
medically underserved areas compared with other areas, but is lower in rural areas, 2021 ..........
9-11 MA enrollment patterns do not differ by medically underserved area designation but do
vary based on urban influence designation, 2021......................................................................
9-12 MA plans are available to nearly all beneficiaries in medically underserved and rural
areas, 2021 .............................................................................................................................
9-13 Most Medicare beneficiaries have access to a considerable number of MA plans, but rural
beneficiaries and beneficiaries in counties composed entirely of MUAs typically have fewer
plans from which to choose, 2021 ...........................................................................................
9-14 Twenty most common condition categories among MA beneficiaries, as defined in
the CMS–HCC model, 2019 ...................................................................................................
9-15 MA enrollment patterns, by age, Medicaid dual-eligible status, and ESRD status, June 2020 .....
ix
10-1 Medicare spending for Part B drugs furnished by physicians, hospital outpatient
departments, and suppliers, 2005–2019 ...................................................................................
10-2 Change in Medicare payments and utilization for separately payable Part B drugs,
2009–2019 .............................................................................................................................
10-3 Top 10 Part B drugs paid based on ASP, by type of provider, 2018 and 2019 ............................
10-4 Growth in ASP for the 20 highest expenditure Part B drugs, 2005–2021 ...................................
10-5 Trends in Medicare Part B payment rates for originator biologics and their
biosimilar products .................................................................................................................
10-6 Price indexes for Medicare Part B drugs, 2005–2019 ...............................................................
10-7 In 2021, approximately 88 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Part D plans
or have other sources of creditable drug coverage ....................................................................
10-8 Changes in parameters of the Part D defined standard benefit over time....................................
10-9 Characteristics of stand-alone Medicare PDPs .........................................................................
10-10 Characteristics of MA–PDs.....................................................................................................
10-11 Change in average Part D premiums, 2017–2021 .....................................................................
10-12 More premium-free PDPs for LIS enrollees in 2021 .................................................................
10-13 In 2021, about one in two listed drugs are subject to some utilization management ....................
10-14 Characteristics of Part D enrollees, 2019..................................................................................
10-15 Part D enrollment trends, 2007–2019.......................................................................................
10-16 Part D enrollment by region, 2019 ...........................................................................................
10-17 Components of Part D spending growth...................................................................................
10-18 The majority of Part D spending was incurred by just over one-fifth of all Part D
enrollees, 2019 .......................................................................................................................
10-19 Characteristics of Part D enrollees, by benefit phase reached, 2019...........................................
10-20 Part D spending and use per enrollee, 2019..............................................................................
10-21 Trends in Part D spending and use per enrollee per month, 2007–2019 .....................................
10-22 Top 15 therapeutic classes of drugs covered under Part D, by spending and volume, 2019.........
10-23 Part D patterns of prescribing by provider type, 2018 ...............................................................
10-24 Part D patterns of prescribing for selected specialties, 2018 ......................................................
10-25 Price growth for Part D–covered drugs, 2006–2019 .................................................................
10-26 Comparison of price growth for Part B and Part D biologics, 2006–2019 ..................................
11-1 Number of dialysis facilities is growing, and most facilities are for profit and freestanding .............
11-2 Medicare spending for outpatient dialysis services furnished by freestanding and hospital-based
dialysis facilities, 2018 and 2019 .......................................................................................................
11-3 The ESRD population is growing, and most patients with ESRD undergo dialysis ..........................
11-4 Asian Americans and Hispanics are among the fastest growing segments of the
ESRD population ...............................................................................................................................
11-5 Characteristics of Medicare fee-for-service dialysis patients, 2019 ...................................................
11-6 Aggregate margins varied by type of freestanding dialysis facility, 2019 .........................................
11-7 Dialysis quality of care: Some measures show progress, others need improvement, 2013–2018 .....
x
11-8 Hospice spending and use increased in 2019 .....................................................................................
11-9 Hospice use increased across beneficiary groups from 2010 to 2019 ................................................
11-10 Number of Medicare-participating hospices has increased due to growth in for-profit hospices ......
11-11 Hospice cases by diagnosis, 2019 ......................................................................................................
11-12 Hospice average length of stay among decedents increased slightly in 2019 ....................................
11-13 Hospice length of stay among decedents, by beneficiary and hospice characteristics, 2019 .............
11-14 More than half of Medicare hospice spending in 2019 was for patients with stays exceeding
180 days .............................................................................................................................................
11-15 Hospice aggregate Medicare margins, 2014–2018 ............................................................................
11-16 Medicare margins were higher among hospices with more long stays, 2018 ....................................
11-17 Hospices that exceeded Medicare’s annual payment cap, 2014–2018 ..............................................
11-18 Hospice live-discharge rates, 2017–2019...........................................................................................
11-19 Medicare spending for clinical laboratory services, 2005–2019 ........................................................
xi
1
Chart 1-1. Medicare was the largest single purchaser of
personal health care, 2019
Total = $3.2 trillion

CHIP, DoD, and VA
4%
Medicare
Out of pocket 23%
13%
Medicaid
Private health 17%
insurance
33%
Other third-party
payers
10%
Note: CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), DoD (Department of Defense), VA (Department of Veterans Affairs).
“Personal health care” is a subset of national health expenditures. It includes spending for all medical goods and services
that are provided for the treatment of an individual and excludes other spending, such as government administration, the
net cost of health insurance, public health, and investment. “Out-of-pocket” spending includes cost sharing for both
privately and publicly insured individuals. Premiums are included in the shares of each program (e.g., Medicare, private
health insurance) rather than in the share of the “out-of-pocket” category. “Other third-party payers” includes worksite
health care, other private revenues, Indian Health Service, workers’ compensation, general assistance, maternal and child
health, vocational rehabilitation, other federal programs, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
other state and local programs, and school health.
Source: CMS Office of the Actuary, National Health Expenditure Accounts, “Table 6: Personal Health Care Expenditures; Levels,
Percent Change, and Percent Distribution, by Source of Funds: Selected Calendar Years 1970–2019,” released
December 2020.
• Medicare is the largest single purchaser of health care in the U.S. (Although the share of
spending accounted for by private health insurance is greater than Medicare’s share, private
health insurance is not a single purchaser of health care; rather, it includes many private
plans, including managed care, self-insured health plans, and indemnity plans.) Of the $3.2
trillion spent on personal health care in 2019, Medicare accounted for 23 percent, or $743
billion. This amount includes spending on direct patient care and excludes certain
administrative and business costs.
• Private health insurance plans financed 33 percent of personal health care spending, and
consumer out-of-pocket spending (not including premiums) amounted to 13 percent of the
total.
• In this chart, enrollees’ premium contributions are included in the spending category of their
insurance type.
A Data Book: Health care spending and the Medicare program, July 2021 3
Chart 1-2. Medicare’s share of spending on personal health
care varied by type of service, 2019
100
90
29
Share of spending (in percent)
80
48
70 56
64 63
68
60
32
50
40
18 29
11 9
30
15
20 39
26 25 28
10 22
17
0
Hospital Clinician Home health Nursing care Durable Retail
facilities and medical prescription
continuing equipment drugs
care retirement
communities
Medicare Medicaid and CHIP Other
Note: CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). “Personal health care” is a subset of national health expenditures. It
includes spending for all medical goods and services that are provided for the treatment of an individual and excludes
other spending such as government administration, the net cost of health insurance, public health, and investment.
“Other” includes private health insurance, out-of-pocket spending, and other private and public spending. Other service
categories included in personal health care that are not shown here are other professional services; dental services; other
health, residential, and personal care; and other nondurable medical equipment. Bars may not total 100 percent because
of rounding.
Source: CMS Office of the Actuary, National Health Expenditure Accounts, historical data released December 2020.
• While Medicare’s share of total personal health care spending was 23 percent in 2019 (see
Chart 1-1), its share of spending by type of service varied, from 17 percent of spending on
durable medical equipment to 39 percent of spending on home health care.
• Medicare’s share of spending on nursing care facilities and continuing care retirement
communities was smaller than Medicaid’s share. Medicare pays for nursing home services
only for Medicare beneficiaries who require skilled nursing or rehabilitation services,
whereas Medicaid pays for custodial care (assistance with activities of daily living) provided
in nursing homes for people with limited income and assets.
4 National health care and Medicare spending

Chart 1-3. Health care spending has consumed an increasing
share of the country’s GDP
25
Total health care spending Historical Projected
Private health insurance spending
20 Medicare spending
Medicaid spending
Share of GDP (in percent)
15
10
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Calendar year
Note: GDP (gross domestic product). The potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic are not reflected in these projections.
Source: CMS Office of the Actuary, National Health Expenditure Accounts, historical data released December 2020 and
projections released April 2020.
• In 2019, total health care spending made up 17.7 percent of the country’s GDP. Private
health insurance spending constituted 5.6 percent of GDP spending, Medicare constituted
3.7 percent, and Medicaid constituted 2.9 percent.
• Health care spending as a share of GDP more than doubled from 1975 to 2019, increasing
from 7.9 percent to 17.7 percent. Over this period, spending on private health insurance,
Medicare, and Medicaid grew even faster: Each more than tripled as a share of GDP.
Spending on private health insurance increased from 1.8 percent to 5.6 percent of GDP,
Medicare increased from 1.0 percent to 3.7 percent of GDP, and Medicaid increased from
0.8 percent to 2.9 percent of GDP.
Chart 1-4. Trustees project Medicare spending to continue to
increase as a share of GDP
7
6.5 6.5
6.3
Part D 6.0 6.1
6 Part B 5.7
Part A
5
Share of GDP (in percent)
4.5
4 3.6
3 2.6
2.4
2 1.7
1.0
1
0
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085
Calendar year
Note: GDP (gross domestic product). The Part D benefit began in 2006. Shares for 2025 and later are projections based on the
Trustees’ intermediate set of assumptions. The potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic are not reflected in these
projections.
Source: The annual report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare trust funds 2020.
• Over time, Medicare spending has accounted for an increasing share of GDP. From 1 percent
in 1975, it is projected to reach 6 percent of GDP in 2045.
• The Medicare Trustees project that spending will rise from 3.6 percent of GDP in 2015 to 5.7
percent of GDP by 2035, largely because of rapid growth in the number of beneficiaries, and
then to 6.5 percent of GDP by 2075, with growth in spending per beneficiary becoming the
greater factor in the later years of the forecast. The rapid growth in the number of
beneficiaries began in 2011 and will continue through 2030 as members of the baby-boom
generation reach age 65 and become eligible to enroll in Medicare.
• In the later decades of the Trustees’ forecast, Medicare spending is projected to continue
rising as a share of GDP, but at a slower pace than in the past.
• Drug costs are projected to grow faster than Part A and Part B expenditures and to account
for 14 percent of Medicare expenditures by 2085.

Chart 1-5. Trustees and CBO project Medicare spending to
exceed $1 trillion by 2022
1,800
1,600
Trustees
1,400 CBO
Actual Projected
1,200
Dollars (in billions)
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Fiscal year
Note: CBO (Congressional Budget Office). The potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic are not reflected in these
projections. All data are nominal, mandatory outlays (benefit payments plus mandatory administrative expenses) by fiscal
year.
Source: Congressional Budget Office’s March 2020 baseline spending projections for Medicare; the annual report of the Boards of
Trustees of the Medicare trust funds 2020.
• Medicare spending has more than doubled since 2005, increasing from $337 billion to $782
billion by 2019. (These data are by fiscal year and include benefit payments and mandatory
administrative expenses. They do not reflect the potential effects of the coronavirus
pandemic.)
• The Medicare Trustees and CBO both project that spending for Medicare between 2019 and
2029 will grow at an average annual rate of 6.8 percent. Medicare spending will reach $1
trillion in 2022 under both sets of projections.
• Forecasts of future Medicare spending are inherently uncertain, and differences can stem
from different assumptions about the economy that in turn affect annual updates to provider
payments and the number of workers paying Medicare payroll taxes. In addition, forecasts
can assume different amounts of growth in the volume and intensity of services delivered to
Medicare beneficiaries, among other factors.
Chart 1-6. Factors contributing to Medicare’s projected
spending growth from 2020 to 2029
(not including general economy-wide inflation)
Average annual percent change in:

Beneficiary Volume and Medicare’s
Medicare Medicare Number of demographic intensity of projected
part prices beneficiaries mix services used spending
Part A 0.2% 2.3% 0.1% 1.2% 3.8%
Part B –0.7 2.3 0.0 4.0 5.7
Part D –0.4 2.6 –0.1 1.8 3.9
Total* –0.3 N/A** 0.0 2.6 4.7
Note: N/A (not available). Includes Medicare Advantage enrollees. Price increases reflect Medicare’s annual updates to
payment rates (not including inflation, as measured by the consumer price index), multifactor productivity reductions, and
any other reductions required by law or regulation (including a statutorily required 2 percent sequester to Medicare benefit
payments, which was scheduled to increase to 4 percent for a six-month period in 2029 at the time these projections were
developed, but has since been delayed). Part A prices are expected to rise faster than economy-wide inflation in the
2020s in part due to statutorily required increases. Specifically, in each of fiscal years 2020 through 2023, there is a
statutory 0.5 percent increase in inpatient operating payments due to unwinding a temporary reduction in payments that
was put in place to recoup past overpayments resulting from changes in providers’ documentation and coding. Volume
and intensity together are the residual after the other three factors shown in the table (Medicare price increases, the
increase in the number of beneficiaries, and changes in beneficiary demographic mix) are removed. Much of the 1.2
percent projected increase in Part A volume and intensity may be due to increased coding of hospital severity of illness,
which may reflect real changes in patients’ needs and/or coding changes; we do not expect the 1.2 percent to reflect
increases in volume per capita given that the number of discharges per beneficiary has declined for several decades and
fell by 6.1 percent from 2015 to 2019. The “Medicare’s projected spending” column is the product of the other columns in
the table. Any potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic are not reflected in these projections.
*The “Total” row is the sum of the other rows of the table, each weighted by its Part’s share of total Medicare spending in
2019 (as measured by shares of gross domestic product).
**We are unable to calculate the total contribution of the increasing number of beneficiaries to projected spending growth
because there is beneficiary overlap in enrollment in Part A, Part B, and Part D.
Source: MedPAC analysis of data from the annual report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare trust funds 2020.
• Medicare’s spending is projected to grow 4.7 percent per year, on average, between 2020
and 2029 (not including growth due to general economy-wide inflation).
• Medicare’s projected spending growth is driven by growth in the number of beneficiaries

(expected to increase by a little more than 2 percent per year over this period) and growth in
the volume and intensity of services delivered per beneficiary (expected to rise by 2.6
percent per year).
• Unlike in the private health care sector, price growth is not expected to drive Medicare’s
increased spending because Medicare is able to unilaterally set prices for many health care
providers.

Chart 1-7. Health care spending per enrollee grew faster for
those who were privately insured than for
beneficiaries in traditional FFS Medicare, 2014–2018
30
Private insurance, in network, excluding prescription drugs

25 FFS Medicare, excluding prescription drugs 24%
Cumulative spending growth
since 2014 (in percent)
20
15
10%
10
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). The figure shows cumulative spending growth since 2014. It reflects payments to providers from
health insurers and patients (i.e., cost sharing) but not payments from other sources (e.g., workers’ compensation or auto
insurance). Spending on retail prescription drugs is not available for those who are privately insured, so it is excluded from
both lines in this graph. Spending on out-of-network services for those who are privately insured is not available and thus
not included in this graph. “Private insurance” reflects spending contributed by national and regional plans and third-party
administrators nationwide for adults ages 18 to 64 in self-insured plans (i.e., employer self-funded plans) and fully insured
plans, including individual and group plans, marketplace plans, and Medicare Advantage plans for non-elderly disabled
individuals. The figure reflects spending for individuals with full-year insurance coverage (including individuals with $0 of
health care spending).
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare's Master Beneficiary Summary File; FAIR Health analysis of its National Private Insurance
Claims database (which reflects 150 million covered lives) for the subset of enrollees ages 18 to 64.
• Between 2014 and 2018, total health care spending per enrollee (including cost sharing)
grew 24 percent for those who were privately insured, compared with 10 percent for
beneficiaries in traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
• Increased prices were largely responsible for spending growth in the private sector. One key
driver of the private sector’s higher prices has been provider market power. Hospitals and
physician groups have increasingly consolidated, in part to gain leverage over insurers in
negotiating higher payment rates. By 2017, 57 percent of hospital markets were so
concentrated that one health system produced a majority of hospital discharges (data not
shown). Studies have found that prices paid by private payers tend to increase as provider
consolidation increases.
Chart 1-8. Medicare enrollment is rising while the number of
workers per HI beneficiary is declining
Medicare HI enrollment Workers per HI beneficiary
100 5.0
4.5
80
Workers per HI beneficiary

Enrollment (in millions)
4.0
60
3.5
40
3.0
20
2.5
0 2.0
1970 1990 2010 2030 1970 1990 2010 2030
Note: HI (Hospital Insurance). Hospital Insurance is also known as Medicare Part A. The potential effects of the coronavirus
pandemic are not included in these projections.
• As the baby-boom generation ages, enrollment in the Medicare program is surging. By

2033, Medicare is projected to have 80 million beneficiaries—up from 62 million
beneficiaries in 2020.
• While Medicare enrollment is rising, the number of workers per beneficiary is rapidly
declining. Workers are the primary funder of Medicare’s HI Trust Fund, which they fund
through payroll taxes. However, the number of workers per Medicare beneficiary has
declined from 4.6 during the early years of the program to 2.9 in 2020 and is projected by
the Medicare Trustees to fall to 2.5 by 2028.
• These demographics threaten the financial stability of the Medicare program.

Chart 1-9. General revenues have overtaken Medicare payroll
taxes as the largest source of Medicare funding
7%
Total Medicare spending
Historical Projected
6% Part A deficit
5%
Share of GDP
General revenue transfers
4%
State transfers and drug fees

3%
Premiums
2%
Dedicated
Tax on benefits
revenues
1%
Payroll taxes
0%
1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2016 2026 2036 2046 2056 2066 2076 2086
Calendar year
Note: GDP (gross domestic product). These projections are based on the Trustees’ intermediate set of assumptions and do not
reflect the potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic. “Tax on benefits” refers to the portion of income taxes that higher
income individuals pay on Social Security benefits, which is designated for Medicare. “State transfers” (often called the
Part D “clawback”) refers to payments from the states to Medicare for assuming primary responsibility for prescription
drug spending that were mandated by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
“Drug fees” refers to the fee imposed by the Affordable Care Act of 2010 on manufacturers and importers of brand-name
prescription drugs. These fees are deposited in the Part B account of the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund.
• Medicare spending accounted for 3.7 percent of GDP in 2019. The Medicare Trustees
project that Medicare’s share of GDP will rise to 5.5 percent by 2033 and to 5.9 percent by
2038.
• In the early years of the Medicare program, payroll taxes deposited into Medicare’s Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund (which finances Part A) were the main source of funding for the
program, but beginning in 2009, general revenue transfers (which help finance Part B and
Part D) became the largest single source of Medicare funding. General revenue transfers
are expected to continue to be a substantial share of Medicare financing, growing to about
49 percent by 2034, then remaining stable through the rest of the century.
• As more general revenues are devoted to Medicare, fewer resources will be available to
invest in growing the economic output of the future or in supporting other national priorities.
Chart 1-10. Increases in payroll tax or decreases in Part A
spending needed to maintain HI Trust Fund solvency
for certain amounts of time
To maintain HI Trust Fund Increase 2.9% Or decrease Part A

solvency for: payroll tax to: spending by:
25 years (2020–2044) 3.67% 17.1%
50 years (2020–2069) 3.71 17.3
75 years (2020–2094) 3.66 16.0
Note: HI (Hospital Insurance). Hospital Insurance is also known as Medicare Part A. The potential effects of the coronavirus
pandemic are not reflected in these projections.
• The HI Trust Fund, which helps pay for Part A services such as inpatient hospital stays and
post-acute care provided by skilled nursing facilities and hospice, is mainly financed through
a dedicated payroll tax (i.e., a tax on wage earnings).
• From 2008 to 2015, the HI Trust Fund ran an annual deficit (i.e., paid more in benefits than it
collected in payroll taxes) (data not shown). In 2016 and 2017, the HI Trust Fund ran a
surplus (data not shown). However, deficits returned in 2018 and 2019 and are projected to
continue until trust fund assets are depleted in 2026 (under the Trustees’ intermediate
assumptions). Under high-cost assumptions, the HI Trust Fund could be depleted as early
as 2023. Under low-cost assumptions, it would remain able to pay full benefits indefinitely.
• To keep the HI Trust Fund solvent over the next 25 years, the Medicare Trustees estimate
that either the payroll tax would need to be increased immediately from its current rate of 2.9
percent to about 3.7 percent, or Part A spending would need to be permanently reduced by
about 17 percent (about $62 billion in 2021). Alternatively, some combination of smaller tax
increases and smaller spending reductions could be used to achieve solvency.

Chart 1-11. Medicare Part A and Part B benefits and cost
sharing per FFS beneficiary, 2019
Average benefit in 2019 Average cost sharing in 2019

(in dollars) (in dollars)
Part A $5,051 $406
Part B 6,258 1,582
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Dollar amounts are nominal for FFS Medicare only and do not include Part D. “Average benefit”
represents amounts paid for covered services per FFS beneficiary and excludes administrative expenses. “Average cost
sharing” represents the sum of deductibles, coinsurance, and balance billing paid for covered services per FFS
beneficiary and excludes all monthly premiums. The “Part A” row reflects spending for 38 million beneficiaries with Part A,
and the “Part B” row reflects spending for 33 million beneficiaries with Part B.
Source: CMS Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, CMS Program Statistics, Medicare Utilization and Payments, 2019.
• In calendar year 2019, the Medicare program made $5,051 in Part A benefit payments and
$6,258 in Part B benefit payments, on average, per FFS beneficiary.
• Beneficiaries owed an average of $406 in cost sharing for Part A and $1,582 in cost sharing
for Part B in calendar year 2019. (Cost sharing excludes all monthly premiums.)
• To cover some of those cost-sharing requirements, 89 percent of FFS beneficiaries had

coverage that supplemented or replaced the Medicare benefit package in 2018, such as
Medicare Advantage, Medigap coverage, supplemental coverage through former employers,
or Medicaid (see Chart 3-1).
Chart 1-12. Medicare spending is concentrated in certain
services and has shifted over time
Total spending 2010 = $517 billion Total spending 2019 = $787 billion
Inpatient
hospital
Managed Inpatient 19%
care hospital Managed
22% 26% care
34%
Outpatient
hospital
7%
Other
8% Outpatient
hospital
DME Physician fee
5%
2% schedule
Hospice 9%
3% Home Physician Other
health 8%
fee
4% DME
schedule Prescription
Prescription 1% Hospice
13% drugs
SNF drugs provided 3%
5% under Part D provided
12% Home health SNF under Part D
2% 4% 13%
Note: DME (durable medical equipment), SNF (skilled nursing facility). All data are by calendar year. Dollar amounts are
Medicare spending only and do not include beneficiary cost sharing. “Other” includes items such as laboratory services,
physician-administered drugs, renal dialysis performed in freestanding dialysis facilities, services provided in freestanding
ambulatory surgical center facilities, and ambulance services. Components may not total 100 percent because of
rounding.
• In 2019, Medicare spent $787 billion on benefits. Managed care (Medicare Advantage) was the
largest spending category (34 percent), followed by FFS inpatient hospital services (19 percent),
prescription drugs provided under Part D (13 percent), and FFS services reimbursed under the
physician fee schedule (9 percent). Spending on managed care included spending on health care
services and items purchased through these plans.
• The distribution of Medicare spending among services has changed over time. Spending on managed
care plans has grown from 22 percent of Medicare spending in 2010 to 34 percent in 2019. This
growth is largely because the number of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage nearly doubled
over this period (data not shown). Meanwhile, the number of beneficiaries in fee-for-service (FFS)
Medicare has stayed relatively flat (data not shown).
• Spending on FFS inpatient hospital services has declined as a share of total Medicare spending,
falling from 26 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2019. Spending on physician fee schedule services
has also declined as a share of Medicare spending, falling from 13 percent to 9 percent over this
period. At the same time, spending on FFS outpatient services has grown (from 5 percent to
7 percent of Medicare spending), partly due to physician practices being acquired by hospitals and
beginning to bill under the outpatient payment system.

Chart 1-13. Aggregate Medicare spending for FFS beneficiaries,
by sector, 2010–2019
160
145 146 147 147
138 140 140 139
133 135
140
Medicare spending (dollars in billions)
Inpatient hospital
120
Physician fee schedule
100 Outpatient hospital
Skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies
80 71 70 71 73
69 70 70 70 70
65
58
60 50 55
47 46 47 47 48 47 51
40 48 47 46 46
45
41
34 36
20 28 31
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Calendar year
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). “Physician fee schedule” includes spending on services provided by physicians and other health
professionals such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physical therapists. Dollar amounts are Medicare
spending for FFS beneficiaries only and do not include beneficiary cost sharing or spending for Medicare Advantage
enrollees.
• Medicare fee-for-service spending on inpatient hospital services and physician fee schedule
services increased modestly from 2010 to 2019, averaging 1.1 percent and 1.3 percent
growth per year, respectively. Spending on skilled nursing facilities and home health
services decreased over this period, contracting by –0.2 percent per year on average.
• In contrast, spending on outpatient hospital services doubled during this period (averaging
growth of 8.3 percent per year from 2010 to 2019) as more physician practices were
acquired by hospitals and began billing Medicare’s outpatient payment system.
Chart 1-14. FFS program spending was highly concentrated in a
small group of beneficiaries, 2018
100
Next 4%
Costliest Next 5% 15%
90 1%
Next 15%
80
70 27%
Next 25%
60 84%
Percent
50 18%
40
30 23%
Least costly 50%
20
10 13%
4%
0
Percent of beneficiaries Percent of program spending
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Analysis excludes beneficiaries with any enrollment in a Medicare Advantage plan or other health
plan that covers Part A and Part B services (e.g., Medicare cost plans, Medicare–Medicaid Plans, and Medicare and
Medicaid’s Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly [PACE]).
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2018.
• Medicare FFS spending is concentrated among a small number of beneficiaries. In 2018,

the costliest 5 percent of beneficiaries (i.e., adding the costliest 1 percent and the next-
costliest 4 percent at the top of the bar at left) accounted for 43 percent of annual Medicare
FFS spending (calculated on unrounded numbers). The costliest 25 percent of beneficiaries
accounted for 84 percent of Medicare spending (calculated on unrounded numbers). The
least costly 50 percent of beneficiaries accounted for only 4 percent of FFS spending.
• Costly beneficiaries tend to be those who have multiple chronic conditions, are using
inpatient hospital services, are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and are in the last
year of life.

2
Chart 2-1. Aged beneficiaries accounted for the greatest
share of the Medicare population and program
spending, 2018
Share of
beneficiaries
85.1% 14.0% 0.8%
Total beneficiaries: 60.9 million
Total beneficiaries: 59.3 million
Share of
spending
76.4% 18.8% 4.8%
Total spending: $767 billion
Aged Disabled ESRD
Note: ESRD (end-stage renal disease). The “aged” category includes beneficiaries ages 65 and older without ESRD. The
“disabled" category includes beneficiaries under age 65 without ESRD. The “ESRD” category includes beneficiaries with
ESRD, regardless of age. Results include fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, community-dwelling, and institutionalized
beneficiaries. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is a point-in-time survey from a sample of Medicare beneficiaries.
Year-to-year variation in reported data is expected. Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Cost Supplement file 2018.
• In 2018, beneficiaries ages 65 and older without ESRD composed 85.1 percent of the
beneficiary population and accounted for 76.4 percent of Medicare spending. Beneficiaries
under 65 with a disability and beneficiaries with ESRD accounted for the remaining
population and spending.
• A disproportionate share of Medicare expenditures is on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries

with ESRD. On average, these beneficiaries incur spending that is more than six times
greater than spending for aged beneficiaries (ages 65 years and older without ESRD) and
more than four times greater than spending for beneficiaries under age 65 with a disability
(non-ESRD).
Chart 2-2. Beneficiaries younger than 65 accounted for a
disproportionate share of Medicare spending, 2018
Share of
14.4% 49.0% 25.5% 11.1%
beneficiaries
Share of
20.8% 37.4% 26.9% 14.9%
spending
Average per capita spending = $12,594
Under 65 65-74 75-84 85+
Note: Results include fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, community-dwelling, and institutionalized beneficiaries. The
Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is a point-in-time survey from a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Year-to-year
variation in reported data is expected.
• Beneficiaries younger than 65 made up 14.4 percent of the beneficiary population in 2018
but accounted for 20.8 percent of Medicare spending.
• In 2018, average Medicare spending per beneficiary was $12,594.
• For the aged population (65 and older), per capita expenditures increase with age. In 2018,
per capita expenditures were $9,611 for beneficiaries 65 to 74 years old, $13,300 for those
75 to 84 years old, and $16,787 for those 85 or older (data not shown).
• In 2018, per capita expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries under age 65 who were enrolled
because of end-stage renal disease or disability were $18,250 (data not shown).
20 Medicare beneficiary demographics

Chart 2-3. Beneficiaries who reported being in poor health
accounted for a disproportionate share of
Medicare spending, 2018
Share of
45.5% 49.1% 5.5%
beneficiaries
Share of
26.8% 59.3% 13.9%
spending
Average per capita spending = $12,594
Excellent or very good health Good or fair health Poor health
Note: Results include fee-for-service, Medicare Advantage, community-dwelling, and institutionalized beneficiaries. “Other”
category excluded. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is a point-in-time survey from a sample of Medicare
beneficiaries. Year-to-year variation in reported data is expected. Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
• In 2018, most beneficiaries reported fair to excellent health. Only about 6 percent reported
poor health.
• Medicare spending is strongly associated with self-reported health status. In 2018, per
capita expenditures were $7,098 for those who reported excellent or very good health,
$14,567 for those who reported good or fair health, and $30,634 for those who reported
poor health (data not shown).
Chart 2-4. Enrollment in the Medicare program is projected to
grow rapidly through 2030
120
Historical Projected 109.3
106.1
100.0
100 93.2
87.2
84.0
Beneficiaries (in millions)
77.5
80
62.3
60
47.4
39.3
40 33.7
28.0
20.1
20
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
Note: Enrollment numbers are based on Part A enrollment only. Beneficiaries enrolled only in Part B are not included. The
potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic are not reflected in these projections.
• The total number of people enrolled in the Medicare program is projected to increase from
about 62 million in 2020 to about 78 million in 2030.
• The rate of increase in Medicare enrollment has begun to accelerate as more members of
the baby-boom generation become eligible for the program. Beginning in 2030, when the
entire baby-boom generation will have become eligible, Medicare enrollment will continue to
increase, but more slowly.
22 Medicare beneficiary demographics

Chart 2-5. Characteristics of the Medicare population, 2018
Share of the Share of the
Medicare Medicare
Characteristic population Characteristic population
Total (55.8 million) 100% Living arrangement

Institution 3%
Sex Alone 28
Male 46 With spouse 47
Female 54 Other 22
Race/ethnicity Education
White, non-Hispanic 75 No high school diploma 15
Black, High school diploma only 26
non-Hispanic 10 Some college or more 58
Hispanic 8
Other 7 Income status
Below poverty 15
Age 100–125% of poverty 6
<65 15 125–200% of poverty 17
65–74 48 200–400% of poverty 27
75–84 27 Over 400% of poverty 35
85+ 11
Supplemental insurance status
Health status Medicare only 16
Excellent or very good 45 Managed care 35
Good or fair 48 Employer-sponsored insurance 18
Poor 6 Medigap 19
Medigap with employer-
Residence sponsored insurance 1
Urban 80 Medicaid 11
Rural 20 Other 1
Note: Total number of beneficiaries, age, and health status values may slightly differ from previous figures because only beneficiaries
with complete characteristic data were included in this analysis. Components may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and
exclusion of an “other” category. “Urban” indicates beneficiaries living in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). “Rural” indicates
beneficiaries living outside MSAs. In 2018, “poverty” was defined as income of $12,043 for single individuals ages 65 and older
and $15,193 for married couples ages 65 and older. Poverty thresholds are calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau
(https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html). Some beneficiaries
may have more than one type of supplemental insurance. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is a point-in-time survey
from a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Year-to-year variation in reported data is expected.
• A majority of Medicare beneficiaries are female (rather than male) and White (rather than
other races/ethnicities).
• About one-fifth of beneficiaries live in rural areas.
• Twenty-eight percent of the Medicare population lives alone.
• Most Medicare beneficiaries have some source of supplemental insurance. Managed care
plans are the most common source of supplemental coverage.
3
Chart 3-1. Sources of supplemental coverage among
noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, 2018
No supplemental
coverage
11.0% Medigap
21.7%
Medicare managed
Employer-
care
sponsored
39.0%
insurance
18.0%
Other public sector Medicaid

0.4% 10.0%
Note: We assigned beneficiaries to the supplemental coverage category they were in for the most time in 2018. They could
have had coverage in other categories during 2018. “Other public sector” includes federal and state programs not
included in other categories. Analysis includes only beneficiaries not living in institutions such as nursing homes. It
excludes beneficiaries who were not in both Part A and Part B throughout their enrollment in 2018 or who had Medicare
as a secondary payer. Numbers do not total 100 because of rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Survey file 2018.
• Most beneficiaries living in the community (i.e., noninstitutionalized) have coverage that supplements
or replaces the Medicare benefit package. In 2018, 89 percent of beneficiaries had supplemental
coverage or participated in Medicare managed care.
• About 40 percent of beneficiaries had private sector supplemental coverage such as Medigap (about
22 percent) or employer-sponsored retiree coverage (18 percent).
• About 10 percent of beneficiaries had public sector supplemental coverage, primarily Medicaid.
• Thirty-nine percent of beneficiaries participated in Medicare managed care. This coverage includes
Medicare Advantage, health care prepayment, and cost plans. These types of arrangements
generally replace Medicare’s fee-for-service coverage and often provide more coverage.
• The numbers in this chart differ from those in Chart 2-5, Chart 4-1, and Chart 4-4 because of
differences in the populations represented in the charts. This chart excludes beneficiaries in long-term
care institutions, while Chart 2-5 and Chart 4-4 include all Medicare beneficiaries, and Chart 4-1
excludes beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage.
Chart 3-2. Sources of supplemental coverage among
noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, by
beneficiaries’ characteristics, 2018
Number of Employer- Medicare Other
beneficiaries sponsored Medigap managed public Medicare
(thousands) insurance insurance Medicaid care sector only
All beneficiaries 48,821 18% 22% 10% 39% 0% 11%

Age
<65 6,947 6 3 36 37 1 17
65–69 10,850 16 24 7 40 0 13
70–74 11,950 21 25 5 38 1 11
75–79 8,578 20 25 5 42 0 8
80–84 5,436 24 24 6 38 0 8
85+ 5,060 21 26 6 38 0 9
Income-to-poverty ratio
≤1.00 8,038 3 6 42 39 0 10
1.00 to 1.20 2,765 4 11 23 48 0 14
1.20 to 1.35 1,908 4 18 13 42 1 22
1.35 to 2.00 8,182 11 20 5 48 1 15
>2.00 27,927 27 28 1 35 0 9
Eligibility status
Aged 41,630 20 25 6 39 0 10
Disabled 6,783 6 3 36 37 1 17
ESRD 408 11 21 29 21 2 15
Residence
Urban 38,986 18 20 9 42 0 10
Rural 9,835 18 27 14 26 0 15
Sex
Male 21,964 19 20 9 38 1 13
Female 26,857 17 23 11 40 0 10
Health status
Excellent/very good 22,409 22 26 4 39 0 9
Good/fair 23,410 16 19 13 40 1 12
Poor 2,787 9 12 29 34 1 15
Note: ESRD (end-stage renal disease). We assigned beneficiaries to the supplemental coverage category they were in for the
most time in 2018. They could have had coverage in other categories during 2018. “Medicare managed care” includes
Medicare Advantage, cost, and health care prepayment plans. “Other public sector” includes federal and state programs
not included in other categories. “Urban” indicates beneficiaries living in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) as indicated
by core-based statistical areas. “Rural” indicates beneficiaries living outside MSAs, which includes both micropolitan
statistical areas and rural areas as indicated by core-based statistical areas. Analysis excludes beneficiaries living in
institutions such as nursing homes. Analysis also excludes beneficiaries who were not in both Part A and Part B
throughout their enrollment in 2018 or who had Medicare as a secondary payer. The number of beneficiaries differs
among boldface categories because we excluded beneficiaries with missing values. Numbers in some rows do not sum to
100 percent because of rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Survey file 2018.
• Beneficiaries most likely to have employer-sponsored supplemental coverage are those who are age 65
or older, have income above twice the poverty level, are eligible because of age, and report better than
poor health.
• Medigap is most common among those who are age 65 or older, have income higher than 1.35 times the
poverty level, are eligible because of age or ESRD, are rural dwelling, and report better than poor health.
• Medicaid coverage is most common among those who are under age 65, have income lower than 1.2
times the poverty level, are eligible because of disability or ESRD, are rural dwelling, and report poor
health.
• Lack of supplemental coverage (Medicare coverage only) is most common among beneficiaries who
are under age 70, have income between 1.00 and 2.00 times the poverty level, are eligible because of
disability or ESRD, are rural dwelling, are male, and report poor health.
28 Medicare beneficiary and other payer financial liability

Chart 3-3. Covered benefits and enrollment in standardized
Medigap plans, 2019
Medigap standardized plan type
High
deductible
Benefit A B C* D F* F G K L M N
Part A hospital costs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Part B cost sharing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 50% 75% ✓ $20/$50
Blood (first 3 pints) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 50% 75% ✓ ✓
Hospice cost sharing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 50% 75% ✓ ✓
SNF coinsurance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 50% 75% ✓ ✓
Part A deductible ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 50% 75% 50% ✓
Part B deductible ✓ ✓ ✓
Part B excess charges ✓ ✓ ✓
Foreign travel emergency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lives covered
(in thousands) 108 207 628 129 6,804 306 3,067 81 43 4 1,360
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility). Three states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) have different plan types and are
not included in this chart. The ✓ indicates that the plan covers all cost sharing. Percentages indicate that the plan covers
that share of the total cost sharing. The $20/$50 indicates that the plan covers all but $20 for physician office visits and all
but $50 for emergency room visits.
*
Beginning in 2020, new policies for Plans C or F are not allowed to be sold. However, beneficiaries who purchased
C plans or F plans before 2020 will be able to continue to purchase those plans.
Source: MedPAC analysis of National Association of Insurance Commissioners data, 2020.
• Medicare beneficiaries often purchase Medigap plans, also known as Medicare

supplementary insurance plans, to cover fee-for-service Medicare cost sharing. Statute
specifies 11 standardized plans. States enforce the standards based on model regulations
developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Three states
(Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) have waivers from these standards and have
different standard plan types not included in this chart.
• Plan F, which covers all Medicare cost sharing, is the most popular plan, with 6.8 million
enrollees. However, because the Congress was concerned about the overutilization of
Medicare services, legislation prohibits the sale of new Plan F policies as of 2020. As a
result, insurers have begun to direct beneficiaries into other plan types, namely plans G, K,
and N, which do not cover the Part B deductible.
• During 2019, 14 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medigap plans (including those in
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). Of all Medicare beneficiaries, about one-fifth
were enrolled in Medigap plans.
Chart 3-4. Total spending on health care services for
noninstitutionalized FFS Medicare beneficiaries, by
source of payment, 2018
Per capita total spending = $16,414
Public
supplements
5%
Private
supplements
13%
Beneficiaries'
direct spending
14%
Medicare
68%
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). “Private supplements” includes employer-sponsored plans and individually purchased coverage.
“Public supplements” includes Medicaid, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other public coverage. “Beneficiaries’ direct
spending” is on Medicare cost sharing and noncovered services, but not supplemental premiums. Analysis includes only
FFS beneficiaries not living in institutions such as nursing homes.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Cost Supplement file, 2018.
• Among FFS beneficiaries living in the community (that is, they are not institutionalized), the total cost of
health care services (beneficiaries’ direct spending as well as expenditures by Medicare, other public
sector sources, and all private sector sources on all health care goods and services) averaged about
$16,400 in 2018. Medicare was the largest source of payment: It paid about 68 percent of the health
care costs for FFS beneficiaries living in the community, an average of $11,195 per beneficiary. The
level of Medicare spending in this chart differs from the level in Chart 2-1 because this chart excludes
beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and those living in institutions, while Chart 2-1 represents all
Medicare beneficiaries.
• Private sources of supplemental coverage—primarily employer-sponsored retiree coverage and

Medigap—paid about 13 percent of beneficiaries’ costs, an average of $2,172 per beneficiary.
• Beneficiaries paid about 14 percent of their health care costs out of pocket, an average of $2,249 per
beneficiary.
• Public sources of supplemental coverage—primarily Medicaid—paid about 5 percent of beneficiaries’

health care costs, an average of $798 per beneficiary.

Chart 3-5. Per capita total spending on health care services
among noninstitutionalized FFS beneficiaries, by
source of payment, 2018
90,000
$83,972
Medicare
80,000
Supplemental payers
70,000 Out of pocket
60,000
50,000
Dollars
40,000
30,000 $25,952
20,000
$10,832
10,000
$4,489
$303 $1,711
0
<10 10–25 25–50 50–75 75–90 >90
Groups of beneficiaries ranked by total spending (percentile ranges)
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Analysis excludes those who are not in FFS Medicare and those living in institutions such as
nursing homes. “Out-of-pocket" spending includes Medicare cost sharing and noncovered services, but not supplemental
premiums.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, Cost Supplement file, 2018.
• Total spending on health care services varied dramatically among FFS beneficiaries living in
the community in 2018. Per capita spending for the 10 percent of beneficiaries with the
highest total spending averaged nearly $84,000. Per capita spending for the 10 percent of
beneficiaries with the lowest total spending averaged $303.
• Among FFS beneficiaries living in the community, Medicare paid a larger share and
beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket spending was a smaller share as total spending increased. For
example, Medicare paid 68 percent of total spending for all beneficiaries, but paid 79
percent of total spending for the 10 percent of beneficiaries with the highest total spending.
Across FFS beneficiaries living in the community, out-of-pocket spending amounted to 14
percent of total spending, but only 7 percent of total spending for the 10 percent of
beneficiaries with the highest total spending (data not shown).
Chart 3-6. Geographic variation in use of services has
decreased among FFS Medicare beneficiaries,
2008–2018
70%
2008
Share of beneficiaries living in geographic
area with specified level of service use
60% 2013
2018
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 75% 75%-85% 85%-95% 95%-105% 105%-115% 115%-125% >125%
Area service use as a percent of national average service use
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). “Service use” is per capita monthly Part A and Part B service use among FFS beneficiaries in each
area. We defined areas as metropolitan statistical areas within each state for urban counties and rest-of-state
nonmetropolitan areas for nonurban counties.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 2008, 2013, and 2018 beneficiary-level spending from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary Files and
Medicare inpatient claims.
• FFS beneficiaries’ use of Medicare-covered services varies by geographic area, but that
variation decreased from 2008 to 2018. The share of FFS beneficiaries living in
geographic areas that had service use within 5 percent of the national average (95
percent to 105 percent) increased from 43 percent in 2008 to 59 percent in 2018. Also,
the share of FFS beneficiaries living in geographic areas that had service use more than
25 percent higher than the national average (>125 percent) decreased from 2 percent in
2008 to almost 0 percent in 2018.
• The service sector that had the largest decrease in variation from 2008 to 2018 was post-
acute care, especially home health care (data not shown). From 2008 to 2018, the
variation in use of home health services across geographic areas declined by 24 percent.

4
Chart 4-1. Dual-eligible beneficiaries accounted for a
disproportionate share of Medicare spending, 2018
Share of FFS beneficiaries Share of FFS spending

Dual
eligible
17% Dual
eligible
30%
Non-dual Non-dual
eligible eligible
83% 70%
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). “Dual-eligible beneficiaries” are defined as beneficiaries who were eligible for both Medicare and
Medicaid for at least one month during the year.
• Dual-eligible beneficiaries are those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid
is a joint federal and state program designed to help people with low incomes obtain needed
health care.
• Dual-eligible beneficiaries account for a disproportionate share of Medicare FFS

expenditures. Although they were 17 percent of the Medicare FFS population in 2018, they
represented 30 percent of aggregate Medicare FFS spending.
• On average, Medicare FFS per capita spending is more than twice as high for dual-eligible
beneficiaries compared with non-dual-eligible beneficiaries: In 2018, $21,390 was spent per
dual-eligible beneficiary, and $10,072 was spent per non-dual-eligible beneficiary (data not
shown).
• In 2018, average total spending⎯which includes Medicare, Medicaid, supplemental

insurance, and out-of-pocket spending across all payers⎯for dual-eligible beneficiaries was
$31,339 per beneficiary, about twice the amount for other Medicare beneficiaries (data not
shown).
Chart 4-2. Dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely than
non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to be under age 65
and have a disability, 2018
Dual-eligible beneficiaries Non-dual-eligible beneficiaries

85+ 85+ Under 65
10% Under 65 11% (disabled)
(disabled) 9%
40%
75-84
18%
75-84
29%
65-74
51%
65-74
32%
Note: Beneficiaries who are under age 65 generally qualify for Medicare because of disability. Once beneficiaries with
disabilities reach age 65, they are counted as aged beneficiaries. “Dual-eligible beneficiaries” are defined as beneficiaries
who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid for at least one month during the year.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2018.
• Disability is a pathway for individuals to become eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid
benefits.
• Dual-eligible beneficiaries are more likely than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to be under

age 65 and have a disability. In 2018, 40 percent of dual-eligible beneficiaries were under
age 65 with a disability compared with 9 percent of the non-dual-eligible population.
36 Dual-eligible beneficiaries
Chart 4-3. Dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely than
non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to report being in
poor health, 2018
Dual-eligible beneficiaries Non-dual-eligible beneficiaries

Excellent
Poor health Poor health
or very
15% 4%
good
health
21%
Excellent
or very
good
health
51%
Good or
fair health
Good or 45%
fair health
64%
Note: “Dual-eligible beneficiaries” are defined as beneficiaries who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid for at least one
month during the year.
• Dual-eligible beneficiaries are more likely than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to report being
in poor health. In 2018, 15 percent of dual-eligible beneficiaries reported being in poor
health compared with 4 percent of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries.
• Just over half of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (51 percent) reported being in excellent or
very good health in 2018. In comparison, about one-fifth (21 percent) of dual-eligible
beneficiaries reported being in excellent or very good health.
Chart 4-4. Demographic differences between dual-eligible
beneficiaries and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, 2018
Share of dual- Share of non-dual-
Characteristic eligible beneficiaries eligible beneficiaries
Sex
Male 38% 47%
Female 62 53
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic 51 81
African American, non-Hispanic 21 7
Hispanic 19 6
Other 9 6
Limitations in ADLs
No limitations in ADLs 49 76
Limitations in 1–2 ADLs 25 16
Limitations in 3–6 ADLs 26 8
Residence
Urban 79 81
Rural 21 19
Living arrangement
Institution 9 1
Alone 36 26
With spouse 15 55
With children, nonrelatives, others 39 18
Education
No high school diploma 37 10
High school diploma only 32 25
Some college or more 30 65
Income status
Below poverty 60 5
100–125% of poverty 17 4
125–200% of poverty 16 17
200–400% of poverty 6 31
Over 400% of poverty 1 43
Supplemental insurance status
Medicare or Medicare/Medicaid only 52 19
Medicare managed care 42 35
Employer-sponsored insurance 1 22
Medigap 3 23
Medigap/employer <1 1
Other* 2 1
Note: ADL (activity of daily living). “Dual-eligible beneficiaries” are defined as beneficiaries who were eligible for both Medicare and
Medicaid for at least one month during the year. “Urban” indicates beneficiaries living in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
“Rural” indicates beneficiaries living outside of MSAs. In 2018, poverty was defined as annual income of $12,043 for people living
alone and $15,193 for married couples. Poverty thresholds are calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau
(https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html). Totals may not sum to 100
percent due to rounding and exclusion of an “other” category.
*Includes public programs such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and state-sponsored drug plans.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2018.
• Dual-eligible beneficiaries qualify for Medicaid due in part to low incomes. In 2018, 60 percent of dual-eligible
beneficiaries lived below the poverty threshold, and 93 percent lived below 200 percent of the poverty threshold.
Compared with non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, dual-eligible beneficiaries are more likely to be female, be African
American or Hispanic, lack a high school diploma, have greater limitations in activities of daily living, and live in an
institution. They are less likely to have supplemental employer-sponsored or Medigap coverage.
Chart 4-5. Differences in Medicare spending and service use
between dual-eligible beneficiaries and non-dual-
eligible beneficiaries, 2018
Dual-eligible Non-dual-eligible
Service beneficiaries beneficiaries
Average FFS Medicare payment for all beneficiaries
Total Medicare FFS payments $21,390 $10,072
Inpatient hospital 4,349 2,721

Physiciana 3,343 2,657
Outpatient hospital 3,318 1,750
Home health 612 368
Skilled nursing facilityb 1,017 499
Hospice 412 224
Prescribed medicationc 8,317 1,848
Share of FFS beneficiaries using service
Share using any type of service 96.9% 85.7%
Inpatient hospital 21.1 13.2

Physiciana 91.5 81.4
Outpatient hospital 75.7 62.1
Home health 10.4 7.9
Skilled nursing facilityb 5.3 3.6
Hospice 3.2 1.8
Prescribed medicationc 93.0 58.7
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Data in this analysis are restricted to beneficiaries in FFS Medicare. “Dual-eligible beneficiaries” are
defined as beneficiaries who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid for at least one month during the year.
Spending totals derived from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) do not necessarily match official estimates
from CMS Office of the Actuary. Total payments may not equal the sum of line items due to omitted “other” category.
a
Includes a variety of medical services, equipment, and supplies.
b
Individual short-term facility (usually skilled nursing facility) stays for the MCBS population.
c
Data from stand-alone prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug plans.
• In 2018, average per capita Medicare FFS spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries was more
than twice that for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries⎯$21,390 compared with $10,072.
• For each type of service, average Medicare FFS per capita spending was higher for dual-
eligible beneficiaries than for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries.
• Higher average per capita FFS spending for dual-eligible beneficiaries is a function of higher
use of these services by dual-eligible beneficiaries compared with their non-dual-eligible
counterparts. Dual-eligible beneficiaries are more likely than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries
to use each type of Medicare-covered service.
Chart 4-6. Both Medicare and total spending were concentrated
among dual-eligible beneficiaries, 2018
100
5
90
15 28
35
80
70
30
60
Percent
31
50
35
40
30
26
50
20 23
10
14
7
0
Medicare spending for dual- Share of dual-eligible Total spending for dual-eligible
eligible beneficiaries beneficiaries beneficiaries
Note: “Total spending” includes Medicare, Medicaid, supplemental insurance, and out-of-pocket spending. Data in this analysis
are restricted to beneficiaries in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. “Dual-eligible beneficiaries” are defined as beneficiaries
who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid for at least one month during the year.
• Annual Medicare FFS and total spending on dual-eligible beneficiaries are concentrated
among a small number of people. The costliest 5 percent of dual-eligible beneficiaries
accounted for 35 percent of Medicare spending and 28 percent of total spending on dual-
eligible beneficiaries in 2018. In contrast, the least costly 50 percent of dual-eligible
beneficiaries accounted for only 7 percent of Medicare FFS spending and 14 percent of total
spending on dual-eligible beneficiaries.
• On average, total spending (including Medicaid, Medigap, etc.) for dual-eligible beneficiaries
in 2018 was almost twice that for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries—$31,339 compared with
$16,622, respectively (data not shown).
5
Chart 5-1. Most Medicare beneficiaries are in managed care
plans or are assigned to accountable care
organizations, 2021
Other ACOs and ACO-like models

3%
Traditional FFS
31%
Medicare
managed care
47%
MSSP ACO 19%
Note: ACO (accountable care organization), FFS (fee-for-service), MSSP (Medicare Shared Savings Program). This chart includes
only beneficiaries enrolled in both Part A and Part B in January 2021. Both Part A and Part B coverage is necessary for either
Medicare Advantage enrollment or ACO assignment. In general, Medicare managed care plans include Medicare Advantage
plans as well as cost-reimbursed plans. Other ACOs and ACO-like models include the Next Generation ACO model, the
Maryland Total Cost of Care (TCOC) model, and the Vermont All-Payer ACO. In the Maryland TCOC model, all FFS
beneficiaries are assigned to a hospital, and each hospital is responsible for all Part A and Part B spending for all Medicare
beneficiaries in its market. This system creates ACO-like incentives for the hospital and qualifies physicians affiliated with
those hospitals for the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) bonus payments for participation in eligible
alternative payment models.
Source: CMS January 2021 enrollment dashboard data, CMS Shared Savings Program January 2021 Fast Facts, CMS ACO Next
Generation 2019 performance data and 2020 participant lists, and State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board 2020
report.
• Among the 57.6 million Medicare beneficiaries with both Part A and Part B coverage in 2021,
approximately two-thirds are in Medicare managed care (Medicare Advantage or other
private plans) or ACO models.
• The Medicare Shared Savings Program—a permanent ACO model established through the
Affordable Care Act of 2010—accounts for most of the beneficiaries assigned to ACO or
ACO-like payment models.
• Only 31 percent of Medicare beneficiaries with both Part A and Part B coverage are now in
traditional FFS Medicare—a share that has declined in recent years.
• Even among the share of beneficiaries in traditional FFS, some beneficiaries may be
assigned to other alternative payments models such as the Bundled Payments for Care
Improvement Advanced model or the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus model.
Chart 5-2. The number of beneficiaries assigned to MSSP
ACOs grew rapidly through 2018 and then leveled off
14 600
MSSP-assigned beneficiaries (millions)
12 11.2
10.7 500
10.5 10.4
Number of MSSP ACOs

10 9.0
400
7.7
8 7.3
300
561
6 517
4.9 480 487 477
433
404 200
4 3.2 338
220 100
2
0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Note: MSSP (Medicare Shared Savings Program), ACO (accountable care organization). Numbers are as of January in each
year. In 2019, MSSP ACOs were allowed to join the program in July 2019. Those ACOs and the beneficiaries assigned to
them were not in the program as of January 2019 and are therefore not included in the 2019 counts on this chart. As of
July 2019, there were 518 MSSP ACOs and 10.9 million beneficiaries assigned to them. In 2021, new MSSP ACOs were
not allowed to join the program due to the coronavirus pandemic, though ACOs were still allowed to exit the program.
Source: CMS Shared Savings Program January 2021 Fast Facts.
• The number of beneficiaries assigned to MSSP ACOs grew rapidly through 2018 but has
leveled off in recent years.
• The number of ACOs peaked in 2018 and then declined between 2018 and 2021, in part
due to CMS restricting new ACOs from entering MSSP in 2021 because of the coronavirus
pandemic.
• While the number of ACOs and assigned beneficiaries has leveled off in recent years, the
number of beneficiaries per ACO continues to increase (data not shown).
• CMS finalized changes to the MSSP program at the end of 2018 that included (1) requiring
ACOs to transition toward greater levels of risk and (2) using regional spending as a
component of all ACO benchmarks (the spending levels used to measure an ACO’s
financial performance). These changes coincided with some ACOs dropping out of the
program and fewer new ACOs joining the program.
44 Alternative payment models

Chart 5-3. Distribution of clinicians participating in the
Medicare Shared Savings Program, by type of
provider, 2019
200
150
Number of MSSP ACOs
100
50
Number of clinicians in MSSP ACO
Primary care physicians Specialists Nonphysicians
Note: MSSP (Medicare Shared Savings Program), ACO (accountable care organization). As of December 2019, there were 514
MSSP ACOs. “Nonphysician” clinicians include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists.
Source: Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations public use files.
• MSSP ACOs usually have a combination of primary care physicians, specialists, and
nonphysician practitioners. On average, MSSP ACOs have about 260 primary care
physicians, 480 specialists, and 300 nonphysician practitioners (data not shown).
• Nearly 200 MSSP ACOs have 100 or fewer primary care physicians, specialists, or
nonphysician practitioners. Sixty-seven ACOs have 100 or fewer total clinicians (data not
shown).
• Sixteen ACOs have more than 1,000 primary care physicians, and 71 ACOs have more than
1,000 specialists; 157 ACOs have more than 1,000 total clinicians (data not shown).
Chart 5-4. Bundled Payments for Care Improvement
Advanced is Medicare’s largest episode-based
payment model, 2021
Oncology Care Model 127 practices
Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement 378 mandatory + 66 voluntary = 444 hospitals
1,205 hospitals
BPCI Advanced
and practices
Number of participating health care organizations
Note: BPCI (Bundled Payments for Care Improvement).
Source: CMS’s Oncology Care Model website (https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/oncology-care); Comprehensive

Care for Joint Replacement website (https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/cjr); information on BPCI Advanced
participants: CMS's Where Innovation Is Happening website (https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-
models/map#model=bpci-advanced).
• Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) providers can participate in episode-based payment models.
• Episode-based payment models give health care providers a spending target for most types
of care provided during a clinical episode (e.g., six months of chemotherapy or an inpatient
admission or outpatient procedure plus most other care provided in the subsequent 90
days). If total spending is less than the target, Medicare pays providers a bonus; if total
spending is more than the target, Medicare recoups money from providers.
• Within FFS Medicare, the episode-based payment model with broadest participation (1,205
acute care hospitals and physician group practices participating) is the BPCI Advanced
model.

Chart 5-5. Share of BPCI Advanced participants accepting
financial responsibility for each clinical episode
group, 2021
Medical and critical care 71%
Cardiac care 58%
Neurological care 49%
Gastrointestinal care 41%
Orthopedics 38%
Spinal procedures 30%
Cardiac procedures 25%
Gastrointestinal surgery 23%
Note: BPCI (Bundled Payments for Care Improvement). BPCI Advanced participants can accept episode-based payments for
multiple clinical-episode service-line groups. The denominator is 1,205 BPCI Advanced episode initiators in 2021.
Source: List of clinical episodes each BPCI Advanced participant agreed to take financial responsibility for in Model Year 4 (2021)
downloaded from CMS’s BPCI Advanced webpage (https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/bpci-advanced).
• BPCI Advanced allows hospitals and practices to initiate dozens of clinical episodes, most of
which are for inpatient admissions (as opposed to outpatient procedures). Starting in Model
Year 4 (2021), episodes under the model are aggregated into eight clinical-episode service-
line groups (e.g., the cardiac care group includes acute myocardial infarction, cardiac
arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure).
• About two-thirds of BPCI Advanced participants accept episode-based payments for fewer
than four clinical-episode service-line groups. Twenty-nine percent accept episode-based
payments for only one clinical-episode service-line group (data not shown).
Chart 5-6. 2,625 practices are testing the Comprehensive
Primary Care Plus model, 2021


472
384 378
187 186 169

Number of practices
140 132 129

95 80 62 47 43 33 31 30 27
OH & N. Kentucky
MI
NJ
CO
Philadelphia, PA
AR
OK
OR
Hudson, NY
Kansas City,
HI
Buffalo, NY
MT
TN
RI
NE
LA
ND
Albany & N.
KS/MO
Note: Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) is an advanced alternative payment model that CMS began testing in 2017 in
some regions and in 2018 in others. CPC+ is a multipayer model, with some Medicaid and private insurers voluntarily paying
similar fees for their enrollees. Alaska (not shown) was not selected as a region eligible to participate in the CPC+ model.
Source: CMS's list of CPC+ practices (https://data.cms.gov/Special-Programs-Initiatives-Speed-Adoption-of-Bes/Comprehensive-

Primary-Care-Plus/eevd-hiep).
• CMS’s CPC+ is an advanced alternative payment model that aims to strengthen primary care by
providing additional, up-front payments to participating providers of primary care services. These
payments are intended to support enhanced, coordinated care management and assist with care
delivery transformation.
• Participating practices receive a risk-adjusted per beneficiary per month care management fee, in
addition to standard fee-for-service (FFS) payments. Practices can also opt to shift some of their FFS
revenue into prospective payments received quarterly.
• CPC+ practices can earn performance bonuses unless they also participate in a Medicare Shared
Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organization (since bonuses are already available
through the MSSP). About half the CPC+ practices also participate in the MSSP.

Chart 5-7. About 70 percent of the clinicians who qualified for a
5 percent A–APM bonus in 2021 were in the
Medicare Shared Savings Program
Medicare Shared Savings Program 69.1%
Next Generation ACO 29.4%
Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced 9.8%
Comprehensive Primary Care Plus 5.2%
Comprehensive ESRD Care 1.2%
Other models 1.9%
Note: A–APM (advanced alternative payment model), ACO (accountable care organization), ESRD (end-stage renal disease).
Clinicians’ 2019 A–APM participation determines their 2021 bonuses. Clinicians can participate in more than one A–APM
simultaneously. To qualify for the A–APM bonus in 2021, clinicians had to receive 50 percent of their professional services
payments or provide 35 percent of their patients with professional services through an A–APM in 2019. The A–APM bonus is
equal to 5 percent of a clinician’s professional services payments from Medicare (not including cost sharing paid by
beneficiaries). “Other models” includes the Maryland Total Cost of Care model, Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement
model, Vermont ACO model, and Oncology Care Model. For the payment models shown, only those model tracks that
require clinicians to take on some financial risk qualify as A–APMs (e.g., physicians participating in Track 1 of the Medicare
Shared Savings Program did not qualify for A–APM bonuses because Track 1 involved no financial risk for participants).
Source: CMS data on clinicians who qualified for the 5 percent bonus in 2021 based on clinicians’ 2019 model participation.
• The payment models that CMS has designated as A–APMs place health care providers at
some financial risk for Medicare spending while expecting them to meet quality goals for a
defined patient population. Clinicians who participate in A–APMs qualify for bonuses equal
to 5 percent of their professional services payments from Medicare. These bonus payments
are available from 2019 to 2024.
• In 2021, nearly 195,000 clinicians nationwide qualified for the A–APM bonus (based on
2019 A–APM participation). About 96 percent of these clinicians participated in ACOs, which
give clinicians an opportunity to earn shared savings payments from Medicare if they lower
health care spending while meeting care quality standards (data not shown).
• Among clinicians who qualified for an A–APM bonus in 2021, 39 percent were specialists,
26 percent were primary care physicians, and 35 percent were nonphysician practitioners
(data not shown).
6
Chart 6-1. Urban IPPS hospitals comprised half of short-term
acute care hospitals but accounted for over 85
percent of all-payer and Medicare FFS inpatient
stays in 2019
Hospitals Inpatient stays
All payer Medicare FFS
Number Share of Number Share of Number Share of
Hospital group (in thousands) total (in millions) total (in millions) total
All short-term acute 4.5 100 31.5 100 9.1 100
IPPS 3.1 68 29.7 94 8.6 94
Metropolitan (urban) 2.3 51 27.6 87 7.7 85

Rural micropolitan 0.5 11 1.8 6 0.7 8
Other rural 0.2 5 0.3 1 0.1 1
For profit 0.8 17 4.9 16 1.4 16

Nonprofit 1.9 41 20.9 66 6.1 67
Government 0.5 10 4.0 13 1.0 11
DSH and teaching 1.1 23 18.6 59 5.0 55

DSH only 1.5 34 9.0 29 2.9 31
Teaching only 0.1 2 0.9 3 0.3 3
Neither 0.4 9 1.2 4 0.5 5
Sole community 0.4 8 1.1 4 0.4 5

Medicare dependent 0.1 3 0.2 1 0.1 1
Neither 2.6 57 28.4 90 8.0 88
Critical access 1.3 29 0.6 2 0.3 3

Maryland <0.1 1 0.5 2 0.2 2
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), FFS (fee-for-service), DSH (disproportionate share hospital). Data are for
short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories) that had a cost report with a midpoint in fiscal year 2019.
“Number of hospitals” is the number of Medicare provider numbers; a single provider number can represent multiple
hospital locations. Metropolitan (urban) counties contain an urban cluster of 50,000 or more people, and rural micropolitan
counties contain a cluster of 10,000 to 50,000 people. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding and because
children's and cancer hospitals are not listed separately.
Source: MedPAC analysis of hospital cost report data from CMS.
• Estimates of the total number of short-term acute care hospitals differ somewhat, depending
on the source of data. Using cost report data, we estimate that there were about 4,500
short-term acute care hospitals participating in the Medicare program in 2019, including
3,100 paid under the inpatient prospective payment system and 1,300 small, rural hospitals
designated as critical access hospitals.
• Metropolitan (urban) IPPS hospitals accounted for 51 percent of short-term acute care
hospitals but accounted for 87 percent of the 31.5 million all-payer inpatient stays and 85
percent of the 9.1 million Medicare FFS inpatient stays in 2019.
Chart 6-2. Fewer general short-term acute care hospitals
closed in 2020 and openings increased
Closures
60
Number of hospitals
50 46
40 11
30 8 25
20 19
20 6
8 12 4 6
3 27
10 3
10 12 13
8
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Openings
30
Number of hospitals
20 18
2
12
9 8
10
3 15
12
9 8
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Metropolitan Rural micropolitan Other rural
Note: “Closure” refers to a hospital location that ceased inpatient services, while “opening” refers to a new location for inpatient
services. The chart does not include the relocation of inpatient services from one hospital to another under common
ownership within 10 miles, nor does it include hospitals that both opened and closed within a 5-year time period. Data are
for general short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. paid under the inpatient prospective payment system, designated
as critical access hospitals, or covered under the Maryland state waiver. Metropolitan (urban) counties contain an urban
cluster of 50,000 or more people, and rural micropolitan counties contain a cluster of 10,000 to 50,000 people. The counts
in this chart differ from those previously published for several reasons, such as removing hospitals previously counted as
closures but that have since reopened. Year refers to fiscal year.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the CMS Provider of Services file, census data on metropolitan and micropolitan areas, internet
searches, and personal communication with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Rural Health Policy.
• In fiscal year 2020, 25 general short-term acute care hospitals participating in the Medicare
program closed, and 18 hospitals opened. The number of closures decreased from the peak
in 2019, while the number of openings increased.
• Among the 25 hospital closures in 2020, 13 were in metropolitan counties, 6 were in rural
micropolitan counties, and 6 were in other rural counties. Similar to prior years, the hospitals
that closed in 2020 tended to be small (18 had 100 or fewer beds), had low inpatient
occupancy rates (approximately 29 percent, on average), and had poor profitability (all-
payer margin of –11 percent, on average, in the year before closure) (data not shown).
• Nearly all of the hospital openings from 2016 to 2020 were in metropolitan counties.
54 Acute inpatient services

Chart 6-3. Aggregate occupancy rate at short-term acute care
hospitals increased, 2015–2019
100.0%
Aggregate occupancy rate
80.0%
62.3% 62.5% 62.9% 63.6% 64.4%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
1000
Beds
800 680 681 678 672 669
(Thousands)
600
400
423 426 426 427 431
200 Average
daily census
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: “Aggregate occupancy rate” is calculated as total used bed days (including inpatient, swing, and observation bed days but
excluding nursery bed days) divided by total bed days available. “Average daily census” is calculated as total used bed
days divided by 365; “beds” refers to total bed days available divided by 365. Data are for short-term acute care hospitals
in the U.S. (excluding territories) that had a cost report with a midpoint in fiscal year 2019. Occupancy rates may vary
slightly from calculations of components due to rounding.
• The aggregate occupancy rate at short-term acute care hospitals increased slightly between
2015 and 2019, from 62.3 percent to 64.4 percent. This increase in occupancy rate reflects
a combination of an increase in hospitals’ average daily inpatient census and a decrease in
hospitals’ inpatient beds.
• The occupancy rate varied significantly across different groups of hospitals. For example, in
2019, metropolitan (urban) inpatient prospective payment system hospitals had an
occupancy rate of 67.6 percent, while critical access hospitals had an occupancy rate of
31.0 percent (data not shown).
Chart 6-4. All-payer inpatient visits per capita decreased while
outpatient visits per capita increased, 2015–2019
150 10.0%
Inpatient stays per 1,000 people
Annual percentage change

106 106 106 105 104
100 5.0%
50 0.0%
0.2% –0.1% 0.2%
–0.7% –1.0%
0 -5.0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
3,000 10.0%
Outpatient visits per 1,000 people

2,500 2,347 2,361 2,350 2,396
2,284
2,000 5.0%
1,500 3.7%
2.8%
2.0%
1,000 0.0%
0.6%
–0.4%
500
0 -5.0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: “Outpatient visits” includes all clinic visits, referred visits, observation services, outpatient surgeries, and emergency
department visits, regardless of the number of diagnostic and/or therapeutic treatments the patient received during the
visit. Data are for community hospitals (nonfederal short-term general and specialty hospitals), estimated from those who
responded to the American Hospital Association (AHA) survey. With the 2019 edition of Hospital Statistics, the AHA
began using a new methodology to classify facilities as hospitals. As a result of the application of the new, broader
hospital definition, the number of community hospitals in each year increased by approximately 400.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Hospital Statistics data from the American Hospital Association and CMS National Health
Expenditure data.
• From 2015 to 2019, there were divergent trends in all-payer inpatient stays and hospital
outpatient visits per capita, with declines in inpatient stays and growth in outpatient visits.
• All-payer inpatient stays per capita held relatively steady from 2015 to 2017, but declined
0.7 percent in 2018 and 1.0 percent in 2019—a cumulative change of –1.6 percent from
2015 to 2019.
• All-payer outpatient visits per capita grew more than 2 percent in each of 2015 and 2016,
were steadier in 2017 and 2018, and then returned to 2 percent growth in 2019—a
cumulative change of 4.9 percent from 2015 to 2019.

Chart 6-5. IPPS hospitals’ aggregate total and operating all-
payer margins reached record highs in 2019
15
Aggregate all-payer margin (percent)
EBITDA
10.6 10.3 10.5
10.2
9.8
10
Total 7.6
6.9 7.1
6.5 6.7
Operating 6.5
5 6.4 5.8 5.9 6.0
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).
Hospitals’ aggregate margin is calculated as aggregate payments minus aggregate allowable costs, divided by aggregate
payments. “All-payer” margin includes payments from all payers. “Total” margin includes investment income; “operating”
margin is limited to patient care revenue; and EBITDA margin is a measure of cash flow. Analysis includes short-term
acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the IPPS with complete cost report data.
• Hospitals’ aggregate all-payer margin reflects the relationship between hospitals’ payments
and costs across all payers (Medicare, Medicaid, other government payers, and private
payers).
• In 2019, IPPS hospitals’ aggregate total all-payer margin (which includes investment
income) increased to an all-time high of 7.6 percent. Similarly, IPPS hospitals’ aggregate
operating margin increased to an all-time high of 6.5 percent, slightly above the prior all-time
high in 2015.
• In addition, IPPS hospitals’ cash flow margin (which includes earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA)) increased to 10.5 percent in 2019, the highest
level since 2015.
• Within these aggregate results, there continued to be substantial variation in hospitals’

financial performance. For example, in 2019, for-profit IPPS hospitals’ all-payer operating
margin was 12.5 percent, compared with nonprofit IPPS hospitals’ all-payer margin of 7.3
percent (data not shown). In contrast, the all-payer operating margin at rural nonmicropolitan
IPPS hospitals was only 1.5 percent in 2019.
Chart 6-6. Urban IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher
aggregate total all-payer margin than rural IPPS
hospitals, 2015–2019
10
Aggregate total all-payer margin (percent)
7.8
Metropolitan 6.9
6.6
5 Rural micropolitan
5.1
1.5
Other rural
0.9
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system). Hospitals’ aggregate margin is calculated as aggregate payments minus
aggregate allowable costs, divided by aggregate payments. “Total all-payer” margin includes payments from all payers
and from investments. Metropolitan (urban) counties contain an urban cluster of 50,000 or more people, and rural
micropolitan counties contain a cluster of 10,000 to 50,000 people; all other counties are classified as “other rural.”
Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the IPPS with complete cost
report data.
• Metropolitan (urban) IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate total all-payer
margin than rural micropolitan or other rural IPPS hospitals in 2019. (In contrast, rural IPPS
hospitals had a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin, see Chart 6-11.)
• From 2018 to 2019, the aggregate total all-payer margin for metropolitan IPPS hospitals
increased from 6.9 percent to a relative high of 7.8 percent, while the margin for rural
micropolitan IPPS hospitals increased from 5.1 to a relative high of 6.6 percent. These 2019
margins were the highest since the late 1990s (data not shown). From 2018 to 2019, the
aggregate all-payer total margin for other rural IPPS hospitals also increased, from 0.9 to
1.5 percent, but remained below 2015 to 2017 levels.
• From 2018 to 2019, the aggregate all-payer total margin for critical access hospitals also
increased, from a relative low of 2.8 percent to 3.6 percent (data not shown).

Chart 6-7. IPPS hospitals, including those that treat a
disproportionate share of low-income patients,
reached record highs in aggregate total all-payer
margin, 2019
15
Teaching only
9.9 10.2
10 Neither DSH nor teaching
9.2
8.8 7.6
DSH only 6.6
7.4
DSH and teaching 6.5

5
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), DSH (disproportionate share hospital). Hospitals’ aggregate margin is
calculated as aggregate payments minus aggregate allowable costs, divided by aggregate payments. “Total all-payer”
margin includes payments from all payers and from investments. Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in the
U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the IPPS with complete cost report data.
• IPPS hospitals that treated a disproportionate share of low-income patients (DSHs)

continued to have a lower aggregate total all-payer margin than non-DSH hospitals,
regardless of whether the hospital was a teaching hospital. (In contrast, DSHs had a higher
aggregate overall Medicare margin than other hospitals; see Chart 6-12.)
• From 2018 to 2019, the aggregate total all-payer margin for DSHs and teaching IPPS
hospitals increased from 6.5 percent to 7.4 percent, with a similar increase among DSHs but
non-teaching hospitals (from 6.6 percent to 7.6 percent)—all-time highs since the late-1990s
in both categories (data not shown).
• Over this same time period, IPPS hospitals that were neither DSHs nor teaching hospitals
experienced a larger increase in aggregate total all-payer margin, from 8.8 percent to 10.2
percent—an all-time high since the late-1990s (data not shown). In contrast, the aggregate
total all-payer margin at the smaller number of teaching but non–disproportionate share
hospitals decreased from 9.9 percent to 9.2 percent.
Chart 6-8. For-profit IPPS hospitals’ aggregate total all-payer
margin reached an all-time high in 2019
15
12.5
11.3
For profit
10
7.3
Nonprofit 6.3
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
and from investments. Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the
IPPS with complete cost report data.
• For-profit IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate total all-payer margin than
nonprofit IPPS hospitals. (For-profit IPPS hospitals also have a higher overall Medicare
margin; see Chart 6-13.)
• From 2018 to 2019, for-profit hospitals’ aggregate total all-payer margin increased from 11.3
percent to 12.5 percent. This was the highest level since the late-1990s (data not shown).
• Over this same period, nonprofit IPPS hospitals’ aggregate total all-payer margin increased
from 6.3 percent to 7.3 percent, returning to the level in 2017. The 2017 and 2019 total all-
payer margins were the highest since an all-time high of 7.4 percent in 2014 (data not
shown).

Chart 6-9. IPPS hospitals under low fiscal pressure continued
to have a higher aggregate total all-payer margin
than those under higher fiscal pressure, 2015–2019
15
Low pressure 10.1

10 9.3
Medium pressure 1.8

1.3
-1.0
High pressure -2.6
-5
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
and from investments. “High-pressure” hospitals are defined as those with a median non-Medicare profit margin of 1
percent or less over five years and a net worth (assets minus liabilities) that would have grown by less than 1 percent per
year over that period if the hospital’s Medicare profits had been zero. “Low-pressure” hospitals are defined as those with a
median non-Medicare profit margin greater than 5 percent over five years and a net worth that would have grown by more
than 1 percent per year over that period if the hospital’s Medicare profits had been zero. “Medium-pressure” hospitals are
those that fit into neither the high- nor the low-pressure categories. Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in
the U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the IPPS with complete cost report data.
• IPPS hospitals’ total all-payer margin varied depending on their level of fiscal pressure.
IPPS hospitals under the highest fiscal pressure—defined as those with a median non-
Medicare profit margin of 1 percent or less and lacking material growth in net worth—
continued to have a lower aggregate total all-payer margin than hospitals under less fiscal
pressure. (IPPS hospitals under fiscal pressure have a higher overall Medicare margin,
see Chart 6-14.)
• IPPS hospitals under low fiscal pressure maintained a strong and steady aggregate total all-
payer margin, including an increase to an all-time high of 10.1 percent in 2019.
• In contrast, hospitals under high fiscal pressure maintained a negative aggregate total all-
payer margin, though it increased to a relative high of –1 percent.
Chart 6-10. IPPS hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin
remained negative, but increased in 2019
0
Aggregate overall Medicare margin
-5
-7.6
-8.7
(percent)
-9.6 -9.3
-10.0
-10
-15
-20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system). Hospitals’ Medicare margin is calculated as aggregate Medicare payments
minus aggregate allowable Medicare costs, divided by aggregate Medicare payments. “Overall Medicare margin” refers to
the aggregate margin across hospital service lines (including inpatient, outpatient, swing bed, skilled nursing,
rehabilitation, psychiatric, and home health services), as well as supplemental payments not tied to the provision of
services (such as direct graduate medical education and uncompensated care payments) and bad debt payments.
report data.
• Hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin reflects the relationship between hospitals’
Medicare fee-for-service payments and Medicare-allowable costs across inpatient,
outpatient, and other services, as well as supplemental Medicare payments not tied to the
provision of services (such as uncompensated care and direct graduate medical education
payments).
• From 2018 to 2019, IPPS hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin increased from –9.3
percent to –8.7 percent. However, the margin remains well below pre-2014 levels (data not
shown), when Congress reduced DSH payments and added uncompensated care payments
proportional to the decline in the national uninsured rate (see Chart 6-18).
• The range of overall Medicare margins at individual IPPS hospitals varied substantially. For
example, in 2019, 25 percent of hospitals had an overall Medicare margin of 3 percent or
higher, and another 25 percent had a margin of –18 percent or lower (data not shown).

Chart 6-11. Rural IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher
aggregate overall Medicare margin than urban IPPS
hospitals, 2015–2019
5
Other rural
0
-2.7
-5.0
-5 Rural micropolitan -6.1
(percent)
-6.7
-10 Metropolitan -9.0

-9.6
-15
-20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Metropolitan (urban) counties contain an urban cluster of 50,000 or more people, and rural micropolitan counties contain a
cluster of 10,000 to 50,000 people; all other counties are classified as “other rural.” Analysis includes short-term acute
care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the IPPS with complete cost report data.
• IPPS hospitals in rural micropolitan and other rural areas continued to have higher
aggregate overall Medicare margins than metropolitan (urban) IPPS hospitals. (The reverse
holds for the total all-payer margin; see Chart 6-6.) The higher margins at IPPS rural
hospitals were in large part attributable to the additional IPPS payments many rural
hospitals received for their inpatient services through the sole community hospital,
Medicare-dependent hospital, and low-volume hospital designations (see Chart 6-17).
• From 2018 to 2019, the overall Medicare margin increased for urban, rural micropolitan, and
other rural hospitals. However, the increase was largest for IPPS hospitals in rural
nonmicropolitan (“other rural”) areas (from –5.0 percent to –2.7 percent, the highest level
since 2015).
• From 2018 to 2019, the overall Medicare margin for critical access hospitals remained
steady, near –2 percent (data not shown).
Chart 6-12. IPPS hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of
low-income patients or are teaching hospitals
continued to have higher aggregate overall Medicare
margins than other hospitals, 2015–2019
0
Aggregate overall Medicare margin (percent)
-2
-4
DSH and teaching
-6
-7.6
-8.1
-8 DSH only
-9.3
-10 -10.5
-12
-13.2
-13.9
-14 Teaching only
-16
-15.5 -15.5
-18 Neither DSH nor
teaching
-20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), DSH (disproportionate share hospital). Hospitals’ Medicare margin is
calculated as aggregate Medicare payments minus aggregate allowable Medicare costs, divided by aggregate Medicare
payments. “Overall Medicare margin” refers to the aggregate margin across hospital service lines ( including inpatient,
outpatient, swing bed, skilled nursing, rehabilitation, psychiatric, and home health services), as well as supplemental
payments not tied to the provision of services (such as direct graduate medical education and uncompensated care
payments) and bad debt payments. Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories)
paid under the IPPS with complete cost report data.
• IPPS hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of low-income patients (DSHs) or are
teaching hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin than other
IPPS hospitals. (The reverse holds for the total all-payer margin; see Chart 6-7.) The higher
margins at DSH and teaching IPPS hospitals were in large part attributable to the additional
IPPS payments DSH and teaching hospitals received for inpatient services (see Chart 6-17),
as well as supplemental uncompensated care payments.
• From 2018 to 2019, the aggregate overall Medicare margin increased for DSH hospitals—
both those that were and were not also teaching hospitals—driven by higher
uncompensated care payments (see Chart 6-18).

Chart 6-13. For-profit IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher
aggregate overall Medicare margin than nonprofit
IPPS hospitals and increased to a positive margin in
2019
5
0.5
-1.0
For profit
-5
(percent)
Nonprofit
-10.6 -10.1
-10
-15
-20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
report data.
• For-profit IPPS hospitals continued to have a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin than
nonprofit hospitals.
• From 2018 to 2019, for-profit IPPS hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin increased
from –1.0 to 0.5 percent. This was the highest level since 2014 (data not shown).
• From 2018 to 2019, nonprofit IPPS hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin also
increased, but by a smaller amount.
Chart 6-14. IPPS hospitals under high fiscal pressure continued
to have a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin
than those under medium and low fiscal pressure,
2015–2019
5
Aggregate overall Medicare margin (percent)
High pressure
0.2
0
-1.2
Medium pressure
-5 -3.8
-4.4
-10
Low pressure
-10.8
-11.5
-15
-20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
services (such as direct graduate medical education and uncompensated care payments) and bad debt payments. “High-
pressure” hospitals are defined as those with a median non-Medicare profit margin of 1 percent or less over five years and
a net worth (assets minus liabilities) that would have grown by less than 1 percent per year over that period if the
hospital’s Medicare profits had been zero. “Low-pressure” hospitals are defined as those with a median non-Medicare
profit margin greater than 5 percent over five years and a net worth that would have grown by more than 1 percent per
year over that period if the hospital’s Medicare profits had been zero. “Medium-pressure” hospitals are those that fit into
neither the high- nor the low-pressure categories. Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding
territories) paid under the IPPS with complete cost report data.
• IPPS hospitals under the highest fiscal pressure—defined as those with a median non-
Medicare profit margin of 1 percent or less and a lack of material growth in worth—continued
to have a higher aggregate overall Medicare margin than hospitals under less fiscal
pressure. (In contrast, IPPS hospitals under fiscal pressure have a lower total all-payer
margin; see Chart 6-9.)
• From 2018 to 2019, high-pressure IPPS hospitals’ aggregate overall Medicare margin
increased from –1.2 to 0.2 percent, the highest level since 2015.
• From 2018 to 2019, the aggregate overall Medicare margin among IPPS hospitals under
medium and low fiscal pressure also increased, but by a smaller amount.

Chart 6-15. Financial pressure led to lower hospital costs per
discharge in 2019
Level of financial pressure, 2014–2018
High pressure Low pressure
(non-Medicare Medium (non-Medicare
margin ≤ 1%) pressure margin > 5%)
Number of hospitals 480 265 1,329
Financial characteristics, 2019 (medians)

Non-Medicare margin
(private, Medicaid, uninsured) –3% 3% 14%
Standardized cost per Medicare discharge (as a share of the national median)
For-profit and nonprofit hospitals 0.95 1.00 1.04
Nonprofit hospitals 0.97 1.01 1.06
For-profit hospitals 0.88 0.93 0.96
Annual growth in cost per
discharge, 2016–2019 2% 2% 2%
Overall 2019 Medicare margin 0% –2% –9%
Patient characteristics (medians)

Total hospital discharges in 2019 3,287 5,655 8,503
Medicare share of inpatient days 37% 35% 35%
Medicaid share of inpatient days 6% 6% 6%
Medicare case-mix index 1.46 1.57 1.69
Note: Standardized costs are adjusted for hospital case mix, wage index, outliers, transfer cases, interest expense, and the
effects of teaching and low-income Medicare patients on hospital costs. The sample includes short-term acute care
hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system with over 500 discharges that had complete cost reports
on file with CMS by October 2020. “High-pressure” hospitals are defined as those with a median non-Medicare profit
margin of 1 percent or less over five years and a net worth (assets minus liabilities) that would have grown by less than 1
percent per year over that period if the hospital’s Medicare profits had been zero. “Low-pressure” hospitals are defined as
those with a median non-Medicare profit margin greater than 5 percent over five years and a net worth that would have
grown by more than 1 percent per year over that period if the hospital’s Medicare profits had been zero. “Medium-
pressure” hospitals are those that fit into neither the high- nor the low-pressure categories.
Source: MedPAC analysis of hospital cost report data and claims files from CMS.
• Hospitals under high financial pressure had 5 percent lower standardized costs per
discharge than the national median. For-profit hospitals tended to constrain their costs more
than nonprofit hospitals. The median for-profit hospital had costs that were 4 percent below
the median even when they were not under financial pressure.
• Hospitals with lower volume, lower case mix, and higher Medicare shares of discharges are
more likely to be under financial pressure.
• One limitation of this analysis is that it measures only hospital inpatient costs. To the extent
that hospitals with strong profit margins direct their resources toward non-inpatient
expenditures (such as the purchase or subsidization of physician practices), those costs
would not be included in our standardized costs per discharge.
Chart 6-16. Medicare FFS payments for inpatient services were
the largest component of payments to IPPS
hospitals but not to CAHs, 2015–2019
IPPS
250
191.5
Billions of dollars
174.7 179.2 183.6 187.3

200
150 55.8 59.2 61.9
49.8 52.5
100
50 104.2 108.1 110.3 110.5 111.0
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
CAH
15
Billions of dollars
10.2 10.7 11.2 11.2

9.8
10 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2
1.9
5 4.9 5.4 5.7 6.1 6.3
2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
General inpatient services Outpatient services

Post-acute care and psychiatric services Supplemental payments (UC, DGME, HIT)
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), CAH (critical access hospital), UC (uncompensated
care), DGME (direct graduate medical education), HIT (health information technology). Medicare-designated CAHs are
limited to 25 beds and primarily operate in rural areas; Medicare pays these hospitals based on their reported costs.
Analysis includes short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (excluding territories) paid under the IPPS or CAH payment
system with complete cost report data. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding and components with values
not shown.
• In fiscal year 2019, IPPS hospitals received $191.5 billion in Medicare FFS payments,
including $111.0 billion for general inpatient services and $61.9 billion for outpatient
services. From 2015 to 2019, IPPS hospitals’ Medicare FFS inpatient payments increased at
an average annual rate of 1.6 percent, while outpatient payments increased 5.6 percent.
These increases were driven by increases in payments per service (data not shown).
• In fiscal year 2019, CAHs received $11.2 billion in Medicare FFS payments, including $2.7
billion for general inpatient services, $6.3 billion for outpatient services, and $2.2 billion in
post-acute care services (mainly provided in swing beds). From 2015 to 2019, CAHs’
Medicare FFS inpatient payments held relatively steady, while outpatient revenue increased
6.4 percent, and post-acute care revenue increased 3.7 percent. These increases were
driven by increases in payments per service (data not shown).

Chart 6-17. About 15 percent of IPPS payments were from
adjustments and additional payments, 2019
Share of IPPS payments
Hospital group Base PPS Low income Teaching Outliers Rural and/or Quality
(DSH) (IME) Isolated
All IPPS 84.9% 3.2% 6.5% 4.7% 1.4% –0.8%
Metropolitan (urban) 85.0 3.3 6.9 4.9 0.7 –0.8

Micropolitan 84.3 2.4 2.1 2.3 9.4 –0.5
Other rural 80.1 2.3 0.5 1.3 16.2 –0.3
For profit 90.0 3.4 3.6 3.0 1.0 –1.2

Nonprofit 85.1 3.1 6.5 4.5 1.4 –0.7
Government 77.5 4.0 9.8 7.2 2.1 –0.8
DSH and teaching 81.4 3.7 9.7 5.4 0.6 –0.8

DSH only 91.2 3.2 0.0 3.2 3.2 –0.8
Teaching only 88.4 0.1* 6.3 4.7 0.9 –0.4
Neither 93.9 0.1* 0.0 2.8 3.4 –0.4
Sole community 79.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 14.3 –0.4

Medicare dependent 83.3 1.9 0.4 1.1 13.7 –0.4
Low volume 79.1 2.0 0.5 1.4 17.4 –0.2
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), DSH (disproportionate share hospital), IME (indirect medical education).
Payments are shares of total inpatient operating and capital PPS payments, and exclude uncompensated care, direct
graduate medical education, Medicare Advantage IME, and other pass-through payments outside of the IPPS. "Rural and/or
isolated" includes additional payments to sole community hospitals, Medicare-dependent hospitals, and low-volume hospitals;
while sole community and Medicare-dependent hospitals that are paid on their hospital-specific rate do not technically receive
any base PPS payments or adjustments, the “Rural and/or Isolated” column includes only the amount by which their rate
exceeds the otherwise applicable IPPS payments. "Quality" includes payments and penalties from the Value-Based
Purchasing Program, Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and Hospital Acquired Conditions Reduction Program.
Metropolitan (urban) counties contain an urban cluster of 50,000 or more people; rural micropolitan counties contain a cluster
of 10,000 to 50,000 people; all other counties are classified as “other rural.” Analysis limited to IPPS hospitals in the U.S. with
a complete cost report having a midpoint in fiscal year 2019. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding and
because other types of payments, such as new technology payments, are not included in the table.
*
DSH group defined as receiving inpatient operating DSH payments, while DSH payments column includes both inpatient
operating and capital DSH payments. All urban hospitals with more than 100 beds are eligible for inpatient capital DSH
payments.
• Base payments accounted for about 85 percent of IPPS payments to hospitals for inpatient
services provided to Medicare FFS beneficiaries, while low-income and teaching adjustments,
outlier payments, rural and/or isolated payments, and quality payments and penalties accounted
for the remaining 15 percent.
• The share of IPPS payments from different payment types varied substantially across different
groups of hospitals. For example, while special payments to rural or isolated hospitals
accounted for 1.4 percent of all IPPS payments to hospitals, they accounted for over 13
percent of payments to hospitals designated as sole community, Medicare dependent, and/or
low-volume hospitals.
Chart 6-18. Medicare’s uncompensated care payments to IPPS
hospitals have increased from a relative low in 2017
$20
$16.58
Estimated prior-law $15.17
$15 DSH payments
$10
$8.28 $8.29
$5 Uncompensated
care payments
$0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
100%
Percent
72.9%
50% Estimated 67.1%
uninsured rate as
percentage of
2013 rate
0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Note: IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system), DSH (disproportionate share). Uncompensated care payments are post-
sequestration. Chart does not include capital DSH payments.
Source: CMS IPPS final rules.
• In addition to IPPS payments for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries’ inpatient stays, the
Medicare program makes uncompensated care payments to IPPS hospitals to help cover
their costs of treating uninsured patients. Pursuant to a provision in the Affordable Care Act
of 2010, beginning in 2014, each eligible hospital receives (1) a reduced operating DSH
payment and (2) an uncompensated care payment. Under the revised operating DSH
payment equation, hospitals receive 25 percent of the DSH funds they would have received
under prior law. Second, each hospital receives uncompensated care payments equal to its
share of a fixed pool of dollars, defined as 75 percent of estimated aggregated operating
DSH payments under the prior-law DSH formula multiplied by the national uninsured rate as
a percentage of the uninsured rate in 2013. Therefore, when the rate of uninsured
individuals increases and hospitals have greater losses on uncompensated care, CMS gives
hospitals higher uncompensated care add-on payments to their IPPS rates.
• Between 2019 and 2021, Medicare’s uncompensated care payments were relatively steady.
This reflected three factors roughly offsetting each other in those years: the change in
estimated prior-law DSH payments, the change in the national uninsured rate, and the
portion of the year that Medicare sequestration was suspended.

Chart 6-19. Medicare FFS inpatient stays per capita decreased,
2015–2019
300 10.0%
260 253 252 248

250 243

Inpatient stays per 1,000
Part A beneficiaries
200 5.0%
150
100 0.0%
0.4%
-0.2%
50 -1.7% -1.9%
-2.9%
0 -5.0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Data are for short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (exclusive of territories).
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data and enrollment data from CMS.
• The number of inpatient stays per 1,000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries decreased from 260 in
2015 to 243 in 2019. This is a slower decline than earlier in the decade (data not shown) but
is still a faster decline than all-payer inpatient stays per capita (see Chart 6-4).
• The magnitude of the decrease in Medicare FFS inpatient stays per capita varied across
types of hospitals. For example, from 2018 to 2019, the number of inpatient stays per capita
fell 1.6 percent at hospitals located in metropolitan (urban) areas, 3.8 percent at those in
rural micropolitan areas, and 6 percent at those located in other rural areas (data not
shown).
Chart 6-20. Four major diagnostic categories accounted for over
half of all Medicare FFS inpatient stays at short-term
acute care hospitals, 2015–2019
30%
25%
Circulatory 20.5%
19.9% 20.1%
Share of inpatient stays
19.6% 19.5%
20%
Respiratory
14.2% 13.9% 13.8%
15% 13.5% 13.5%
Musculoskeletal 13.3% 13.5% 13.4% 12.6%

13.2%
10%
10.5% 10.6%
9.3% 9.9%
Infectious
8.8%
5%
0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Data are for short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (exclusive of territories).
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data from CMS.
• Over half of all Medicare FFS inpatient stays at short-term acute care hospitals were for
beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis in one of four major diagnostic categories: circulatory,
musculoskeletal, respiratory, or infectious diseases.
• The most common major diagnostic category of Medicare FFS inpatient stays is diseases of
the circulatory system, such as heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia. After a relative low in
2016, its share increased to over 20 percent in 2019.
• Of the four most common major diagnostic categories, the one with the largest increase
from 2015 to 2019 was infectious and parasitic diseases, such as septicemia. This rise
continued a longer term trend, with the share of Medicare FFS beneficiaries’ inpatient stays
for infectious diseases doubling since 2010 (data not shown).

Chart 6-21. Share of one-day stays among Medicare FFS
beneficiaries at short-term acute care hospitals
increased, 2015–2019
80%
70%
70.8% 69.7% 68.7% 68.2% 67.8%
Share of inpatient stays
60% 3+ days
50%
40%
30%
2 days
17.6% 18.1% 18.4% 18.4% 18.1%
20%
10% 12.9% 13.4% 14.1%

11.6% 12.3%
1 day
0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Data are for short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (exclusive of territories). Components may
not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
• The share of Medicare FFS beneficiaries’ inpatient stays at short-term acute care hospitals
that were only one day long increased from 2015 to 2019. This reversed the prior trend of
declining one-day stays from 2010 to 2014 (data not shown). As the Commission has
previously noted, growth in the number of one-day stays starting in 2015 could be due to the
reduced likelihood that CMS’s recovery audit contractors (RACs) would deny payment for
one-day stays. In 2015, CMS ceased patient status reviews (which previously resulted in
challenges to one-day stay claims). The result was that from 2014 to 2015, claims
challenged by the RACs as overpayments fell by 91 percent (data not shown).
• From 2015 to 2019, there was also a slight increase in the share of stays that were two days
long and a decrease in the share of stays three days or longer.
• Together, these changes correspond to a 1.9 percent decrease in the average length of
stay, from 5.05 days in 2015 to 4.95 days in 2019 (data not shown). Over 90 percent of
Medicare FFS beneficiaries’ inpatient stays in 2019 were 10 days or fewer; however, a small
share (0.66 percent) of stays lasted over a month (data not shown).
Chart 6-22. Number of Medicare FFS outpatient observation
visits per capita remained relatively steady, and
nearly half were longer than 24 hours, 2015–2019
60
Outpatient observation visits per 1,000
50 45.4 45.0 45.0

44.4 44.6
9% 9% 9% 9%
FFS beneficiaries
10%
40
40% 39% 39% 38% 39%

30
20
49% 50% 51% 51% 51%

10
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
<24 hours 1 to 2 days 2 to 3 days 3+ days
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Observation visits are separately payable visits with a length of stay of at least eight hours. Data for
outpatient observation visits include short-term acute care hospitals in the U.S. (exclusive of territories) paid under the
inpatient prospective payment system or under the Maryland state waiver. “Outpatient observation visits per capita” refers
to outpatient observation visits—that is, observation visits that did not result in an inpatient admission—per Medicare FFS
Part B beneficiary. Years are calendar years. Components may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and component
values not shown.
Source: MedPAC analysis of outpatient standard analytical file data from CMS.
• Hospitals sometimes use observation care to determine whether a patient should be

hospitalized for inpatient care, transferred to an alternative treatment setting, or sent home.
On April 1, 2002, Medicare began providing separate payments to hospitals for some
observation services. Previously, the observation services were packaged into the payments
for the emergency department or clinic visits that occurred with observation care.
• The number of Medicare FFS outpatient observation visits per capita remained relatively
steady from 2015 to 2019, at about 45 visits per 1,000 beneficiaries.
• The decision on whether to discharge or admit a patient can usually be made in less than 24
hours; however, the Medicare benefit does not limit the length of outpatient observation
stays. In each year from 2015 to 2019, nearly half of outpatient observation visits were
longer than 24 hours, including 9 to 10 percent that spanned more than 2 days and 1 to 2
percent that spanned more than 3 days.

Chart 6-23. Medicare FFS payments to inpatient psychiatric
facilities decreased in 2019
5.0
3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9

4.0 3.8 3.8
3.6
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). These fiscal year–incurred data represent only program spending; they do not include beneficiary
cost sharing. Spending for inpatient psychiatric care furnished in scatter beds in acute care hospitals (and paid for under
the acute care inpatient prospective payment system) is not included in this chart.
Source: CMS Office of the Actuary.
• Medicare pays for inpatient psychiatric facility (IPF) care under the IPF prospective payment
system.
• Payments have been relatively steady at about $4 billion since 2012.
• However, since 2017, Medicare’s payments to IPFs have declined about 9 percent,
consistent with a 13 percent decrease in IPF stays (data not shown).
Chart 6-24. The share of for-profit Medicare-certified inpatient
psychiatric facilities increased, 2012–2019
Average annual change
2012– 2015– 2018–

Type of IPF 2012 2015 2018 2019 2015 2018 2019
All 1,568 1,576 1,584 1,530 0.2% 0.2% –3.4%
Urban 1,241 1,245 1,254 1,225 0.1 0.2 –2.3

Rural 326 330 327 303 0.4 –0.3 –7.3
Freestanding 450 483 524 527 2.4 2.8 0.6

Hospital-based units 1,118 1,093 1,060 1,003 –0.8 –1.0 –5.4
Nonprofit 762 726 723 682 –1.6 –0.1 –5.7

For profit 436 503 523 522 4.9 1.3 –0.2
Government 370 347 338 326 –2.1 –0.9 –3.6
Note: IPF (inpatient psychiatric facility). Data are from facilities that submitted valid Medicare cost reports in the given fiscal
year. Components may not sum to totals due to missing data.
• Between 2012 and 2015, the number of IPFs that filed Medicare cost reports grew, on
average, 0.2 percent per year. Similarly, between 2015 and 2018, the supply of IPFs
increased slightly, growing, on average, 0.2 percent per year. However, in 2019, the number
of IPFs fell by 3.4 percent.
• A growing share of Medicare IPF users receive care in for-profit facilities. Between 2012 and
2015, the number of for-profit IPFs grew 4.9 percent per year, on average. Over the same
period, the number of nonprofit IPFs fell more than 1 percent per year, on average. The
number of for-profit IPFs continued to grow through 2018, while the number of nonprofit
IPFs slightly declined. From 2018 to 2019, the number of for-profit IPFs remained relatively
stable, while the number of nonprofit facilities decreased by 5.7 percent.

Chart 6-25. Almost three-quarters of Medicare FFS beneficiaries’
stays at IPFs were for psychosis, 2019
MS–DRG Diagnosis Share
885 Psychosis 73.4%

884 Organic disturbances and mental retardation 7.0
057 Degenerative nervous system disorders without MCC 5.5
897 Alcohol/drug abuse or dependency, no rehabilitation, without MCC 4.4
881 Depressive neurosis 3.2
895 Alcohol/drug abuse or dependency with rehabilitation, without MCC 1.6
882 Neurosis except depressive 1.3
880 Acute adjustment reaction and psychosocial dysfunction 0.9
883 Disorders of personality and impulse control 0.7
056 Degenerative nervous system disorders with MCC 0.5
894 Alcohol/drug use—left AMA 0.4
886 Behavioral and developmental disorders 0.2
896 Alcohol/drug abuse or dependency without rehabilitation, with MCC 0.1
876 OR procedure with principal diagnosis of mental illness 0.1
887 Other mental disorders 0.1
081 Nontraumatic stupor and coma without MCC <0.1
080 Nontraumatic stupor and coma with MCC <0.1
Nonpsychiatric MS–DRGs 0.8
Total 100.0
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), IPF (inpatient psychiatric facility), MS–DRG (Medicare severity–diagnosis related group), MCC
(major comorbidity or complication), AMA (against medical advice), OR (operating room). Total may not sum to 100
percent due to rounding.
• Medicare patients in IPFs are generally assigned 1 of 17 psychiatric MS–DRGs.
• The MS–DRG system does not differentiate well among Medicare beneficiaries in IPFs. The
most frequently occurring IPF diagnosis—psychosis—accounted for about 73 percent of IPF
discharges in 2019. This broad category includes patients with principal diagnoses of
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression.
• In 2019, the next most common discharge diagnosis, accounting for 7 percent of IPF cases,
was organic disturbances and mental retardation.
Chart 6-26. The majority of Medicare FFS beneficiaries who
received IPF services were under the age of 65, 2019
Share of Share of IPF
all IPF users with more
Characteristic users than one IPF stay
Current eligibility status

Aged 43.3% 30.5%
Disabled 56.6 69.4
ESRD only 0.1 0.1
Age
<45 23.6 31.8
45–64 32.5 36.9
65–79 30.0 23.9
80+ 14.0 7.4
All 100.0 27.5
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), IPF (inpatient psychiatric facility), ESRD (end-stage renal disease). The “aged” category includes
beneficiaries ages 65 and older without ESRD. The “disabled” category includes beneficiaries under age 65 without
ESRD. The “ESRD only” category includes beneficiaries with ESRD, regardless of age. Components may not sum to
totals due to rounding.
• Of Medicare beneficiaries who had at least one IPF stay in 2019, 56.6 percent qualified for
Medicare because of a disability. These beneficiaries tend to be younger and poorer than
the typical fee-for-service beneficiary.
• Approximately 28 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who used an IPF in 2019 had more than
one IPF stay during the year. These beneficiaries were much more likely than all IPF users
to be disabled, often because of a psychiatric diagnosis.

7
Chart 7-1. Medicare spending per fee-for-service beneficiary on
services in the fee schedule for physicians and other
health professionals, 2009–2019
2,600
Aged
2,400 Disabled 2,227
2,200 2,142 2,125 2,124 2,104
Spending per beneficiary (dollars)
1,963
2,000 1,893
1,764 1,804
1,800 1,732 1,749
1,581
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Note: Dollar amounts are Medicare spending only and do not include beneficiary cost sharing. The category “disabled” excludes
beneficiaries who qualify for Medicare because they have end-stage renal disease. All beneficiaries age 65 and over are
included in the “aged” category.
• The fee schedule for physicians and other health professionals includes a broad range of
services such as office visits, surgical procedures, and diagnostic and therapeutic services.
“Other health professionals” refers to nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical
therapists, and other clinicians. Total fee schedule spending (excluding beneficiary cost
sharing) was $73.5 billion in 2019 (data not shown).
• Spending per fee-for-service beneficiary for fee schedule services increased between 2009
and 2011, remained stable between 2011 and 2017, and began growing again after 2017.
From 2009 to 2019, spending per beneficiary (across aged beneficiaries and those with
disabilities) grew at a cumulative rate of 15 percent.
• Per capita spending for beneficiaries with disabilities (under age 65) is lower than per capita
spending for aged beneficiaries (ages 65 and over). In 2019, for example, per capita
spending for beneficiaries with disabilities was $1,893 compared with $2,227 for aged
beneficiaries. However, spending per capita grew much faster for beneficiaries with
disabilities than aged beneficiaries between 2009 and 2019 (20 percent vs. 13 percent,
respectively).
Chart 7-2. Physician fee schedule–allowed charges by type of
service, 2019
Total allowed charges in 2019 = $97.2 billion
Anesthesia Other
Tests 2.9% 0.5%
5.1%
Major procedures
7.6%
Imaging
11.0%
Evaluation and
management
50.0%
Other procedures
23.0%
Note: Components may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Carrier Standard Analytic File for 100 percent of beneficiaries.
• In 2019, allowed charges for physician fee schedule services totaled $97.2 billion. Allowed
charges include both program spending and beneficiary cost sharing.
• In 2019, half of all allowed charges were for evaluation and management (E&M) services.
• Within the E&M category, about half of allowed charges were for office/outpatient visits. The
remaining allowed charges within the E&M category were for various types of services
provided across a broad range of settings, including hospital inpatient departments,
emergency departments, and nursing facilities (data not shown).
82 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-3. Total encounters per FFS beneficiary increased and
mix of clinicians furnishing them changed from 2014
to 2019
Percent change in
Encounters per beneficiary encounters per beneficiary
Specialty category 2014 2019 Average annual Total
Total (all clinicians) 20.8 22.2 1.3% 6.5%
Primary care physicians 3.9 3.5 –2.4 –11.5
Specialists 12.6 12.9 0.5 2.3
APRNs/PAs 1.4 2.5 11.5 72.1
Other practitioners 2.9 3.4 3.2 17.1
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), APRN (advanced practice registered nurse), PA (physician assistant). We define “encounters” as
unique combinations of beneficiary identification numbers, claim identification numbers (for paid claims), and national
provider identifiers of the clinicians who billed for the service. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding. Figures do
not account for “incident to” billing, meaning, for example, that encounters with APRNs/PAs that are billed under
Medicare’s “incident to” rules are included in the physician totals. We use the number of FFS beneficiaries enrolled in Part
B to define encounters per beneficiary.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Carrier Standard Analytic File for 100 percent of beneficiaries and 2020 annual report of the
Boards of Trustees of the Medicare trust funds.
• Encounters measure beneficiary interactions with clinicians. For example, if a physician

billed for an office visit and an X-ray on the same claim, we count that as one encounter.
• The number of encounters per beneficiary grew 1.3 percent per year from 2014 to 2019,
suggesting stable access to care.
• Encounters with specialist physicians accounted for a majority of all encounters and grew
modestly from 2014 to 2019.
• In contrast, encounters with APRNs or PAs grew rapidly from 2014 to 2019, and encounters
with primary care physicians declined substantially. These changes continue a longer term
trend of declines in services billed by primary care physicians and rapid increases in
services billed by APRNs and PAs).
• The decline in encounters with primary care physicians occurred across a broad range of
services, including evaluation and management services, tests, procedures, and imaging
services (data not shown).
Chart 7-4. Medicare beneficiaries’ ability to get timely
appointments with physicians was comparable with
that of privately insured individuals, 2017–2020
Medicare (ages 65 and older) Private insurance (ages 50–64)
Survey question 2017 2018 2019 2020 2017 2018 2019 2020
Unwanted delay in getting an appointment: Among those who needed an appointment, “How often did
you have to wait longer than you wanted to get a doctor’s appointment?”
For routine care

Never 73%ab 70%a 72%b 69%a 69%ab 64%ab 74% 73%a
Sometimes 20ab 20a 20 22a 22 ab 26ab 19 20a
Usually 3 5b 3 3 4 5 4 4
Always 3 3a 3 3 3 4ab 3 3
For illness or injury

Never 80a 79a 80 79 76ab 74ab 81 80
Sometimes 15a 15a 14 15 18ab 19ab 15 15
Usually 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3
Always 1a 2b 2 2 2a 2 1 2
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and to some responses (“Don’t Know” or “Refused”) not being
presented. Overall sample sizes for each group (Medicare and privately insured) were approximately 4,000 in all years.
Sample sizes for individual questions varied. Survey includes beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare
or Medicare Advantage.
a
Statistically significant difference (at a 95 percent confidence level) between Medicare and privately insured respondents
in the given year.
b
Statistically significant difference (at a 95 percent confidence level) from 2020 within the same insurance coverage
category.
Source: MedPAC-sponsored annual telephone surveys conducted 2017–2020.
• Most Medicare beneficiaries have one or more doctor appointments in a given year. Their
ability to schedule timely appointments is one indicator of access that we examine.
• Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older report similar access to physicians for appointments
as compared with privately insured individuals ages 50 to 64. For example, in 2020, among
those needing an appointment for routine care, 69 percent of Medicare beneficiaries reported
that they never had to wait longer than they wanted, which is similar to the 73 percent of
privately insured individuals who reported this. Among those needing an appointment for
illness or injury, 79 percent of Medicare beneficiaries reported never waiting longer than they
wanted to get an appointment, which was not statistically significantly different from the 80
percent of privately insured individuals who reported this.
• Appointment scheduling for illness or injury is better than for routine care appointments for
both Medicare beneficiaries and privately insured individuals.
84 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-5. Medicare and privately insured patients reported
more difficulty finding a new primary care provider
than a new specialist, 2017–2020

Survey question 2017 2018 2019 2020 2017 2018 2019 2020
Looking for a new provider “In the past 12 months, have you tried to get a new …?”
(Percent answering “Yes”)
Primary care provider 9%a 10%b 8% 8% 11%ab 10%b 9% 7%
Specialist 17ab 19ab 17b 15 20ab 21ab 15 13
Getting a new provider: Among those who tried to get an appointment with a new provider, “How
much of a problem was it finding a primary care provider/specialist who would treat you? Was it … ?”
Primary care provider

No problem 69ab 71b 72ab 60 59a 67b 62a 57
Small problem 13 13 13a 16a 18 16b 20a 24a
Big problem 14ab 14b 14b 22 22a 16 17 18
Specialist
No problem 83 84b 85ab 79 81 80 79a 77
Small problem 11 7 6a 9 11 9 11a 11
Big problem 5ab 8b 8 11 8a 10 9 11
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and to some responses (“Don’t Know” or “Refused”) not being
presented. Overall sample sizes for each group (Medicare and privately insured) were approximately 4,000 in all years.
Sample sizes for individual questions varied. Survey includes beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare
or Medicare Advantage.
a
Statistically significant difference (at a 95 percent confidence level) between Medicare and privately insured respondents in the
given year.
b
Statistically significant difference (at a 95 percent confidence level) from 2020 within the same insurance coverage category.
Source: MedPAC-sponsored annual telephone surveys, conducted 2017–2020.
• In 2020, only 8 percent of Medicare beneficiaries and 7 percent of privately insured individuals reported
looking for a new primary care provider. This finding suggests that most people were either satisfied with
their current provider or did not need to look for one.
• In 2020, Medicare beneficiaries and privately insured individuals were more likely to report problems
finding a new primary care provider than a new specialist.
• Of the 8 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who looked for a new primary care provider in 2020, 22 percent
reported a “big problem” finding a new one, and another 16 percent reported a “small problem” finding a
new one. Although this finding means that only 3 percent of the total Medicare population reported
problems finding a new primary care provider, the Commission is concerned about the continuing pattern
of greater problems accessing primary care than specialty care.
• Of the 7 percent of privately insured individuals who looked for a new primary care provider in 2020, 18
percent reported a “big problem” finding a new one, and another 24 percent reported a “small problem”
finding a new one.
Chart 7-6. Slightly higher shares of non-White patients
reported delays getting appointments compared
with White patients, regardless of insurance type,
2020

Survey question All White Non-White All White Non-White
Unwanted delay in getting an appointment: Among those who needed an appointment, “How often did
you have to wait longer than you wanted to get a doctor’s appointment?”
For routine care
Never 69%a 71%ab 63%ab 73%a 75%ab 69%ab
Sometimes 22a 22a 24 20a 19a 22
Usually 3 3 3 4 4 4
Always 3 2b 4b 3 2 4
For illness or injury

Never 79 80b 74b 80 81b 76b
Sometimes 15 15 17 15 15 15
Usually 2 2 3 3 2b 4b
Always 2 1 2 2 1b 3b
Note: “White” refers to non-Hispanic White respondents. Numbers may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and to some
responses (“Don’t Know” or “Refused”) not being presented. Overall sample size for each group (Medicare and privately
insured) was approximately 4,000 in 2020. Sample size for individual questions varied. Survey includes beneficiaries
enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare or Medicare Advantage.
a
in the given category.
b
Statistically significant difference (at a 95 percent confidence level) by race/ethnicity within the same insurance category.
Source: MedPAC-sponsored telephone survey conducted in 2020.
• In 2020, White respondents were more likely to report that they never had to wait longer
than they wanted to get an appointment for routine care or for an illness or injury compared
to non-White respondents. This trend was observed both for Medicare beneficiaries and for
privately insured individuals.
86 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-7. Slightly higher shares of non-White patients
reported difficulties finding a new specialist
compared with White patients, but these differences
were not statistically significant, 2020

Survey question All White Non-White All White Non-White
Looking for a new provider: “In the past 12 months, have you tried to get a new …?”
Primary care provider 8% 8% 9% 7% 7% 8%
Specialist 15 15b 12b 13 14 12
Getting a new provider: Among those who tried to get an appointment with a new provider, “How much
of a problem was it finding a primary care provider/specialist who would treat you?
Was it … ?”
Primary care provider
No problem 60 61 57 57 54 63
Small problem 16a 16a 18 24a 25a 22
Big problem 22 22 22 18 20 14
Specialist
No problem 79 81 75 77 78 74
Small problem 9 8 11 11 10 14
Big problem 11 11 14 11 11 13
Note: “White” refers to non-Hispanic White respondents. Numbers may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and to some
responses (“Don’t Know” or “Refused”) not being presented. Overall sample size for each group (Medicare and privately
insured) was approximately 4,000 in 2020. Sample size for individual questions varied. Survey includes beneficiaries
enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare or Medicare Advantage.
a
in the given category.
b
Statistically significant difference (at a 95 percent confidence level) by race/ethnicity within the same insurance category.
Source: MedPAC-sponsored telephone survey conducted in 2020.
• In 2020, slightly higher shares of non-White respondents reported difficulties finding a new
specialist compared to White respondents, regardless of insurance type, but these
differences were not statistically significant. Non-White Medicare beneficiaries also reported
slightly more difficulties finding a primary care provider than did White beneficiaries, but this
difference was also not statistically significant.
• More privately insured individuals reported experiencing a small problem finding a new
primary care provider than did Medicare beneficiaries.
Chart 7-8. Changes in physicians’ professional liability
insurance premiums, 2013–2020
2
1.6
1.4
1.0 1.0
1
0.6
Percent change
0.3 0.2
-0.1
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.6
-0.7
-1
-1.0
-1.1
-1.2
-2
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Note: Bars represent a four-quarter moving average percentage change.
Source: CMS, Office of the Actuary. Data are from CMS’s Professional Liability Physician Premium Survey.
• Medicare’s fee schedule for physicians and other health professionals includes payments to
clinicians that are intended to cover the relative cost of professional liability insurance (PLI)
premiums. Payments for PLI account for 4.3 percent of total payments under the fee
schedule (data not shown).
• Changes in the PLI premiums paid by physicians and other health professionals reflect a
cyclical pattern, alternating between periods of low premiums (characterized by high
investment returns for insurers and vigorous competition) and high premiums (characterized
by declining investment returns and market exit).
• Premiums grew slowly from the first quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2014, declined
from the second quarter of 2014 through the third quarter of 2018, and began increasing again
in the first quarter of 2019.
88 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-9. Spending on hospital outpatient services covered
under the outpatient PPS, 2010–2020
90
Beneficiary cost sharing
80
Program payments
70 14.5
13.7
60 12.5
12.0
12.1
50 11.5
11.2
40 10.4
9.4
8.9
8.4 61.9
30 57.9
51.1 54.9
44.7 47.6
20 41.1
33.7 36.0
28.3 30.9
10
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020*
Note: PPS (prospective payment system). Spending amounts are for services covered by the Medicare outpatient PPS. They do
not include services paid on separate fee schedules (e.g., ambulance services and durable medical equipment) or those
paid on a cost basis (e.g., corneal tissue acquisition and flu vaccines) or payments for clinical laboratory services, except
those packaged into payment bundles.
*Estimated figures.
Source: CMS, Office of the Actuary.
• The Office of the Actuary estimates that spending under the outpatient PPS was $76.4 billion in
2020 ($61.9 billion in program spending, $14.5 billion in beneficiary copayments). We estimate
that the outpatient PPS accounted for about 7 percent of total Medicare program spending in
2020 (data not shown).
• From calendar year 2010 to 2020, overall spending by Medicare and beneficiaries on
hospital outpatient services covered under the outpatient PPS increased by 108 percent, an
average of 7.6 percent per year. The Office of the Actuary projects continued growth in total
spending, averaging 10.5 percent per year from 2020 to 2022 (data not shown).
• Beneficiary cost sharing under the outpatient PPS includes the Part B deductible and
coinsurance for each service. Under the outpatient PPS, beneficiary cost sharing was about
19 percent in 2020 (data not shown).
Chart 7-10. Most hospitals provide outpatient services
Share offering
Acute care Outpatient Outpatient Emergency
Year hospitals services surgery services
2008 3,607 94% 87% N/A

2010 3,518 95 90 N/A
2012 3,483 95 91 93%
2014 3,429 96 92 93
2016 3,370 96 93 93
2018 3,301 96 93 90
2019 3,245 96 93 91
2020 3,194 96 93 91
Note: N/A (not applicable). We list emergency services from 2008 through 2010 as “N/A” because the data source we used in
this chart changed the variable for identifying hospitals’ provision of emergency services. We believe this change in
variable definition makes it appear that the share of hospitals providing emergency services increased sharply from 2010
to 2012, but we question whether such a large increase actually occurred. This chart includes services provided or
arranged by acute care short-term hospitals and excludes long-term, Christian Science, psychiatric, rehabilitation,
children’s, critical access, and alcohol/drug hospitals.
Source: Medicare Provider of Services files from CMS.
• The number of hospitals that furnish services under Medicare’s outpatient prospective
payment system has declined slowly since 2008, from 3,607 in 2008 to 3,194 in 2020.
• The share of hospitals providing outpatient services remained stable, and the share offering
outpatient surgery steadily increased from 2008 through 2014 and has remained stable
since then. The share offering emergency services declined slightly from 2016 to 2018.
90 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-11. Payments and volume of services under the
Medicare hospital outpatient PPS, by type of
service, 2019
Payments Volume
Separately Pass-
paid drugs/ through Tests
Tests Pass-through
blood drugs 2%
1% drugs
products 3% 4%
20%
Procedures
14%
Procedures
46% Imaging
Separately 8%
paid
E&M drugs/blood
19% products
57% E&M 14%
Imaging
12%
Note: PPS (prospective payment system), E&M (evaluation and management). “Payments” include both program spending and
beneficiary cost sharing. We grouped services into the following categories, according to the Berenson-Eggers Type of
Service codes developed by CMS: evaluation and management, procedures, imaging, and tests. “Pass-through drugs”
and “separately paid drugs/blood products” are classified by their payment status indicator. The percentages in both
figures do not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of standard analytic file of outpatient claims for 2019.
• Hospitals provide many types of services in their outpatient departments, including

emergency and clinic visits, imaging and other diagnostic services, laboratory tests, and
ambulatory surgery.
• The payments for services are distributed differently from volume. For example, in 2019,
procedures accounted for 46 percent of payments but only 14 percent of volume.
• Procedures (e.g., endoscopies, surgeries, and skin and musculoskeletal procedures)

accounted for the greatest share of payments for services (46 percent) in 2019, followed by
separately paid drugs and blood products (20 percent), E&M services (19 percent), and
imaging services (12 percent).
• Payments for separately payable drugs and blood products and pass-through drugs have
increased in relation to other categories in the outpatient PPS, increasing from 15 percent of
total outpatient PPS spending in 2013 (data not shown) to 23 percent of total outpatient PPS
spending in 2019. Pass-through drugs are new drugs that have been approved by the Food
and Drug Administration; were not paid under Medicare’s hospital outpatient payment
system before January 1, 1997; and have been determined to have costs that are not
insignificant in relation to the outpatient PPS payment rate for the applicable service. Statute
allows drugs to have pass-through status for two to three years.
Chart 7-12. Hospital outpatient services with the highest
Medicare expenditures, 2019
Share of
Medicare Volume Payment
APC title expenditures (thousands) rate
Total 51%
All emergency visits 6 12,547 $345

Clinic visits 6 32,684 116
Comprehensive observation services 5 1,430 2,387
Level 5 musculoskeletal procedures 3 174 10,714
Level 3 endovascular procedures 2 167 9,669
Level 3 electrophysiologic procedures 2 75 19,214
Level 4 musculoskeletal procedures 2 218 5,700
Level 3 drug administration 2 6,521 187
Level 2 ICD and similar procedures 2 37 30,656
Level 3 radiation therapy 2 1,943 520
Level 2 imaging without contrast 1 8,501 113
Level 2 imaging with contrast 1 2,441 386
Level 2 lower GI procedures 1 1,012 980
Level 1 laparoscopy and related procedures 1 194 4,596
Level 3 nuclear medicine and related services 1 696 1,129
Level 1 intraocular procedures 1 428 1,917
Level 4 drug administration 1 2,518 288
Level 3 pacemaker and similar procedures 1 68 9,897
Level 1 upper GI procedures 1 955 762
Level 2 excision/biopsy/incision and drainage 1 460 1,376
Level 3 vascular procedures 1 234 2,642
Level 4 nuclear medicine and related services 1 443 1,376
Level 5 urology and related services 1 152 4,021
Average APC 600 168
Note: APC (ambulatory payment classification), ICD (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator), GI (gastrointestinal). The payment
rate for “all emergency visits” is a weighted average of payment rates for 10 emergency visit APCs (not listed on this
chart). The shares of payments for the 27 APC categories do not add to the total share of payments (51 percent) because
of rounding. The average APC figures in the last line represent averages for all APCs.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 100 percent analytic files of outpatient claims for calendar year 2019.
• Although the outpatient prospective payment system covers thousands of services,

expenditures are concentrated in a few categories that have high volume, high payment
rates, or both.
92 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-13. Separately payable drugs have increased as a share
of total spending in the outpatient prospective
payment system, 2014–2019
30
Separately payable drugs as a
25
share of OPPS spending
22.4
20.4 20.5
20 18.4
16.3
14.7
15
10
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: OPPS (outpatient prospective payment system).
Source: MedPAC analysis of hospital outpatient standard analytic claims files from 2014 through 2019.
• The OPPS packages the cost of most drugs into the payment for the related services.
However, the OPPS has two programs that provide separate payment for higher cost drugs:
the pass-through program, which is focused on drugs that are new to the market, and the
program for separately payable non-pass-through (SPNPT) drugs, which is focused on
drugs that have been established in the drug market. Pass-through drugs can hold that
status for two to three years, after which they can become SPNPT drugs. Most SPNPT
drugs were previously pass-through drugs.
• Separately payable drugs have become an increasingly larger share of OPPS spending,
increasing from 14.7 percent in 2014 to 22.4 percent in 2019.
• The share of OPPS spending attributable to separately payable drugs increased each year
from 2014 to 2019, but the increase was relatively small from 2017 to 2018. The small
increase during that period was the result of a policy implemented by CMS that substantially
decreased the payment rates for SPNPT drugs that hospitals obtained through the 340B
Drug Pricing Program. Without that policy, we estimate that separately payable drugs would
have been 22.7 percent of OPPS spending in 2018 and 24.8 percent in 2019.
Chart 7-14. Number of Medicare-certified ASCs increased by
11 percent, 2013–2019
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Medicare payments (billions of dollars) $3.7 $3.8 $4.1 $4.3 $4.6 $4.9 $5.2
New centers (during year) 178 191 170 171 216 230 226
Closed or merged centers (during year) 120 123 109 101 101 103 84
Net total number of centers (end of year) 5,233 5,301 5,362 5,432 5,547 5,674 5,816
Net percent growth in number

of centers 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5%
Share of all centers that are:

For profit 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Nonprofit 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Government 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Urban 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Rural 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Note: ASC (ambulatory surgical center). Medicare payments include program spending and beneficiary cost sharing for ASC
facility services. Some figures differ from Chart 7-14 in our 2020 data book because CMS updated the Provider of
Services file. Some totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Provider of Services file from CMS 2019. Payment data are from CMS, Office of the Actuary.
• ASCs are distinct entities that furnish ambulatory surgical services not requiring an overnight
stay in a hospital. The most common ASC procedures are cataract removal with lens
insertion, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and nerve procedures.
• Total Medicare payments per fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiary for ASC services
increased by approximately 6 percent per year, on average, from 2013 through 2019 (data
not shown). Payments per FFS beneficiary served in an ASC grew by 4.9 percent per year
during this period. From 2018 to 2019, total payments rose by 7.3 percent, and payments
per beneficiary grew by 8.3 percent (per beneficiary data not shown).
• The number of Medicare-certified ASCs grew at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent
from 2013 through 2019. In this same period, an annual average of 197 new facilities
entered the market, while an average of 106 closed or merged with other facilities.
94 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-15. Between 33 and 70 low-value services were provided
per 100 FFS beneficiaries in 2018; Medicare spent
between $2.4 billion and $6.9 billion on these services
Broader version of measure Narrower version of measure
Count Share of Count Share of
per 100 beneficiaries Spending per 100 beneficiaries Spending
Measure beneficiaries affected (millions) beneficiaries affected (millions)
Imaging for nonspecific
low back pain 12.6 9.2% $263 3.5 3.2% $73
PSA screening at age >75 years 8.7 5.9 82 4.9 4.0 46
Colon cancer screening
for older adults 6.9 6.6 412 0.2 0.2 3
Spinal injection for low back pain 6.9 3.6 1,418 3.1 1.9 633
PTH testing in early CKD 5.4 3.3 109 4.6 2.8 93
Carotid artery disease screening
in asymptomatic adults 4.6 4.2 262 3.7 3.4 212
T3 level testing for patients
with hypothyroidism 4.3 2.5 28 4.3 2.5 28
Preoperative chest radiography 4.0 3.6 63 0.9 0.9 15
Stress testing for stable
coronary disease 3.7 3.6 1,129 0.4 0.4 132
Head imaging for
uncomplicated headache 3.7 3.3 268 2.3 2.2 167
Cervical cancer screening at
age >65 years 1.6 1.6 35 1.4 1.4 32
Homocysteine testing in
cardiovascular disease 1.2 0.9 10 0.2 0.2 2
Head imaging for syncope 1.2 1.1 84 0.7 0.7 51
Preoperative echocardiography 0.9 0.9 78 0.3 0.3 24
Preoperative stress testing 0.6 0.6 192 0.2 0.2 61
CT for uncomplicated rhinosinusitis 0.6 0.5 45 0.2 0.2 19
Screening for carotid artery disease
for syncope 0.5 0.5 30 0.4 0.4 22
Imaging for plantar fasciitis 0.5 0.4 11 0.3 0.2 4
BMD testing at frequent intervals 0.5 0.5 11 0.3 0.3 7
Vitamin D testing in absence of
hypercalcemia or decreased kidney
function 0.4 0.4 7 0.4 0.3 7
Cancer screening for patients
with CKD on dialysis 0.3 0.3 10 0.1 0.1 1
PCI/stenting for stable
coronary disease 0.3 0.3 1,435 0.1 0.1 254
Arthroscopic surgery for knee
osteoarthritis 0.2 0.2 188 0.04 0.04 35
Preoperative PFT 0.2 0.2 2 0.1 0.1 1
Vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty for
osteoporotic vertebral fractures 0.2 0.1 336 0.2 0.1 328
Hypercoagulability testing after DVT 0.2 0.1 5 0.1 0.05 2
IVC filter to prevent pulmonary embolism 0.1 0.1 21 0.1 0.1 21
Renal artery angioplasty/stenting 0.1 0.1 176 0.02 0.02 43
EEG for headache 0.1 0.1 4 0.03 0.03 2
Carotid endarterectomy for
asymptomatic patients 0.1 0.1 145 0.02 0.02 59
Pulmonary artery catheterization in ICU 0.01 0.01 0.2 0.005 0.004 0.2
Total 70.5 35.9 6,860 33.1 21.6 2,377
(Chart continued next page)
Chart 7-15. Between 33 and 70 low-value services were provided
per 100 FFS beneficiaries in 2018; Medicare spent
between $2.4 billion and $6.9 billion on these services
(continued)
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), PSA (prostate-specific antigen), PTH (parathyroid hormone), CKD (chronic kidney disease), CT
(computed tomography), BMD (bone mineral density), PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), PFT (pulmonary function
test), DVT (deep vein thrombosis), IVC (inferior vena cava), EEG (electroencephalography), ICU (intensive care unit).
“Count” refers to the number of unique services. Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding. The total for share of
beneficiaries affected does not equal the column sum because some beneficiaries received services covered by multiple
measures. “Spending” includes Medicare Part A and Part B program spending and beneficiary cost sharing for services
detected by measures of low-value care. Spending is based on a standardized price for each service from 2009 that was
updated to 2018. The broad and narrow version of the measure for T3 level testing for patients with hypothyroidism is the
same.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 100 percent of Medicare claims using measures developed by Schwartz and colleagues (Schwartz,
A. L., B. E. Landon, A. G. Elshaug, et al. 2014. Measuring low-value care in Medicare. JAMA Internal Medicine 174:
1067–1076; Schwartz, A. L., M. E. Chernew, B. E. Landon, et al. 2015. Changes in low-value services in year 1 of the
Medicare Pioneer Accountable Care Organization Program. JAMA Internal Medicine 175: 1815–1825).
• Low-value care is the provision of a service that has little or no clinical benefit or care in
which the risk of harm from the service outweighs its potential benefit.
• The 31 measures of low-value care in this chart were developed by a team of researchers.
The measures are drawn from evidence-based lists—such as Choosing Wisely—and the
medical literature. We applied these measures to 100 percent of Medicare claims data from
2018. These 31 measures do not represent all instances of low-value care; the actual
number (and corresponding spending) may be much higher.
• The researchers developed two versions of each measure: a broader version (more
sensitive, less specific) and a narrower version (less sensitive, more specific). Increasing the
sensitivity of a measure captures more potentially inappropriate use but is also more likely to
misclassify some appropriate use as inappropriate. Increasing a measure’s specificity leads
to less misclassification of appropriate use as inappropriate at the expense of potentially
missing some instances of inappropriate use.
• Based on the broader versions of the measures, our analysis found about 70 instances of
low-value care per 100 beneficiaries in 2018, with about 36 percent of beneficiaries
receiving at least 1 low-value service that year. Medicare spending for these services was
$6.9 billion. Based on the narrower versions of the measures, our analysis showed about 33
instances of low-value care per 100 beneficiaries, with almost 22 percent of beneficiaries
receiving at least 1 low-value service. Medicare spending for these services totaled about
$2.4 billion.
96 Ambulatory care
Chart 7-16. Imaging and cancer screening accounted for most of
the volume of low-value care in 2018
80
Cardiovascular testing and procedures
Total: 70
Preoperative testing
70
Other surgical procedures
Diagnostic and preventive testing
60 Cancer screening
Imaging
Count per 100 beneficiaries
50
40
Total: 33
30
20
10
0
Broader measures Narrower measures
Note: “Count” refers to the number of unique services provided to fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.
• We assigned each of the 31 measures of low-value care from Chart 7-15 to 1 of 6 clinical
categories.
• Imaging and cancer screening accounted for nearly 60 percent of the volume of low-value
care per 100 beneficiaries using the broader versions of the measures. The “imaging”
category includes back imaging for patients with nonspecific low back pain and screening for
carotid artery disease in asymptomatic adults. The “cancer screening” category includes
prostate-specific antigen testing for men ages 75 or older and colorectal cancer screening
for older adults.
• Using the narrower versions of the measures, imaging and diagnostic and preventive testing
accounted for 64 percent of the volume of low-value care per 100 beneficiaries.
Chart 7-17. Cardiovascular testing and procedures, other
surgical procedures, and imaging accounted for
most of spending on low-value care in 2018
8
Cardiovascular testing and procedures

7 Total: $6.9
Preoperative testing
Medicare spending (in billions of dollars)
Other surgical procedures

6 Diagnostic and preventive testing
Cancer screening
Imaging
5
3
Total: $2.4
0
Broader measures Narrower measures
Note: “Spending” includes Medicare Part A and Part B program spending and beneficiary cost sharing for services detected by
measures of low-value care. To estimate spending, we used standardized prices to adjust for regional differences in
payment rates. The standardized price is the median payment amount per service in 2009, adjusted for the increase in
payment rates between 2009 and 2018. This method was developed by Schwartz et al. (2014).
• Cardiovascular testing and procedures and other surgical procedures accounted for 71 percent
of total spending on low-value care using the broader measures. Other surgical procedures and
imaging made up nearly two-thirds of spending on low-value care using the narrower measures.
• The “cardiovascular testing and procedures” category includes stress testing for stable coronary
disease and percutaneous coronary intervention with balloon angioplasty or stent placement for
stable coronary disease. The “other surgical procedures” category includes spinal injection for
low back pain and arthroscopic surgery for knee osteoarthritis. The “imaging” category includes
back imaging for patients with nonspecific low back pain and screening for carotid artery disease
in asymptomatic adults.
• The spending estimates probably understate actual spending on low-value care because they do
not include the cost of downstream services (e.g., follow-up tests and procedures) that may
result from the initial low-value service. Also, we are not capturing all low-value care through
these 31 measures.
98 Ambulatory care
8
Chart 8-1. The number of post-acute care providers decreased
slightly in 2020
Average
annual
percent Percent
change change
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016−2020 2019−2020
Home health
agencies 12,342 11,964 11,701 11,571 11,456 –1.7 –1.0
Inpatient
rehabilitation
facilities 1,188 1,178 1,170 1,152 1,113 –1.5 –3.4
Long-term
care hospitals 423 411 386 371 351 –4.6 –5.4
Skilled nursing
facilities 15,344 15,377 15,350 15,297 15,156 –0.3 –0.9
Source: MedPAC analysis of active provider counts from CMS Survey and Certification’s Quality, Certification, and Oversight
reports (skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies) and CMS Provider of Services files (inpatient rehabilitation
facilities and long-term care hospitals).
• The number of home health agencies has been declining since 2013 after several years of
substantial growth (data not shown). The decline in agencies was concentrated in Texas
and Florida, two states that saw considerable growth after the implementation of the home
health prospective payment system in October 2000.
• The supply of inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) has been declining slightly since 2016.
Most IRFs are distinct units in acute care hospitals; about one-quarter are freestanding
facilities. However, because freestanding IRFs tend to have more beds, they account for
about half of Medicare discharges from IRFs.
• After peaking in 2012 (data not shown), the number of long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) has
decreased. The decline became more rapid after the implementation of a dual payment-rate
system that reduced payments for certain Medicare discharges from LTCHs beginning in
fiscal year 2016.
• The total number of skilled nursing facilities rose between 2016 and 2017, then decreased
less than 1 percent per year between 2017 and 2019.
Chart 8-2. Medicare fee-for-service spending for post-acute
care was relatively stable from 2010 to 2019
70
61.3 60.4
58.6 58.8 59.2 59.7 58.8
58.3 58.4 57.5
60
All post-acute care

50 Skilled nursing facilities
Home health agencies

40 Inpatient rehabilitation facilities
Long-term care hospitals
31.1
28.6 29.0 29.6 28.9 28.5
27.8 28.2 28.1 27.6
30
19.6 18.6 18.4 18.4

18.2 18.1 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.1
20
7.2 7.5 7.7 8.0 8.3 8.3

10 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.9
5.0 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.1 3.8

0 3.5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Calendar year
Note: These calendar year‒incurred data represent program spending only; they do not include beneficiary cost sharing.
Source: CMS Office of the Actuary 2021.
• Aggregate fee-for-service (FFS) spending on post-acute care (PAC) has remained stable
since 2012, in part because of expanded enrollment in managed care under Medicare
Advantage (Medicare Advantage spending is not included in this chart). However, spending
growth has varied by PAC sector.
• FFS spending on skilled nursing facilities increased sharply in 2011, reflecting CMS’s
adjustment for the implementation of the new case-mix groups (resource utilization groups,
version IV). Once CMS established that the adjustment it made was too large, it lowered the
adjustment, and spending dropped in 2012. Overall, spending on SNF care and home
health care was relatively stable between 2012 and 2019, decreasing slightly in the latter
part of the period.
• FFS spending on inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) has increased steadily over the past
decade. In all, spending on IRFs increased 36 percent between 2010 and 2019.
• FFS spending on long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) has decreased by 29 percent since
2015, largely due to the implementation of the dual payment-rate system that reduced
payments for certain LTCH cases.
102 Post-acute care

Chart 8-3. Freestanding SNFs and for-profit SNFs accounted
for the majority of facilities, Medicare stays, and
Medicare spending in 2019
Medicare-covered Medicare payments
Type of SNF Facilities stays (billions)
Totals 14,923 2,069,107 $25.4
Freestanding 96% 96% 97%

Hospital based 4 4 3
Urban 73 84 85
Rural 27 16 15
For profit 71 71 75
Nonprofit 23 25 22
Government 6 4 3
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility). The spending amount included here is lower than that reported by the Office of the Actuary,
and the count of SNFs is slightly lower than what is reported in CMS Survey and Certification’s Quality, Certification, and
Oversight reports.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Provider of Services and Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from CMS.
• In 2019, freestanding facilities accounted for 96 percent of SNF stays and 97 percent of
Medicare’s payments to SNFs.
• Urban facilities accounted for 73 percent of facilities, 84 percent of stays, and 85 percent of
Medicare payments in 2019.
• In 2019, for-profit facilities accounted for 71 percent of facilities and stays and 75 percent of
Medicare payments.
Chart 8-4. SNF admissions and stays continued to decline
in 2019
Percent
change
Volume measure 2014 2016 2018 2019 2018‒2019
Covered admissions per

1,000 FFS beneficiaries 68.3 65.9 62.5 59.5 –4.8%
Covered days per 1,000 1,843 1,693 1,559 1,475 –5.4

FFS beneficiaries
Covered days per admission 27.0 25.7 25.0 24.8 –0.8
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility), FFS (fee-for-service). Data include 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Source: Calendar year data from CMS, Office of Information Products and Data Analytics, 2021.
• In 2019, 4 percent of beneficiaries enrolled in FFS Medicare used SNF services (data not
shown).
• Between 2018 and 2019, covered SNF admissions per 1,000 FFS beneficiaries decreased
4.8 percent. The decline is consistent with a decline in FFS per capita inpatient hospital
stays that were three days or longer and therefore qualified for Medicare coverage of SNF
care (data not shown).
• During the same period, covered days per admission declined 0.8 percent to 24.8 days, so
there were fewer covered days per 1,000 beneficiaries.
104 Post-acute care

Chart 8-5. Freestanding SNF Medicare margins remained high
in 2019
2012 2014 2016 2018 2019
All 14.1% 12.8% 11.6% 10.8% 11.3%
Rural 13.3 10.8 9.7 8.5 9.6

Urban 14.2 13.1 11.9 11.2 11.6
Nonprofit 5.7 4.3 2.6 0.8 0.9

For profit 16.3 15.1 14.1 13.5 14.3
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility).
Source: MedPAC analysis of freestanding SNF cost reports 2012–2019.
• The aggregate Medicare margin for freestanding SNFs in 2019 exceeded 10 percent for the
20th consecutive year (not all years are shown). After reaching over 21 percent in 2011
(data not shown), the margins have declined primarily because current law requires annual
market basket increases to payments to be offset by a productivity adjustment. The
Medicare margin in 2019 increased from 2018 because SNFs kept their cost growth below
the average increase in per day payments.
• In 2019, on average, urban facilities had higher Medicare margins than rural facilities. For-
profit SNFs had considerably higher Medicare margins than nonprofit SNFs, reflecting their
larger size and lower cost growth.
• In 2019, the average total margin (the margin across all payers and all lines of business) for
freestanding facilities was 0.6 percent, up from –0.3 percent in 2018 (data not shown).
Chart 8-6. Cost and payment differences explain variation in
Medicare margins for freestanding SNFs in 2019
Highest margin Lowest margin Ratio of highest
quartile quartile quartile to
Characteristic (n = 3,256) (n = 3,255) lowest quartile
Cost measures
Standardized cost per day $281 $424 0.66
Standardized cost per discharge $11,771 $14,926 0.79
Average daily census (patients) 89 63 1.40
Revenue measures
Medicare payment per day $544 $470 1.16
Medicare payment per discharge $23,353 $15,820 1.48
Share of days in intensive therapy 89% 81% 1.10
Share of medically complex days 3 3 1.00
Medicare share of facility revenue 21 11 1.91
Average length of stay (days) 42 34 1.25
Medicaid share of days 68 56 1.20
Patient characteristics
Case-mix index 1.41 1.32 1.07
Share of dual-eligible beneficiaries 53% 34% 1.56
Share of minority beneficiaries 15 5 3.00
Share of very old beneficiaries 25 33 0.76
Facility mix
Share for profit 84% 53% N/A
Share urban 79 71 1.11
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility), N/A (not applicable). Values shown are medians for the quartile. Highest margin quartile SNFs
were in the top 25 percent of the distribution of Medicare margins. Lowest margin quartile SNFs were in the bottom 25
percent of the distribution of Medicare margins. “Standardized cost per day” includes Medicare costs adjusted for differences
in area wages and the case mix (using the nursing component’s relative weights) of Medicare beneficiaries. “Days in
intensive therapy” are days classified into ultra-high and very high rehabilitation case-mix groups. “Very old beneficiaries” are
85 years or older. “Medically complex days” are those assigned to clinically complex or special-care case-mix groups.
Quartile figures presented in the table are rounded, but the ratio column was calculated using unrounded data.
Source: MedPAC analysis of freestanding SNF claims and cost reports 2019.
• Medicare margins varied widely across freestanding SNFs. One-quarter of SNFs had
Medicare margins at or below 0.33 percent, and one-quarter of facilities had Medicare
margins at or above 21.4 percent (data not shown).
• High-margin SNFs had lower costs per day (34 percent lower costs than low-margin SNFs),
after adjusting for wage and case-mix differences, and higher payment per day (16 percent).
• Facilities with the highest Medicare margins had higher case-mix indexes, higher shares of
beneficiaries who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and higher shares of
minority beneficiaries.
106 Post-acute care

Chart 8-7. SNFs’ quality measures improved slightly between
2015 and 2019
Average annual change
Measure 2015 2017 2018 2019 2015–2019 2018–2019
Successful discharge to the community

All SNFs 43.9% 44.4% 44.3% 45.8% 1.1% 3.2%
For profit 43.0 43.6 43.5 44.8 1.0 3.0
Nonprofit 47.2 47.6 47.4 48.7 0.8 2.7
Freestanding 43.4 44.0 44.0 45.4 1.1 3.3
Hospital based 52.9 53.8 52.8 53.8 0.4 2.0
Hospitalizations
All SNFs 15.1 14.4 14.1 13.7 –2.4 –3.1
For profit 15.7 14.9 14.6 14.2 –2.4 –2.6
Nonprofit 13.3 12.9 12.7 12.3 –2.0 –2.9
Freestanding 15.3 14.6 14.3 13.8 –2.5 –3.0
Hospital based 10.6 10.2 10.6 10.0 –1.5 –5.4
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility). “Successful discharge to the community” includes beneficiaries discharged to
the community (including those discharged to the same nursing home they were in before) who did not have
an unplanned hospitalization or die in the 30 days after discharge. The hospitalization measure captures all
unplanned hospital admissions, readmissions, and outpatient observation stays that occurred during the
SNF stay. Both measures are uniformly defined and risk adjusted across SNFs, home health agencies,
inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and long-term care hospitals. Providers with at least 60 stays in the year
were included in calculating the average facility rate. The “All SNFs” category includes the performance of
government-owned SNFs, which are not displayed separately in the table. The average annual changes
were calculate using unrounded annual rates.
Source: MedPAC analysis of SNF claims and linked inpatient hospital stays 2015 through 2019 for fee-for-service
beneficiaries.
• Rates of successful discharge to the community improved between 2015 and 2019. A
greater share of beneficiaries was discharged to the community (45.8 percent compared
with 43.9 percent). This pattern held across ownership groups and facility type.
• The rates of hospitalization during the SNF stay improved (decreased) between 2015 and
2019. A smaller share of beneficiaries was hospitalized during a SNF stay (13.7 percent
compared with 15.1 percent). This pattern held across ownership groups and facility types.
Chart 8-8. Trends in the provision of home health care
Percent change 2011–2019
2011 2019 Annual average Cumulative
Number of users (in millions) 3.4 3.3 –0.5% –4.3%
Share of FFS beneficiaries

who used home health care 9.4% 8.6% –1.1 –8.7
Episodes (in millions) 6.8 6.1 –1.3 –11.0
Episodes per home health patient 2.0 1.9 –0.9 –7.0
Visits per home health episode 17.2 16.4 –0.6 –4.7
Visits per home health patient 34.2 30.4 –1.3 –11.1
Average payment per episode $2,916 $3,167 1.0 8.6
Note: FFS (fee-for-service). Yearly figures presented in the table are rounded, but the percent-change columns were calculated
using unrounded data. Average payment per episode excludes payments for low-use episodes (those with fewer than five
visits). Other measures of utilization include low-use episodes.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the home health standard analytic file from CMS.
• Between 2011 and 2019, episode volume declined by 11.0 percent and the number of users
dropped 4.3 percent.
• The number of visits per patient decreased between 2011 and 2019. This decline was a
consequence of two other utilization declines in this period: a decline in average number of
episodes per home health patient and a decline in the average number of visits per episode.
• The average payment per full episode was $3,167 in 2019, an increase of 8.6 percent
relative to 2011. Throughout the 2011 to 2019 period, Medicare implemented a number of
policies to reduce or slow the growth of home health payments. However, despite these
reductions, the margins of freestanding home health agencies averaged in excess of 15
percent in this period, indicating that payments remain well in excess of costs despite these
policies (data not shown).
108 Post-acute care

Chart 8-9. Most home health episodes are not preceded by
hospitalization or PAC stay
Number of episodes Percent change
(in millions) 2011‒2019
2011 2019 Annual average Cumulative
Episodes preceded by a
hospitalization or PAC stay 2.2 2.1 –0.4% –3.3%
Episodes not preceded by a

hospitalization or PAC stay 4.6 4.0 –1.5 –12.8
Share of episodes not preceded

by a hospitalization or PAC stay 68% 66% –0.3 –2.7
Total 6.8 6.1 –1.3 –11.1
Note: PAC (post-acute care). “Episodes preceded by a hospitalization or PAC stay” refers to episodes that occurred less than
15 days after a stay in a hospital (including a long-term care hospital), skilled nursing facility, or inpatient rehabilitation
facility. “Episodes not preceded by a hospitalization or PAC stay” refers to episodes for which there was no hospitalization
or PAC stay in the previous 15 days.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 2019 home health standard analytic file, 2019 Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file, and 2019
skilled nursing facility standard analytic file from CMS.
• Most home health episodes are not preceded by a hospitalization or institutional PAC stay,
and these episodes accounted for about two-thirds of PAC stays in 2011 through 2019.
During this period, the number of home health episodes not preceded by a hospitalization or
PAC stay declined 12.8 percent, while the number of episodes preceded by a hospitalization
or PAC stay decreased 3.3 percent.
• Before the 2011 through 2019 period, there was large growth in the number and share of
episodes not preceded by a hospital or institutional PAC stay (data not shown). In 2001,
episodes not preceded by a hospital or institutional PAC stay accounted for 53 percent of
volume; by 2011, those episodes had increased to 67 percent of total episodes. Over the
same period, the share of episodes preceded by a hospitalization or institutional PAC stay
declined from 47 percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2011 (data not shown). The shares of
episode volume accounted for by these two categories have not changed substantially since
2011.
• Beneficiaries for whom the majority of home health episodes were preceded by a
hospitalization or PAC stay had different characteristics from community-admitted
beneficiaries (those who had no prior hospitalization or PAC stay) (data not shown).
Community-admitted beneficiaries were more likely to be dually eligible for Medicare and
Medicaid, to have more home health episodes, and to have more episodes with a high
share of home health aide services compared with other home health users coming from a
hospitalization or other PAC stay. Community-admitted users generally had slightly fewer
chronic conditions, tended to be older, and were more likely to have dementia or
Alzheimer’s disease.
Chart 8-10. Medicare margins for freestanding home health
agencies, 2018 and 2019
Share of
agencies
2018 2019 2019
All 15.3% 15.8% 100%
Geography
Mostly urban 15.7 16.1 83
Mostly rural 12.6 13.9 17
Type of control
For profit 16.8 17.2 87
Nonprofit 10.1 11.0 13
Volume quintile (lowest to highest)

First 10.4 9.8 20
Second 11.0 11.5 20
Third 13.8 13.3 20
Fourth 14.4 14.3 20
Fifth 16.7 17.4 20
Note: Agencies are characterized as urban or rural based on the residence of the majority of their patients.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 2018–2019 Medicare Cost Report files from CMS.
• In 2019, freestanding home health agencies (HHAs) (87 percent of all HHAs) had an
aggregate margin of 15.8 percent. HHAs that served mostly urban patients in 2019 had an
aggregate margin of 16.1 percent; HHAs that served mostly rural patients had an aggregate
margin of 13.9 percent. The 2019 margin is consistent with the historically high margins the
home health industry has experienced since the prospective payment system (PPS) was
implemented in 2000. The margins from 2001 to 2018 averaged 16.2 percent (data not
shown), indicating that most agencies have been paid well in excess of their costs under the
PPS.
• For-profit agencies in 2019 had an average margin of 17.2 percent, and nonprofit agencies
had an average margin of 11.0 percent.
• Agencies with higher episode volumes had higher margins. The agencies in the lowest
volume quintile in 2019 had an aggregate margin of 9.8 percent, while those in the highest
quintile had an aggregate margin of 17.4 percent.
110 Post-acute care

Chart 8-11. Since 2015, home health agencies have reported a
modest improvement in the rate of successful
discharge from home health care to the community,
but the rate of hospitalization has increased
Measure 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Successful discharge to community 68.3% 69.2% 69.6% 70.4% 72.2%

Hospitalization during home health stay 20.6% 20.8% 21.4% 21.5% 21.4%
Note: “Successful discharge to the community” includes beneficiaries discharged to the community (including those discharged
to the same nursing home) who did not have an unplanned hospitalization or die in the 30 days after discharge. The
hospitalization measure captures all unplanned hospital admissions and readmissions and outpatient observation stays
that occur during the stay. Both measures are uniformly defined and risk adjusted across the four post-acute care
settings. Providers with at least 60 stays in the year (the minimum count to meet a reliability threshold of 0.7) were
included in calculating the average facility rate.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Provider Analysis and Review and home health standard analytic files from CMS.
• Over the five years between 2015 and 2019, the share of patients successfully discharged
from home health care to the community rose from 68.3 percent to 72.2 percent (higher
rates indicate better performance). In this period, the share of patients hospitalized during
their care increased slightly from 20.6 percent to 21.4 percent (higher rates indicate worse
performance).
• In general, hospital-based home health agencies (HHAs), HHAs located in urban areas, and
nonprofit HHAs performed better than their counterparts on these measures (data not
shown). Performance varied across providers; for example, the HHA at the 25th percentile
of the distribution for hospitalization had a rate of 17.3 percent, while the agency at the 75th
had a rate of 25.4 percent.
Chart 8-12. Number of FFS IRF cases increased in 2019
Average
annual percent Percent
change change
2010 2015 2018 2019 2010–2019 2018–2019
Number of IRF cases 365,095 393,475 408,038 409,059 1.3% 0.3%
Cases per 10,000 101.3 103.4 105.7 106.9 0.6 1.6

FFS beneficiaries
Payment per case $16,814 $18,527 $20,124 $20,417 2.2 1.5
Average length of stay

(in days) 13.1 12.7 12.7 12.6 –0.4 –0.5
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), IRF (inpatient rehabilitation facility). Numbers of cases reflect Medicare FFS utilization only. Yearly
figures presented in the table are rounded, but the percent-change columns were calculated using unrounded data.
• After a period of relative stability from 2015 to 2017, the number of Medicare FFS cases
increased 3.0 percent between 2017 and 2018, growing to about 408,000 cases in 2018
(not all data shown). From 2018 to 2019, the number of cases grew slightly by 0.3 percent to
about 409,000 cases.
• In 2019, the number of IRF cases per 10,000 FFS beneficiaries grew to 106.9, up 1.6
percent from the previous year. Relatively few Medicare beneficiaries use IRF services
because, to qualify for Medicare coverage, IRF patients must be able to tolerate and benefit
from rehabilitation therapy that is intensive, which is usually interpreted to mean at least
three hours of therapy a day for at least five days a week. Yet, compared with all Medicare
beneficiaries, those admitted to IRFs in 2019 were disproportionately over age 85 (data not
shown).
• With the increase in the number of IRF cases per FFS beneficiary, FFS Medicare’s share of
IRF discharges remains high at 58 percent of total discharges (data not shown).
• From 2018 to 2019, the average length of stay in an IRF decreased slightly, by 0.5 percent,
to 12.6 days.
112 Post-acute care

Chart 8-13. Most common types of FFS inpatient rehabilitation
facility cases, 2019
Type of case Share of cases
Stroke 19.8%
Other neurological conditions 14.4
Debility 12.3
Brain injury 11.0
Fracture of the lower extremity 10.0
Other orthopedic conditions 8.1
Cardiac conditions 6.1
Spinal cord injury 4.9
Major joint replacement of lower extremity 3.7
All other 10.0

Note: FFS (fee-for-service). “Other neurological conditions” includes multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, polyneuropathy,
and neuromuscular disorders. “Fracture of the lower extremity” includes hip, pelvis, and femur fractures. Patients with
debility have generalized deconditioning not attributable to other conditions. “Other orthopedic conditions” excludes
fractures of the hip, pelvis, and femur and hip and knee replacements. “All other” includes conditions such as
amputations, arthritis, and pain syndrome. All Medicare FFS inpatient rehabilitation facility cases with valid patient
assessment information were included in this analysis.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility–Patient Assessment Instrument data from CMS.
• In 2019, the most frequently occurring case type among FFS beneficiaries admitted to
inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) was stroke, which accounted for 19.8 percent of
Medicare FFS cases.
• Between 2018 and 2019, we observed disproportionate growth in the number of cases with
debility: The share of these cases rose from 11.6 percent to 12.3 percent of FFS IRF cases
(2018 data not shown).
• The distribution of case types differs by type of IRF (data not shown). For example, in 2019,
only 16 percent of cases in freestanding for-profit IRFs were admitted for rehabilitation
following a stroke, compared with 26 percent of cases in hospital-based nonprofit IRFs.
Likewise, 20 percent of cases in freestanding for-profit IRFs were admitted with “other
neurological conditions,” about twice the share admitted to hospital-based nonprofit IRFs.
Cases with other orthopedic conditions also made up a higher share of cases in
freestanding for-profit facilities than in all other IRFs.
Chart 8-14. Inpatient rehabilitation facilities’ Medicare margins
by type of facility, 2010–2019
2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019
All IRFs 8.6% 11.2% 12.2% 13.3% 13.9% 14.7% 14.3%
Hospital based –0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.5 2.1

Freestanding 21.4 24.0 25.2 25.9 25.6 25.4 24.6
Urban 9.0 11.6 12.6 13.6 14.2 15.0 14.7

Rural 4.9 6.7 6.5 9.2 8.4 10.1 8.6
Nonprofit 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.6 2.1 2.4 1.2

For profit 19.6 23.1 23.9 24.6 24.3 24.7 24.2
Note: IRF (inpatient rehabilitation facility).
Source: MedPAC analysis of cost report data from CMS.
• In 2019, the aggregate IRF Medicare margin decreased slightly to 14.3 percent.
• Margins varied by ownership, with for-profit IRFs having substantially higher margins. At the
same time, Medicare margins in freestanding IRFs far exceeded those of hospital-based
facilities.
• Nevertheless, one-quarter of hospital-based IRFs had Medicare margins greater than 12

percent (data not shown), indicating that many hospitals can manage their IRF units
profitably. Further, despite comparatively low average margins in hospital-based IRFs,
evidence suggests that these units make a positive financial contribution to their parent
hospitals. For example, aggregate inpatient Medicare margins for hospitals are consistently
higher for hospitals with IRF units versus hospitals without IRF units (1.0 percentage point
higher in 2019; data not shown).
114 Post-acute care

Chart 8-15. Low standardized costs led to high margins for both
hospital-based and freestanding IRFs, 2019
Characteristic Lowest cost quartile Highest cost quartile
Median cost per discharge

All $12,162 $21,593
Hospital based 12,717 21,648
Freestanding 11,803 21,109
Median Medicare margin

All 29.6% −19.7%
Hospital based 25.4 −19.8
Freestanding 31.2 −19.0
Median
Number of beds 50 18
Occupancy rate 76% 55%
Share of facilities in the quartile that are:

Hospital based 35% 94%
Freestanding 65 6
Nonprofit 24 71
For profit 72 14
Government 4 15
Urban 96 74
Rural 4 26
Note: IRF (inpatient rehabilitation facility). Cost per discharge is standardized for differences in wages across geographic areas,
differences in case mix across providers, and differences across providers in the prevalence of high-cost outliers, short-
stay outliers, and transfer cases.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare cost report and Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data from CMS.
• IRFs with the lowest standardized costs (those in the lowest cost quartile) had a median
standardized cost per discharge that was 44 percent less than that of the IRFs with the
highest standardized costs (those in the highest cost quartile).
• IRFs with the lowest costs tended to be larger: The median number of beds was 50 in the
lowest cost quartile compared with 18 in the highest cost quartile. In addition, IRFs with the
lowest costs had a higher median occupancy rate (76 percent vs. 55 percent, respectively).
These results suggest that low-cost IRFs benefit from economies of scale.
• Low-cost IRFs were disproportionately freestanding and for profit. Still, 35 percent of IRFs in
the lowest cost quartile were hospital based and 24 percent were nonprofit. By contrast, in
the highest cost quartile, 94 percent were hospital based and 71 percent were nonprofit.
Chart 8-16. Risk-adjusted quality indicators for IRFs held steady
or improved slightly from 2015 to 2019
Measure 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
All-condition hospitalizations within an IRF stay 7.9% 7.7% 7.9% 7.7% 7.8%
Successful discharge to community 64.6 64.6 64.8 65.1 65.5
Note: IRF (inpatient rehabilitation facility). The all-condition hospitalization measure captures all unplanned hospital admissions
and readmissions and outpatient observation stays that occur during the stay. Successful discharge to the community
includes beneficiaries discharged to the community (including those discharged to the same nursing home) who did not
have an unplanned hospitalization or die in the 30 days after discharge. Both measures are uniformly defined and risk
adjusted across the four post-acute care settings. Providers with at least 60 stays in the year (the minimum count to meet
a reliability of 0.7) were included in calculating the average facility rate. High rates of hospitalizations within a stay indicate
worse quality. High rates of successful discharge to the community indicate better quality.
Source: Analysis of Medicare claims data and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility‒Patient Assessment Instrument data from CMS.
• From 2015 through 2019, the two quality measures we examined were steady or improved.
• The national average rate of risk-adjusted all-condition hospitalizations within an IRF stay
slightly declined from 7.9 percent in 2015 to 7.8 percent in 2019 (lower rates are better). The
national average rate of risk-adjusted successful discharge to community improved slightly
from 64.6 percent in 2015 to 65.5 percent in 2019.
116 Post-acute care

Chart 8-17. Twenty-five MS–LTC–DRGs accounted for more than
70 percent of LTCH discharges in 2019
MS–LTC Share
–DRG Description Discharges of cases
189 Pulmonary edema and respiratory failure 18,650 20.5%

207 Respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support 96+ hours 11,995 13.2
871 Septicemia without ventilator support 96+ hours with MCC 4,999 5.5
208 Respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support <96 hours 2,464 2.7
166 Other respiratory system OR procedures with MCC 2,092 2.3
949 Aftercare with CC/MCC 1,983 2.2
981 Extensive OR procedure unrelated to principal diagnosis with MCC 1,788 1.9
177 Respiratory infections and inflammations with MCC 1,709 1.9
539 Osteomyelitis with MCC 1,630 1.8
291 Heart failure and shock with MCC 1,508 1.7
682 Renal failure with MCC 1,508 1.7
4 Tracheostomy with ventilator support 96+ hours or primary diagnosis
except face, mouth, and neck without major OR 1,315 1.4
314 Other circulatory system diagnoses with MCC 1,268 1.4
592 Skin ulcers with MCC 1,181 1.3
559 Aftercare, musculoskeletal system and connective tissue with MCC 1,153 1.3
862 Postoperative and post-traumatic infections with MCC 1,132 1.2
919 Complications of treatment with MCC 1,112 1.2
853 Infectious and parasitic diseases with OR procedure with MCC 982 1.1
637 Diabetes with MCC 935 1.0
870 Septicemia with ventilator support 96+ hours 921 1.0
638 Diabetes with CC 860 0.9
56 Degenerative nervous system disorders with MCC 834 0.9
560 Aftercare, musculoskeletal system and connective tissue with CC 764 0.8
689 Kidney and urinary tract infections with MCC 727 0.8
193 Simple pneumonia and pleurisy with MCC 708 0.8
371 Major gastrointestinal disorders and peritoneal infections with MCC 708 0.8
Top 25 MS–LTC–DRGs 64,926 71.2
Total 91,147 100.0

Note: MS–LTC–DRG (Medicare severity long-term care diagnosis related group), LTCH (long-term care hospital), MCC (major
complication or comorbidity), OR (operating room), CC (complication or comorbidity). MS–LTC–DRGs are the case-mix
system for LTCHs. Shares for each MS–LTC–DRGs presented in the table are rounded, but the sum of the top 25 was
calculated using unrounded values.
• Cases in LTCHs are concentrated in a relatively small number of MS–LTC–DRGs. In 2019, the
top 25 MS–LTC–DRGs accounted for over 71 percent of LTCH Medicare cases.
• Consistent with 2016 through 2018, the two most frequent diagnoses in LTCHs in 2019 were
pulmonary edema and respiratory failure and a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator
support for more than 96 hours.
• Respiratory conditions continue to grow as a share of LTCH cases. More than 43 percent of all
cases were respiratory conditions in 2019, an increase of 3 percentage points over 2018.
Chart 8-18. Total Medicare FFS LTCH cases decreased by over
10 percent, and cases meeting the LTCH-qualifying
criteria decreased by 2 percent from 2016 and 2019
Average
annual change
2016 2017 2018 2019 2016–2019
All 125,586 116,424 102,288 91,147 –10.1%
Cases Meeting criteria 72,318 74,666 71,916 67,987 –2.0
Share meeting criteria 58% 64% 70% 75% 8.6
All 32.5 30.1 26.5 23.8 –9.8

Cases per 10,000
FFS beneficiaries
Meeting criteria 18.7 19.3 18.6 17.8 –1.7
Payment All $40,656 $38,253 $40,105 $41,448 0.6

per case
Meeting criteria $46,223 $46,127 $46,789 $46,800 0.4
All 26.8 26.3 26.6 26.8 –0.1

Length of stay
(in days)
Meeting criteria 27.9 27.9 28.0 28.0 0.1
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), LTCH (long-term care hospital). “Meeting criteria” refers to Medicare cases that meet the criteria
specified in the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 for payment under the LTCH prospective payment system. All
counts are for stays covered by FFS Medicare and do not include those in private plans.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data from CMS and the annual report of the Boards of
Trustees of the Medicare trust funds.
• Beginning in fiscal year 2016, only certain LTCH cases qualify for the higher standard LTCH
prospective payment system (PPS) rate pursuant to changes made in the Pathway to SGR
Reform Act of 2013. Cases that do not meet LTCH-qualifying criteria are paid a lower site-
neutral rate—the lower of (1) an amount based on Medicare’s inpatient hospital PPS rate or
(2) 100 percent of the cost of the case.
• The number of LTCH cases per 10,000 FFS beneficiaries declined by 9.8 percent between
2016 and 2019. The number of cases meeting the criteria for the LTCH PPS rate decreased
by just 1.7 percent during the same period.
• Changes in payment per case from 2016 through 2019 reflect a lower payment rate for cases
that did not meet the LTCH-qualifying criteria and offsetting increases in the share of cases
that qualified for the standard LTCH PPS rate.
• The average length of stay for all LTCH cases and for cases meeting the criteria for the
standard LTCH PPS rate have remained relatively stable since 2016.
118 Post-acute care

Chart 8-19. The aggregate LTCH Medicare margin decreased
in 2019
Medicare margin
Share of
Type of discharges
LTCH in 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
All 100% 4.7% 3.9% −2.2% −0.5% −1.6%
Nonprofit 14 −5.9 −5.7 −13.0 −11.7 –12.2

For profit 84 6.5 5.5 −0.3 1.3 0.4
Note: LTCH (long-term care hospital). Nonprofit and for-profit rows sum to 98 percent of stays because margins for government-
owned facilities, which account for 2 percent of stays, are not shown.
Source: MedPAC analysis of cost report data from CMS.
• In fiscal year 2016, CMS began implementing a dual payment-rate system under which
LTCH cases not meeting criteria specified in law are paid a lower site-neutral rate—the
lower of an amount based on (1) Medicare’s inpatient hospital prospective payment system
rate or (2) 100 percent of the cost of the case. As a result, the aggregate Medicare margin
fell to −2.2 percent in 2017. LTCH Medicare margins have since increased but remained
negative.
• The aggregate Medicare margin for for-profit LTCHs (which accounted for 84 percent of all
Medicare discharges in 2019) decreased from 6.5 percent in 2015 to 0.4 percent in 2019.
The aggregate margin for nonprofit LTCHs decreased from –5.9 percent in 2015 to –12.2
percent in 2019.
9
Chart 9-1. Enrollment in MA plans, 2003–2021
30
26.4
25 24.0
21.9
Beneficiaries (in millions)
20.0
20 18.5
17.2
16.4
15.4
15 14.1
12.8
11.7
10.5 11.0
9.4
10 8.1
6.9
4.6 4.7 4.9
5
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage).
Source: CMS Medicare managed care contract reports and monthly summary reports, February 2003–2021.
• Enrollment in MA plans that are paid on an at-risk capitated basis reached 26.4 million
enrollees in February 2021. MA enrollment represents 46 percent of all 57.7 million
Medicare beneficiaries eligible to enroll in an MA plan (beneficiaries enrolled in both Part A
and Part B). Other private plans account for an additional 1 percent of all Medicare
beneficiaries with both Part A and Part B coverage. (Other private plans consist of cost
plans, plans under the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), and Medicare–
Medicaid plans participating in CMS’s financial alignment demonstration.)
• MA enrollment has grown steadily since 2003 (increasing nearly sixfold) and has grown
particularly rapidly in recent years: In each of the last three years, MA enrollment has grown
by 10 percent. The Medicare program paid MA plans about $317 billion in 2020 to cover
Part A and Part B services for MA enrollees (data not shown).
Chart 9-2. MA plans available to almost all Medicare
beneficiaries, 2013–2021
Share of Medicare beneficiaries living in counties with plans available
CCPs
HMO or Any Average plan
local PPO Regional Any MA offerings per
(local CCP) PPO CCP PFFS plan beneficiary
2013 95 71 99 59 100 19
2014 95 71 99 53 100 18
2015 95 70 98 47 99 17
2016 96 73 99 47 99 18
2017 95 74 98 45 99 18
2018 96 74 98 41 99 20
2019 97 74 98 38 99 23
2020 98 73 99 36 99 27
2021 98 72 99 34 99 32
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), CCP (coordinated care plan), HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred
provider organization), PFFS (private fee-for-service). These data do not include plans that have restricted enrollment or
are not paid based on the MA plan bidding process (special needs plans, cost plans, employer-only plans, and certain
demonstration plans).
Source: MedPAC analysis of plan bid data from CMS, 2013–2021.
• There are four types of MA plans, three of which are CCPs. Local CCPs include HMOs and
local PPOs, which have comprehensive provider networks and limit or discourage use of out-
of-network providers. Local CCPs may choose which individual counties to serve. Regional
PPOs cover entire state-based regions and have networks that may be looser than those of
local PPOs. CCPs accounted for 97 percent of Medicare private plan enrollees as of February
2021 (data not shown). Since 2011, PFFS plans are required to have networks in areas with
two or more CCPs. In other areas, PFFS plans are not required to have networks, and
enrollees are free to use any Medicare provider.
• Local CCPs are available to 98 percent of Medicare beneficiaries in 2021, and regional
PPOs are available to 72 percent of beneficiaries. Since 2006, almost all Medicare
beneficiaries have had MA plans available (data not shown); 99 percent have an MA plan
available in 2021.
• The number of plans from which beneficiaries may choose in 2021 is higher than at any time
during the years examined. In 2021, beneficiaries can choose from an average of 32 plans
operating in their counties.
124 Medicare Advantage

Chart 9-3. Average monthly rebate dollars, by plan type,
2016–2021
180
Average monthly rebate dollars per beneficiary
158 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

160
141 140
140
125 122
120 111
105 107
101 103
100 95
89
86
81
80 71
59 59
60
49 49
45 45 46
40
40 34
26
17 16 15 18 17
20
0
HMO Local PPO PFFS Regional PPO Any MA plan
Note: HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred provider organization), PFFS (private fee-for-service), MA
(Medicare Advantage). Employer group waiver and special needs plans are excluded.
Source: MedPAC analysis of bid and plan finder data from CMS.
• Perhaps the best summary measure of plan benefit value is the average rebate, which plans
receive to provide additional benefits. Plans are awarded rebates for bidding under their
benchmarks. The rebates must be returned to the plan members in the form of extra
benefits. The extra benefits may be lower cost sharing, supplemental benefits, or lower
premiums. The average rebate for all non-employer, non–special needs plans rose to a high
of $140 per month per beneficiary for 2021.
• HMOs have had, by far, the highest rebates because they tend to bid lower than other types
of plans. Average rebates for HMOs have risen sharply over the past few years and are at a
historical high of $158 per month per beneficiary for 2021.
• For both local and regional PPOs, the rebates rose sharply after 2016. Rebates for local
PPOs have tripled since 2016.
• While the availability of PFFS plans continues to decline, rebates for PFFS plans rose
sharply in 2021—reflecting both higher benchmarks and lower bids relative to benchmarks
among remaining PFFS plans. Overall rebates for PFFS plans are susceptible to greater
year-to-year changes as the number of enrollees in these plans becomes smaller.
Chart 9-4. Changes in enrollment vary among major plan types
Total enrollees
(in thousands)
Percent change
Plan type 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2020–2021
Local CCPs 16,920 18,463 20,502 22,704 25,325 12%
Regional PPOs 1,353 1,327 1,255 1,170 1,003 –14
PFFS 190 154 118 87 61 –30
Note: CCP (coordinated care plan), PPO (preferred provider organization), PFFS (private fee-for-service). Local CCPs include
HMOs and local PPOs.
Source: CMS health plan monthly summary reports, February 2017–2021.
• Enrollment in local CCPs grew by 12 percent over the past year. Enrollment in regional
PPOs declined by 14 percent, and enrollment in PFFS plans dropped by 30 percent.
Combined enrollment in the three types of plans grew by 10 percent from February 2020 to
February 2021 (data not shown).

Chart 9-5. MA and cost plan enrollment by state and type of
plan, 2021
All MA-eligible beneficiaries Distribution (in percent) of enrollees by plan type
State or territory (in thousands) HMO Local PPO Regional PPO PFFS Cost Total
U.S. total 57,550 28% 16% 2% 0% 0% 46%

Alabama 985 26 28 1 0 0 54
Alaska 94 0 2 0 0 0 2
Arizona 1,267 39 10 1 0 0 49
Arkansas 601 19 8 7 1 0 36
California 5,782 47 4 0 0 0 51
Colorado 862 36 14 0 0 0 50
Connecticut 631 23 29 1 0 0 53
Delaware 202 11 13 0 0 0 24
Florida 4,434 35 15 4 0 0 54
Georgia 1,641 15 28 8 0 0 51
Hawaii 248 21 33 2 0 0 57
Idaho 330 27 16 0 0 0 43
Illinois 2,069 14 19 0 0 0 34
Indiana 1,200 17 24 2 0 0 43
Iowa 599 12 15 0 0 2 30
Kansas 507 8 17 1 1 0 27
Kentucky 873 20 24 2 0 1 46
Louisiana 827 40 8 1 0 0 50
Maine 324 27 21 2 0 0 50
Maryland 923 11 7 0 0 0 18
Massachusetts 1,229 18 10 1 0 0 29
Michigan 1,986 20 32 0 0 0 53
Minnesota 980 17 33 0 0 6 56
Mississippi 573 18 10 2 0 0 31
Missouri 1,161 27 17 3 0 0 47
Montana 222 10 14 0 0 0 25
Nebraska 328 14 10 0 1 2 26
Nevada 498 41 8 0 0 0 48
New Hampshire 280 12 15 1 0 0 28
New Jersey 1,466 16 23 0 0 0 39
New Mexico 396 25 21 0 0 0 46
New York 3,354 32 15 4 0 0 50
North Carolina 1,921 21 22 4 0 0 47
North Dakota 124 0 6 0 0 18 24
Ohio 2,209 29 19 1 0 0 49
Oklahoma 691 15 17 1 0 0 33
Oregon 826 34 19 0 0 0 53
Pennsylvania 2,553 30 20 0 0 0 51
Puerto Rico 653 92 2 0 0 0 94
Rhode Island 201 41 8 0 0 0 50
South Carolina 1,043 13 17 8 0 0 38
South Dakota 167 1 10 0 0 16 27
Tennessee 1,293 32 16 0 0 0 49
Texas 3,953 28 18 4 0 0 50
Utah 381 36 11 0 0 0 48
Vermont 141 7 9 4 0 0 21
Virgin Islands 18 0 28 0 0 0 28
Virginia 1,406 20 9 2 0 0 32
Washington 1,291 34 8 0 0 0 43
Washington, DC 78 11 19 0 0 0 30
West Virginia 414 5 35 1 1 4 45
Wisconsin 1,137 28 19 1 0 4 52
Wyoming 106 0 2 0 2 1 6
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred provider organization), PFFS (private
fee-for-service). Cost plans are not MA plans; they submit cost reports rather than bids to CMS. U.S. total includes
beneficiaries in U.S. territories. Component percentages and U.S. total may not sum to totals due to rounding. In contrast
with prior years, we report MA enrollment as a share of MA-eligible beneficiaries (Medicare beneficiaries with both Part A
and Part B coverage). In prior years, we reported MA enrollment as a percentage of total Medicare beneficiaries.
Source: CMS enrollment and population data February 2021.
Chart 9-6. MA plan benchmarks, bids, and Medicare program
payments relative to FFS spending, 2021
All plans HMOs Local PPOs Regional PPOs PFFS
Benchmarks/FFS 108% 108% 109% 99% 107%
Bids/FFS 87 86 92 87 100
Payments/FFS 101 100 103 94 104
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), FFS (fee-for-service), HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred provider
organization), PFFS (private fee-for-service). Data exclude employer plans, which do not submit plan bids but receive
payment based on the bids and benchmarks of nonemployer plans. All numbers in this table have been risk adjusted and
reflect quality bonuses, but they have not been adjusted for coding intensity differences between MA and FFS that exceed
the statutory minimum adjustment. Payments for all MA plans would average 104 percent of FFS spending if coding
differences were fully reflected. The FFS spending denominator used in the table includes all Part A and Part B spending. MA
payments relative to spending for FFS enrollees with both Part A and Part B would decrease by about 1 percentage point.
Source: MedPAC analysis of plan bid data from CMS October 2020.
• Since 2006, plan bids have partly determined the Medicare payments that plans receive. Plans bid to
offer Part A and Part B coverage to Medicare beneficiaries (Part D coverage is bid separately). The
bid includes plan administrative cost and profit. CMS bases the Medicare payment for a private plan
on the relationship between its bid and its applicable benchmark.
• The benchmark is an administratively determined bidding target. Benchmarks for each county are set
by means of a statutory formula based on percentages (ranging from 95 percent to 115 percent) of each
county’s per capita Medicare FFS spending. Plans with quality ratings of 4 or more stars may have their
benchmarks raised by 10 percent in some counties.
• If a plan’s bid is above the benchmark, then the plan receives the benchmark as payment from Medicare
and enrollees have to pay an additional premium that equals the difference. If a plan’s bid is below the
benchmark, the plan receives its bid plus a “rebate,” defined by law as a percentage of the difference
between the plan’s bid and its benchmark. The percentage is based on the plan’s quality rating, and it
ranges from 50 percent to 70 percent. The plan must then return the rebate to its enrollees in the form of
lower cost sharing, supplemental benefits, or lower premiums.
• We estimate that MA benchmarks average 108 percent of FFS spending when weighted by MA
enrollment. The ratio varies by plan type, which draws enrollment from different geographic areas.
• Plans’ enrollment-weighted bids average 87 percent of FFS spending in 2021. On average, each
coordinated care plan type (HMO, local PPO, regional PPO) has demonstrated the ability to provide
the same services for less than FFS in the areas where they bid.
• Plan bid data indicate that 2021 MA payments will be 101 percent of FFS spending, but this figure
does not include employer plans and does not account for risk-coding differences between FFS and
MA plans that have not been resolved through the coding intensity factor. We estimate that coding
differences add 3 percentage points to payments relative to FFS.
• The ratio of payments relative to FFS spending varies by the type of MA plan. HMO and regional
PPO payments are estimated to be 100 percent and 94 percent of FFS, respectively, while payments
to local PPOs and PFFS plans average 103 percent and 104 percent of FFS, respectively.

Chart 9-7. Enrollment in employer group MA plans, 2008–2021
6.0
5.0
Enrollment (in millions)
4.0
3.0
5.02
4.51 4.73
2.0 4.13
3.68
2.96 3.14 3.16
2.32 2.53
1.0 1.83 1.92 2.08
1.56
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage).
Source: CMS enrollment data, February 2008–2021.
• While most MA plans are available to any Medicare beneficiary residing in a given area,
some MA plans are available only to retirees whose Medicare coverage is supplemented by
their former employer or union. These plans are called employer group plans. Such plans
are usually offered through insurers and are marketed to groups formed by employers or
unions rather than to individual beneficiaries.
• As of February 2021, about 5.0 million enrollees were in employer group plans, or about 19
percent of all MA enrollees. Employer plan enrollment grew by 6 percent from 2020 and has
more than doubled since 2012.
Chart 9-8. Number of special needs plan enrollees, 2012–2021
4,000
3,453
3,500
Number of special needs plan enrollees
2,929
3,000
2,532
2,500
2,210
(in thousands)
1,959
2,000 1,790
1,678
1,576
1,500 1,380
1,188
1,000
500 313 332 335 349 349 375 384

266 288
201
49 50 50 58 63 74 87 104 87
47
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Dual Chronic Institutional
Source: CMS special needs plans comprehensive reports, April 2012–2021.
• The Congress created special needs plans (SNPs) as a new MA plan type in the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to provide a common
framework for the existing plans serving special needs beneficiaries and to expand
beneficiaries’ access to and choice among MA plans.
• SNPs were originally authorized for five years, but SNP authority was extended several
times. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 made SNPs permanent.
• CMS approves three types of SNPs: dual-eligible SNPs enroll only beneficiaries dually
entitled to Medicare and Medicaid, chronic condition SNPs enroll only beneficiaries who
have certain chronic or disabling conditions, and institutional SNPs enroll only beneficiaries
who reside in institutions or are nursing-home certified.
• Enrollment in dual-eligible SNPs has grown continuously and exceeds 3.4 million in 2021,
more than doubling since 2014.
• Enrollment in chronic condition SNPs has grown at varying rates as plan requirements have
changed, but it has generally risen annually since 2012.
• Enrollment in institutional SNPs declined in 2021, returning to its 2019 level.

Chart 9-9. Number of SNPs and SNP enrollment rose from
2020 to 2021
1200 4,500
SNP enrollment (in thousands)

4,000
1000 384
214 3,500 87
Number of SNPs
375
800 171 3,000 104
174
2,500
600 150
2,000
3,453
400 1,500 2,929
627
551 1,000
200
500
0 0
April 2020 April 2021 April 2020 April 2021
Chronic or disabling condition Chronic or disabling condition

Institutional Institutional
Dual eligible Dual eligible
Note: SNP (special needs plan).
Source: CMS special needs plans comprehensive reports, April 2020 and 2021.
• The number of SNPs increased by 16 percent from April 2020 to April 2021. Dual-eligible
SNPs increased by 14 percent, institutional SNPs increased by 16 percent, and the number
of chronic condition SNPs increased by 25 percent.
• In 2021, most SNPs (62 percent) are for dual-eligible beneficiaries, while 17 percent are for
beneficiaries who reside in institutions (or reside in the community but have a similar level of
need), and 21 percent are for beneficiaries with chronic conditions.
• From April 2020 to April 2021, the number of SNP enrollees increased by 15 percent.
Enrollment in SNPs for dual-eligible beneficiaries grew by 18 percent, enrollment in SNPs
for institutionalized beneficiaries declined by 16 percent, and enrollment in SNPs for
beneficiaries with certain chronic conditions grew by 2 percent. Enrollment in all SNPs has
grown from 0.9 million in May 2007 (not shown) to 3.9 million in April 2021.
• The availability of SNPs varies by type of special needs population served (data not shown).
In 2021, 92 percent of beneficiaries reside in areas where SNPs serve dual-eligible
beneficiaries (up from 90 percent in 2020), 72 percent live where SNPs serve
institutionalized beneficiaries (up from 67 percent in 2020), and 57 percent live where SNPs
serve beneficiaries with chronic conditions (up from 52 percent in 2020).
Chart 9-10. The share of Medicare beneficiaries in private plans
does not differ substantially in medically
underserved areas compared with other areas,
but is lower in rural areas, 2021
Share of
MA-eligible
MA-eligible As percent of population
population MA-eligible category in
(in millions) population MA plans
All beneficiaries 57.5 100% 46%
County’s medically underserved

area designation
Partial county 35.9 62 47
Entire county 10.3 18 45
No medically underserved areas 11.3 20 43
Urban influence code designation

Metropolitan 47.2 82 48
Rural: Micropolitan 5.8 10 37
Rural: Adjacent to metropolitan 2.8 5 36
Rural: Not adjacent to metropolitan 1.7 3 29
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage). Beneficiaries in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands or
in non-U.S. areas are excluded. MA plans consist of HMOs, local preferred provider organizations (PPOs), regional
PPOs, private fee-for-service plans, and Medical Savings Account plans. In contrast with prior years, we report MA
enrollment as a share of MA-eligible beneficiaries (Medicare beneficiaries with both Part A and Part B coverage). In prior
years, we reported MA enrollment as a share of total Medicare beneficiaries. Medically underserved areas (MUAs) are
designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) as partial counties (census tracts and county
subdivisions) or entire counties that disproportionately have a combination of indicators such as a low number of primary
care providers per 1,000 population, high infant mortality, high poverty, and a large elderly population. Urban influence
codes (UICs) are designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by the population size of the metro area,
and nonmetropolitan counties by the size of the largest city or town and proximity to metro and micropolitan areas (areas
with a population of at least 10,000 people but fewer than 50,000). The UICs were last updated in 2013 and are updated
every 10 years. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of HRSA MUAs, OMB UICs, and CMS enrollment data February 2021.
• In general, an MA plan’s service area consists of one or more entire counties. (MA regional
PPOs are required to cover entire regions, which consist of one or more states. In rare
circumstances, MA “local” plans receive a waiver that allows them to serve only a portion of
a county if the plan is able to prove that the demographic composition (e.g., income and
race) of the portion of the county the plan intends to serve is not substantively different from
the rest of the county.)
• We examined beneficiary access to MA plans and market share of MA plans by two geographic
designations: MUAs and UICs.

Chart 9-10. The share of Medicare beneficiaries in private plans
does not differ substantially in medically
underserved areas compared with other areas,
but is lower in rural areas, 2021 (continued)
• HRSA designates MUAs by census tract, county, or county subdivisions. HRSA designates
MUAs based on a score of four combined indicators: (1) disproportionately low number of
primary care providers per 1,000 people, (2) high infant mortality, (3) high poverty, and (4) a
large elderly population. Part of a county may be designated as an MUA, the entire county
may receive the designation, or the entire county may have no MUAs.
• The Office of Management and Budget UICs classify geographic areas as metropolitan,
micropolitan, adjacent to metropolitan, and not adjacent to metropolitan; the latter three
types of areas are considered rural. UICs distinguish metropolitan counties by the
population size of their metro area and nonmetropolitan counties by the size of the largest
city or town and proximity to metro and micropolitan areas (areas with a population of at
least 10,000 people but fewer than 50,000). The UICs were last updated in 2013 and are
updated every 10 years.
• Counties that have designated medically underserved areas (either partially or counties that
are entirely composed of MUAs) have shares of MA enrollment similar to counties with no
designated MUAs. The share of beneficiaries (with both Part A and Part B coverage) in MA
plans is the highest in counties partially designated as MUAs (47 percent). The proportion of
Medicare beneficiaries in MA plans located in counties that are designated entirely as MUAs
(45 percent) is almost the same as counties that do not have any MUA designation (43
percent).
• Most (82 percent) of all 57.5 million Medicare beneficiaries eligible for MA enrollment live in
metropolitan areas. The share of Medicare beneficiaries who live in metropolitan areas
enrolled in MA plans (48 percent) is higher than the share of rural beneficiaries enrolled in
MA plans.
• Nearly all Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas reside in a micropolitan county or a county
that is adjacent to a metropolitan area. More than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries in
these areas are enrolled in MA plans. From 2020 to 2021, MA enrollment in these rural
areas grew faster compared with metropolitan areas (16 percent compared with 9 percent;
data not shown).
• About 3 percent of Medicare beneficiaries reside in a rural county that is not adjacent to a
metropolitan area. More than one-quarter (29 percent) of these beneficiaries are enrolled in
MA plans. From 2020 to 2021, MA enrollment in these areas grew by 19 percent (data not
shown).
Chart 9-11. MA enrollment patterns do not differ by medically
underserved area designation but do vary based on
urban influence designation, 2021
As a
MA percent of Share of category
population MA Local Regional Other MA
(in millions) population HMO PPO PPO plans
All Medicare private plan enrollees 26.4 100% 60% 36% 4% <0.5%

area designation
Partial county 16.9 64 65 32 2 <0.5
Entire county 4.6 17 52 38 9 <0.5
No medically underserved areas 4.9 18 50 45 4 <0.5

Metropolitan 22.8 86 64 33 3 <0.5
Rural: Micropolitan 2.2 8 41 50 9 1
Rural: Adjacent to metropolitan 1.1 4 37 50 12 1
Rural: Not adjacent to metropolitan 0.5 2 32 55 12 2
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred provider organization). Beneficiaries
in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands or in non-U.S. areas are excluded. MA
plans consist of HMOs, local PPOs, regional PPOs, private fee-for-service plans, and Medical Savings Account plans. In
contrast with prior years, we report MA enrollment as a share of MA-eligible beneficiaries (Medicare beneficiaries with
both Part A and Part B coverage). In prior years, we reported MA enrollment as a percentage of total Medicare
beneficiaries. Medically underserved areas (MUAs) are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA) as partial counties (census tracts and county subdivisions) or entire counties that disproportionately have a
combination of indicators such as a low number of primary care providers per 1,000 population, high infant mortality, high
poverty, and a large elderly population. Urban influence codes (UICs) are designated by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) by the population size of the metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by the size of the largest city or
town and proximity to metro and micropolitan areas (areas with a population of at least 10,000 people but fewer than
50,000). The UICs were last updated in 2013 and are updated every 10 years. Components may not sum to totals due to
rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of HRSA MUAs, OMB UICs, and CMS enrollment and population data February 2021.
• Local coordinated care plans (HMOs and local PPOs), which represent 96 percent of private
plan enrollees, may choose which individual counties to serve. Regional PPOs (4 percent of
all MA enrollees) cover entire state-based regions.
• Enrollment by type of plan is not notably different among counties with different MUA
designations. The proportion of enrollees in HMOs is similar for counties that are designated
entirely as medically underserved areas (52 percent) compared with counties that do not
have any medically underserved area designation (50 percent). The remainder of private
plan enrollment in these areas is generally in either local or regional PPOs.
• HMOs account for the largest share of MA plan enrollment in metropolitan areas (64
percent), but PPOs account for the largest share of MA plan enrollment in rural areas (more
than 60 percent combined between local PPOs and regional PPOs).

Chart 9-12. MA plans are available to nearly all beneficiaries in
medically underserved and rural areas, 2021
Share of Medicare beneficiaries
living in counties with plans available in 2021
As a
share of CCPs
MA- HMO or
eligible Any Local local Regional Any
population MA plan HMO PPO PPO PPO CCP
All MA-eligible beneficiaries 100% 99% 97% 95% 98% 74% 99%

area designation
Partial county 63 99 98 95 99 69 99
Entire county 18 99 92 94 96 83 99
No medically underserved areas 19 98 96 96 98 81 98

Metropolitan 82 >99.5 99 96 >99.5 73 >99.5
Rural: Micropolitan 10 97 89 91 94 77 96
Rural: Adjacent to metropolitan 5 97 89 91 95 83 96
Rural: Not adjacent to
metropolitan 3 90 73 77 82 71 88
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), CCP (coordinated care plan), HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred
provider organization). These data do not include the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana
Islands, non-U.S. areas, and they do not include MA plans that have restricted enrollment (special needs plans, employer-
only plans). In contrast with prior years, we report MA enrollment as a share of MA-eligible beneficiaries (Medicare
beneficiaries with both Part A and Part B coverage) rather than as a share of all Medicare beneficiaries. As a result,
regional PPO availability slightly increased compared with using all Medicare beneficiaries as our denominator. Medically
underserved areas (MUAs) are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) as partial
counties (census tracts and county subdivisions) or entire counties that disproportionately have a combination of
indicators such as a low number of primary care providers per 1,000 population, high infant mortality, high poverty, and a
large elderly population. Urban influence codes (UICs) are designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by
the population size of the metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by the size of the largest city or town and proximity to
metro and micropolitan areas (areas with a population of at least 10,000 people but fewer than 50,000). The UICs were
last updated in 2013 and are updated every 10 years.
• We examined the availability of MA plans to all MA-eligible beneficiaries. Consistent with

prior work, we exclude employer plans and special needs plans. Although about one-third of
MA enrollees are in these excluded plans, their availability is restricted to certain
populations. In addition, we do not include other private plans such as cost plans.
• MA plans are available to nearly all Medicare beneficiaries, irrespective of whether

beneficiaries reside in a county with a designated medically underserved area. Among
counties that are designated entirely as medically underserved areas, 99 percent of
beneficiaries have access to an MA plan.
• Nearly all Medicare beneficiaries residing in metropolitan areas have access to an MA plan.
• Nearly all beneficiaries in rural counties have access to an MA plan. About 97 percent of
beneficiaries in micropolitan counties or those adjacent to a metropolitan area have access to
an MA plan. Among the 3 percent of Medicare beneficiaries residing in a rural county that is
not adjacent to a metropolitan area, 90 percent have access to an MA plan.
Chart 9-13. Most Medicare beneficiaries have access to a
considerable number of MA plans, but rural
beneficiaries and beneficiaries in counties
composed entirely of MUAs typically have fewer
plans from which to choose, 2021
Share of Medicare
beneficiaries living in
counties with an
As a share of Average plan available zero-
MA-eligible offerings premium plan with
population per beneficiary drug coverage
All beneficiaries 100% 32 96%
County’s medically underserved area designation

Partial county 63 35 97
Entire county 18 22 94
No medically underserved areas 19 29 96

Metropolitan 82 34 98
Rural: Micropolitan 10 19 88
Rural: Adjacent to metropolitan 5 18 91
Rural: Not adjacent to metropolitan 3 13 76
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), MUA (medically underserved area). These data do not include the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, non-U.S. areas, and MA plans that have restricted enrollment (special
needs plans, employer-only plans). MUAs are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
as partial counties (census tracts and county subdivisions) or entire counties that disproportionately have a combination of
indicators such as a low number of primary care providers per 1,000 population, high infant mortality, high poverty, and a
large elderly population. Urban influence codes (UICs) are designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by
the population size of the metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by the size of the largest city or town and proximity to
metro and micropolitan areas (areas with a population of at least 10,000 people but fewer than 50,000). The UICs were
last updated in 2013 and are updated every 10 years.
• In 2021, the average beneficiary has 32 plans from which to choose in his or her county.
• On average, beneficiaries residing in counties that are designated entirely as medically underserved areas
have fewer MA plans from which to choose, but still have an average of 22 plans available to them. About
94 percent of beneficiaries in these counties have a zero-premium plan with drug coverage available.
• On average, Medicare beneficiaries residing in metropolitan areas have more MA plans from which to
choose (an average of 34 plan choices) compared with beneficiaries in rural areas. Nevertheless, the
average beneficiary in micropolitan counties or those adjacent to a metropolitan area can choose
among an average of 19 plans. Beneficiaries residing in rural counties that are not adjacent to a
metropolitan area (3 percent of all beneficiaries) have 13 plans from which to choose, on average.
• At least one zero-premium plan with drug coverage is available to most beneficiaries (96 percent).
Availability of these plans in rural areas is somewhat less prevalent than in metropolitan areas. In
metropolitan areas, 98 percent of beneficiaries have access to a zero-premium plan. In comparison,
about 90 percent of beneficiaries in micropolitan counties or those adjacent to a metropolitan area
have access to a zero-premium plan. In rural counties that are not adjacent to a metropolitan area, 76
percent of beneficiaries have an available zero-premium plan.

Chart 9-14. Twenty most common condition categories
among MA beneficiaries, as defined in the
CMS–HCC model, 2019
Share of
beneficiaries
Conditions (defined by HCC) with listed condition
Vascular disease 21.9%

Diabetes with chronic complications 21.7
COPD 15.0
Major depressive, bipolar, and paranoid disorders 14.3
CHF 13.0
Specified heart arrhythmias 12.2
Morbid obesity 10.3
Chronic kidney disease, moderate (stage 3) 8.9
Rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory connective tissue disease 7.9
Diabetes without complications 6.9
Coagulation defects and other specified hematological disorders 6.5
Breast, prostate, colorectal, and other cancers and tumors 5.2
Substance abuse disorder, moderate/severe, or substance use
with complications 5.1
Other significant endocrine and metabolic disorders 4.9
Angina pectoris 4.3
Acute renal failure 3.8
Cardio-respiratory failure and shock 3.0
Seizure disorders and convulsions 2.7
Ischemic or unspecified stroke 2.4
Septicemia, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response
syndrome/shock 2.1
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), CMS–HCC (CMS–hierarchical condition category), COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease), CHF (congestive heart failure).
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare risk score files.
• CMS uses the CMS–HCC model to risk adjust capitated payments to MA plans so that
payments better reflect the clinical needs of MA enrollees given the number and severity of
their clinical conditions. The CMS–HCC model uses beneficiaries’ conditions, which are
collected into HCCs, to adjust the capitated payments.
• Vascular disease is the most common HCC, and over 28 percent of MA enrollees are in at
least one of the two diabetes HCCs.
Chart 9-15. MA enrollment patterns, by age, Medicaid dual-
eligible status, and ESRD status, June 2020
All MA eligible FFS MA MA enrollment
as a share of all
Enrollment, Share Enrollment, Share Enrollment, Share MA-eligible
in millions of total in millions of total in millions of total category
Total 55.4 100% 31.8 100% 23.7 100% 43%
Aged (65 or older) 47.7 86 27.2 86 20.5 87 43
Under 65 7.7 14 4.5 14 3.2 13 41
Non–dual eligible 45.1 81 26.3 83 18.9 80 42
Aged (65 or older) 41.5 75 24.2 76 17.3 73 42
Under 65 3.6 7 2.0 6 1.6 7 44
Full dual eligibility 7.1 13 4.2 13 2.9 12 40
Aged (65 or older) 4.2 8 2.3 7 1.9 8 45
Under 65 2.9 5 1.9 6 1.0 4 33
Partial dual eligibility 3.2 6 1.3 4 1.9 8 60
Aged (65 or older) 2.0 4 0.7 2 1.3 5 64
Under 65 1.2 2 0.6 2 0.6 3 53
Enrollment subcategories, all ages

ESRD 0.5 1 0.4 1 0.1 <0.5 23
Beneficiaries with
partial dual eligibility
QMB only 1.6 3 0.7 2 0.9 4 58
SLMB only 1.0 2 0.4 1 0.6 3 61
QI 0.6 1 0.2 1 0.4 1 62
Note: MA (Medicare Advantage), ESRD (end-stage renal disease), FFS (fee-for-service), QMB (qualified Medicare beneficiary),
SLMB (specified low-income beneficiary), QI (qualified individual). Data exclude cost plans, plans under the Program of
All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, and Medicare–Medicaid Plans participating in CMS’s financial alignment demonstration.
MA-eligible beneficiaries are Medicare beneficiaries with both Part A and Part B coverage. Dual-eligible beneficiaries are
eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Data exclude Puerto Rico because enrollment data undercount dual-eligible
categories. As of June 2020, Puerto Rico had nearly 600,000 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans, and 276,000
were enrolled in dual-eligible special needs plans. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 2020 common Medicare environment files.
• Medicare beneficiaries with Medicaid benefits who have full dual eligibility—that is, those who have coverage for
their Medicare out-of-pocket costs (premiums and cost sharing) as well as coverage for services such as long-
term care services and supports—are less likely to enroll in MA plans than beneficiaries with “partial” dual
eligibility. Fully dual-eligible beneficiaries are those with coverage through state Medicaid programs including
certain QMBs (i.e., QMB-Plus) and certain SLMBs (i.e., SLMB-Plus) who also have Medicaid coverage for
services. Beneficiaries with partial dual eligibility (such as QIs or SLMBs) have coverage for Medicare premiums
or premiums and Medicare cost sharing (as QMBs).
• Medicare plan enrollment among the dually eligible continues to increase. In 2020, 40 percent of full duals were
in MA plans (up from 36 percent in 2019; data not shown), and 60 percent of partial dual-eligible beneficiaries
were in MA plans (up from 53 percent in 2019; data not shown). QI beneficiaries have the highest rates of MA
enrollment among partial duals (62 percent).
• A substantial share of the dually eligible (40 percent; data not shown) are under the age of 65 and entitled to
Medicare on the basis of disability or ESRD. Beneficiaries under age 65 who are fully dual eligible are far less
likely than aged fully dual-eligible beneficiaries to enroll in MA (33 percent vs. 45 percent, respectively). As a
result, a similar share of MA enrollees is fully dual-eligible compared with FFS enrollees (13 percent vs. 12
percent, respectively).
• Before 2021, individuals with ESRD were largely prohibited from joining an MA plan during open enrollment,
although they could remain in their current plan or join an ESRD chronic condition special needs plan. Therefore,
ESRD beneficiaries had relatively low rates of plan enrollment in 2020 (23 percent).

10
00
Chart 10-1. Medicare spending for Part B drugs furnished by
physicians, hospital outpatient departments, and
suppliers, 2005–2019
42
39.0
39 Total
Medicare spending (dollars in billions)
34.9
36 Physicians
32.1
33 HOPDs
30 29.2
Suppliers
25.8
27
22.8 22.0
24 21.6
20.3 19.9
21 18.6 18.0
16.6 16.6
18 14.9 14.5 15.4 15.0
15.0
13.4 14.0 13.2
15 11.6 12.2 12.6 12.3 13.1
12 9.6 9.9 9.8 10.2 10.7 10.4
9.1 8.7
9 6.9 7.5
5.2 6.1
6 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.6 4.2
3
0 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: HOPD (hospital outpatient department). Data include Part B–covered drugs furnished by several provider types, including
physicians, suppliers, and hospital outpatient departments, and exclude those furnished by critical access hospitals,
Maryland hospitals, and dialysis facilities. “Medicare spending” includes program payments and beneficiary cost sharing.
Data reflect all Part B drugs whether they were paid based on the average sales price or another payment formula. Data
exclude blood and blood products (other than clotting factor). Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC and Acumen LLC analysis of Medicare claims data.
• The Medicare program and beneficiaries spent about $39 billion on Part B drugs furnished by
physicians, HOPDs, and suppliers in 2019, an increase of about 11.6 percent from 2018.
• Since 2005, Medicare pays for most Part B drugs at a rate of the average sales price plus 6
percent (ASP + 6 percent). Between 2005 and 2019, total spending grew at an average annual
rate of 8.0 percent. Spending growth was slower from 2005 to 2009 (about 3.7 percent per year
on average) and more rapid from 2009 to 2019 (about 9.7 percent per year on average).
• Eligible hospitals that participate in the 340B drug discount program receive substantial
discounts on outpatient drugs, including those covered by Medicare Part B. Beginning 2018,
Medicare reduced the payment rate for certain Part B drugs furnished by 340B hospitals to
ASP – 22.5 percent. The 340B policy reduced 2019 Medicare Part B spending on drugs in
outpatient hospitals by about $2.2 billion (compared with what 2019 payments would have
been in the absence of the policy).
Chart 10-1. Medicare spending for Part B drugs furnished by
physicians, hospital outpatient departments, and
suppliers, 2005–2019 (continued)
• Of total 2019 Part B drug spending, physicians accounted for 56 percent ($22 billion), HOPDs
accounted for 38 percent ($15 billion), and suppliers accounted for 5 percent ($2 billion).
• Overall, from 2009 to 2019, Part B drug spending has grown more rapidly for HOPDs than for
physicians and suppliers—at average annual rates of about 15 percent, 8 percent, and 2 percent,
respectively.
• Not included in these data are critical access hospitals and Maryland hospitals, which are not paid
under the ASP system, and end-stage renal disease facilities, which are paid for most Part B drugs
through the dialysis bundled payment rate. Medicare and beneficiaries spent approximately $1.0
billion in critical access hospitals and $0.4 billion in Maryland hospitals for Part B drugs in 2019.
Also in 2019, Medicare spent $1.3 billion for calcimimetics in dialysis facilities through a transitional
drug add-on payment adjustment to the bundled dialysis payment rate.
142 Prescription drugs

Chart 10-2. Change in Medicare payments and utilization for
separately payable Part B drugs, 2009–2019
Average
annual
growth
2009 2019 2009–2019
Total payments: Separately payable Part B drugs (in billions) $11.9* $37.1* 12.1%
Total payments: All Part B drugs excluding vaccines (in billions) $11.7 $35.8 11.9
Number of beneficiaries using a Part B drug (in millions) 2.6 4.1 4.6
Average total payments per beneficiary who used a Part B drug $4,420 $8,639 6.9
Average number of Part B drugs per beneficiary 1.39 1.36 –0.2
Average annual payment per Part B drug per beneficiary $3,182 $6,343 7.1
Total payments: All Part B vaccines (in billions) $0.2 $1.3 19.5
Number of beneficiaries using a Part B vaccine (in millions) 13.4 16.5 2.1
Average total payments per beneficiary who used a Part B vaccine $16 $78 17.0
Average number of Part B vaccines per beneficiary 1.08 1.18 0.9
Average annual payment per Part B vaccine per beneficiary $15 $66 16.0
Note: This analysis includes Part B drugs paid based on the average sales price as well as the small group of Part B drugs that
are paid based on the average wholesale price or reasonable cost or that are contractor priced. “Vaccines” refers to three
Part B–covered preventive vaccines: influenza, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B. Data include Part B drugs furnished by
physicians, hospitals paid under the outpatient prospective payment system, and suppliers and exclude data for critical
access hospitals, Maryland hospitals, and dialysis facilities. Yearly figures presented in the table are rounded; the average
annual growth rate was calculated using unrounded data.
*For purposes of this analysis, spending on separately payable Part B drugs excludes any drug that was bundled in 2009 or
2019 (i.e., drugs that were packaged under the outpatient prospective payment system in 2009 or 2019 were excluded from
both years of the analysis, regardless of the setting where the drug was administered), drugs billed under not-otherwise-
classified billing codes, and blood and blood products (other than clotting factor). Without those exclusions, Part B drug
spending was $15.4 billion in 2009 and $39.0 billion in 2019, as shown in Chart 10-1.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare claims data for physicians, hospital outpatient departments, and suppliers.
• Total payments by the Medicare program and beneficiaries for separately payable Part B drugs
increased 12.1 percent per year, on average, between 2009 and 2019.
• Medicare spending on separately payable Part B drugs excluding Part B–covered preventive
vaccines grew at a similar rate (11.9 percent per year) between 2009 and 2019.
• Price growth accounted for just over half of the growth in separately payable Part B drug
spending (excluding vaccines) between 2009 and 2019. During that period, the average
annual payment per drug increased on average by 7.1 percent per year, which reflects
increases in the prices of existing drugs and changes in the mix of drugs, including the
adoption of new, higher priced drugs. Growth in the average payment per drug would have
been even higher if not for the reduction in Medicare’s payment rate for certain Part B drugs
provided by 340B hospitals beginning in 2018.
Chart 10-2. Change in Medicare payments and utilization for
separately payable Part B drugs, 2009–2019
(continued)
• Growth in the number of beneficiaries using nonvaccine Part B drugs (about 4.6 percent per
year on average) also contributed to increased spending. The number of Part B drugs
received per user declined slightly from about 1.39 in 2009 to 1.36 in 2019, which modestly
offset spending growth.
• In 2019, Medicare Part B covered three preventive vaccines: influenza, pneumococcal,

and—for beneficiaries at high or medium risk—hepatitis B. Spending on the three preventive
vaccines furnished by physicians, hospital outpatient departments, and pharmacy suppliers
was $702 million for influenza, $572 million for pneumococcal, and $7 million for hepatitis B
(data not shown). (Not included in these data are vaccines furnished in other settings such
as end-stage renal disease facilities. With other settings included, 2019 vaccine spending
was $729 million on influenza, $593 million on pneumococcal, and $39 million on hepatitis B
vaccines.)
• Although vaccines are a relatively small share of overall spending on separately payable
Part B drugs, vaccine spending grew rapidly, at an average rate of about 19.5 percent per
year, between 2009 and 2019.
• The largest driver of increased vaccine spending was price growth, as the average payment
per vaccine grew at an average rate of 16.0 percent per year between 2009 and 2019.
Substantial price growth occurred for both pneumococcal and influenza vaccines between
2009 and 2019, with the average payment per vaccine increasing from $36 to $154 for
pneumococcal vaccines and from $12 to $44 for influenza vaccines over this period (data
not shown). The growth in the average payment per vaccine largely reflects higher launch
prices for new vaccines (e.g., Prevnar-13 for pneumococcal disease and Fluzone High
Dose, Fluad, and Flublok for influenza). Price growth over time among existing products
(e.g., new vaccines after launch and certain older products) also contributed to this increase.

Chart 10-3. Top 10 Part B drugs paid based on ASP, by type of
provider, 2018 and 2019
Dollars (in millions)
Total Physician and supplier HOPD
Part B drug spending Part B drug spending Part B drug spending
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019

Eylea $2,577 $2,915 $2,435 $2,763 $142 $152
Keytruda 1,812 2,676 764 1,145 1,048 1,531
Opdivo 1,718 1,784 827 815 891 970
Rituxan 1,701 1,744 866 865 835 879
Prolia/Xgeva 1,420 1,608 909 1,020 511 588
Lucentis 1,217 1,268 1,186 1,238 30 30
Neulasta 1,373 1,170 640 527 733 642
Avastin 1,013 1,037 503 489 511 548
Orencia 801 922 589 696 213 226
Remicade 1,154 912 745 611 409 301
Total spending,
top 10 drugs $14,785 $16,037 $9,463 $10,168 $5,323 $5,869
Total spending,
all Part B drugs $34,944 $39,014 $21,824 $24,017 $13,120 $14,997
Note: ASP (average sales price), HOPD (hospital outpatient department). The 10 drugs shown in the chart reflect the Part B
drug billing codes paid under the ASP methodology with the highest Medicare expenditures in 2019. Data for 2018 are
shown for comparison. Data include Part B–covered drugs furnished by several provider types, including physicians,
suppliers, and hospital outpatient departments, but exclude those furnished by critical access hospitals, Maryland
hospitals, and dialysis facilities. “Drug spending” includes Medicare program payments and beneficiary cost sharing.
“Total spending, all Part B drugs” reflects all products, whether paid based on ASP or another method. Data exclude
blood and blood products (other than clotting factor). Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC and Acumen LLC analysis of Medicare claims data.
• Part B drugs are billed under more than 800 billing codes, but spending is concentrated.
Medicare spending (including cost sharing) on the top 10 drugs paid under the ASP system
totaled about $16 billion in 2019, about 41 percent of all Part B drug spending that year.
• Since 2016, all of the top 10 Part B drugs have been biologics. In 2019, among the top 10
drugs are a number of products used to treat cancer or its side effects (Keytruda, Opdivo,
Rituxan, Prolia/Xgeva, Neulasta, Avastin). Drugs used to treat age-related macular
degeneration (Eylea, Lucentis, Avastin) and rheumatoid arthritis (Rituxan, Orencia,
Remicade) are also in the top 10.
• Medicare spending on immune globulin (for which there are several products billed through
separate billing codes) amounted to about $1.6 billion in 2019 (data not shown).
Chart 10-4. Growth in ASP for the 20 highest expenditure Part B
drugs, 2005–2021
Total Average annual ASP growth
Medicare Earliest
payments year of
in 2019 2005– 2015– 2020– 2005– ASP data
Part B drug (in billions) 2015 2020 2021 2021 if not 2005
Eylea $2.9 0.0%* –0.7% –2.5% –0.8%* 2013
Keytruda 2.7 N/A 2.4* 0.8 2.1* 2016
Opdivo 1.8 N/A 2.6* 1.3 2.4* 2016
Rituxan 1.7 5.1 5.4 –3.3 4.6
Prolia/Xgeva 1.6 0.6* 5.6 4.3 3.8* 2012
Lucentis 1.3 –0.4* –2.6 –7.0 –1.7* 2008
Neulasta 1.2 4.4 4.0 –27.6 1.9
Avastin 1.0 1.8 3.5 –6.8 1.7
Orencia 0.9 7.4* 10.6 3.7 8.3* 2007
Remicade 0.9 3.4 –5.0 –21.7 –1.0
Herceptin 0.8 4.8 4.6 –7.5 3.9
Darzalex 0.8 N/A 4.8* 3.7 4.5* 2017
Ocrevus 0.6 N/A 0.3* –0.2 0.1* 2018
Soliris 0.5 2.5 1.8 –0.1 2.1* 2008
Alimta 0.5 4.1 3.1 3.4 3.8
Tecentriq 0.5 N/A 1.4* 0.4 1.0* 2018
Imfinzi 0.4 N/A N/A 1.9 1.9* 2020
Cimzia 0.4 10.6* 5.9 –0.3 7.4* 2010
Sandostatin LAR 0.4 5.3 7.5 –0.2 5.6
Velcade 0.4 5.1 –0.7 –0.4 2.9
Consumer price index

for urban consumers 2.1 2.0 1.4 2.0
Note: ASP (average sales price), N/A (not applicable). Growth rates for ASP are calculated from first quarter to first quarter of each
year. “Medicare payments” includes Medicare program payments and beneficiary cost sharing for these drugs furnished by
physicians, suppliers, and hospital outpatient departments, but excludes those furnished by critical access hospitals,
Maryland hospitals, and dialysis facilities. Vaccines for which Medicare pays 95 percent of the average wholesale price are
also excluded from this table. See Chart 10-2 and associated bullets for information on vaccine price growth.
*Indicates that ASP payment rates for a specific product were not available for the full period listed and the average
annual growth rate was calculated based on the earliest year that a first-quarter payment rate was available.
Source: MedPAC analysis of CMS ASP pricing files and consumer price index for all urban consumers data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and MedPAC and Acumen LLC analysis of Medicare claims data.
• Over the period from 2005 to 2021, 17 out of 20 of the top Part B drugs have experienced
net price increases, with 12 of these products’ ASPs increasing faster than the consumer
price index for urban consumers on average over the period.

Chart 10-4. Growth in ASP for the 20 highest expenditure Part B
drugs, 2005–2021 (continued)
• In the most recent year, more products in the top 20 experienced a price decrease than a
price increase. ASP decreased for 12 products and increased for 8 products between the
first quarters of 2020 and 2021. Compared with the average annual rate of price growth over
the prior 5-year period, between first quarter 2020 and 2021, the ASP for 17 of the top 20
products grew at a slower rate or declined by more than they had in the previous period.
• Biosimilar competition may account for the decreases in ASP between 2020 and 2021 for
some originator biologics; Rituxan, Neulasta, Remicade, Avastin, and Herceptin have all
faced biosimilar entry since 2019 or earlier. For these five products, the recent price declines
have begun to reverse a long period of rising prices, with average price growth over the last
16 years ranging from –1.0 percent per year for Remicade to 4.6 percent per year for
Rituxan.
Chart 10-5. Trends in Medicare Part B payment rates for
originator biologics and their biosimilar products
Percent change Biosimilars’
in originator payment rate
biologics' ASP as a percent
since biosimilar of originator
First entry biologic's Biosimilar
biosimilar (through payment rate market share
entry 2021 Q1) (2021 Q1) (2020 Q3)
Neupogen and biosimilars 2015 Q3 –6% 44%–56% 77%
Remicade and biosimilars 2016 Q4 –46% 94%–115% 16%
Neulasta and biosimilars 2018 Q3 –35% 97%–116% 27%
Procrit/Epogen and biosimilars 2018 Q4 –28% 97% 47%

Avastin and biosimilars 2019 Q3 –8% 75%–79% 41%
Herceptin and biosimilars 2019 Q3 –8% 74%–90% 40%
Rituxan and biosimilars 2019 Q4 –4% 74%–75% 24%
Note: ASP (average sales price), Q1 (first quarter), Q3 (third quarter), Q4 (fourth quarter) An originator biologic is a drug product
derived from a living organism. A biosimilar product is a follow-on product that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) based on the product being highly similar to the originator biologic. The biosimilars included in the analysis are Zarxio,
Nivestym, and Granix for originator Neupogen; Inflectra, Renflexis, and Avsola for originator Remicade; Fulphila, Udenyca, and
Ziextenzo for originator Neulasta; Retacrit for originator Procrit//Epogen; Mvasi and Zirabev for originator Avastin, Ontruzant,
Herzuma, Ogivri, Trazimera, and Kanjinti for originator Herceptin; and Truxima and Ruxience for originator Rituxan. Although Granix
is not a biosimilar in the U.S. (because it was approved under the standard FDA approval process for new biologics), we include it
here because it was approved as a biosimilar to Neupogen in Europe and it functions as a competitor to Neupogen i n the U.S.
market. First biosimilar entry date reflects the earliest market date for a product approved by the FDA as a biosimilar to the
originator biologic.
Source: MedPAC analysis of payment rates from CMS’s ASP pricing files and product market date information from CMS’s database on
drug products in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and Acumen LLC analysis of Medicare claims data.
• Under Part B, Medicare pays for an originator biologic at 106 percent of its own ASP. For
biosimilars, Medicare pays 100 percent of the biosimilar’s ASP plus 6 percent of the originator
product’s ASP. During the first two to three quarters when a biosimilar is new to the market, ASP
data are unavailable and Medicare pays a rate of wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) plus 3
percent.
• Medicare payment rates for biosimilars are generally lower than those of the corresponding
originator biologics because biosimilars generally have lower prices (as measured by ASP) than
originator biologics. The extent to which originator biologics have lowered their prices in
response to biosimilar entry and the extent to which market share has shifted to biosimilars
varies by product.

Chart 10-5. Trends in Medicare Part B payment rates for
originator biologics and their biosimilar products
(continued)
• Neupogen, the originator biologic that has faced biosimilar competition for the longest period
(since the third quarter of 2015), has reduced its price, as measured by ASP, only modestly (6
percent) since biosimilar entry. As of first quarter 2021, biosimilars’ payment rates were roughly
50 percent lower than the originator’s payment rate. Biosimilars accounted for over three
quarters of market share as of the third quarter of 2020.
• The originator Remicade’s price has declined substantially (46 percent) since biosimilar entry in
the fourth quarter of 2016. As of the first quarter of 2021, Medicare’s payment rates for
Remicade and its biosimilars are relatively close, with two biosimilars’ payment rates ranging
from 94 percent to 96 percent of Remicade’s payment rate. A third biosimilar that launched in the
third quarter of 2020 was paid about 115 percent Remicade’s payment that quarter. Remicade
has continued to retain most of the market share, with biosimilars accounting for 16 percent of
utilization as of the third quarter of 2020.
• The originator Neulasta has reduced its price by 35 percent since biosimilar entry in the third
quarter of 2018. As of the first quarter of 2021, Medicare’s payment rates for Neulasta and its
biosimilars are in a relatively close range. The biosimilars’ payment rates range from 97 percent
to 116 percent of the Neulasta’s payment rate. Biosimilars accounted for 27 percent of utilization
as of the third quarter of 2020.
• The price of the originators Procrit/Epogen has fallen 28 percent since biosimilar entry in the
fourth quarter of 2018. Medicare’s payment rate for the biosimilar is slightly lower (3 percent)
than for the originators, as of the first quarter of 2021. Biosimilars accounted for nearly half of
utilization as of the third quarter of 2020.
• The originator Avastin has reduced its price 8 percent since biosimilar entry in the third quarter of
2019. As of the first quarter 2021, Medicare’s payment rates for the biosimilars are 21 percent to
25 percent below the originator’s payment rate. In the first two years of biosimilar availability,
their use has grown, accounting for 41 percent of utilization as of the third quarter of 2020.
• The originator Herceptin’s price has declined 8 percent since biosimilar entry in the third quarter
of 2019. Medicare’s first quarter 2021 payment rates for the biosimilars ranged from 10 percent
to 26 percent below the originator’s payment rate. As of the third quarter of 2020, Herceptin
faced the largest number of biosimilar competitors (five) of any originator biologic, and the
biosimilars’ market share was 40 percent.
• Originator Rituxan’s price has fallen slightly (4 percent) since biosimilar entry in the fourth quarter
of 2019. Medicare’s payment rates for biosimilars are roughly 25 percent below the originator’s
payment rate. Biosimilars’ market share reached 24 percent in the third quarter of 2020.
Chart 10-6. Price indexes for Medicare Part B drugs, 2005–2019
1.600
Biologics 1.45
1.400
Chain-weighted Fisher price index
All Part B drugs

1.200 1.17
1.000
Nonbiologics
0.79
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20192019
Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q4
Note: Q1 (first quarter), Q4 (fourth quarter). The Part B price indexes reflect growth in the average sales price of Part B–covered
drugs over time, measured for individual drugs at the level of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System billing
code. These measures of price growth reflect growth in the price of individual products but do not reflect changes in price due
to the introduction of new products or changes in the mix of products used. The Part B price index for biologics in this chart
and in Chart 10-26 are different due to the different periods of analysis.
Source: Acumen LLC analysis for MedPAC.
• The Part B price indexes reflect growth in the average sales price (ASP) at the individual
product level and do not reflect changes in price that occur as a result of changes in the mix
of drugs used or the introduction of new, higher priced drugs.
• Measured by the change in the ASP of individual Part B–covered drugs, the prices of Part B–
covered drugs rose by an average of about 17 percent cumulatively between 2005 and 2019
(an index of 1.17).
• Underlying this overall trend in the price index are different patterns by type of product.
Between 2005 and 2019, the price index for Part B–covered biologics increased by 45
percent, while the price index for nonbiologics declined by 21 percent.

Chart 10-6. Price indexes for Medicare Part B drugs, 2005–2019
(continued)
• Since 2005, growth in biologics’ prices has driven growth in the Part B drug price index.
However, recently, between the third quarter of 2018 and the fourth quarter of 2019, the
biologics’ price index declined about 0.6 percent, due largely to price declines among
products with biosimilar competition. The decline in the biologics’ price index, coupled with
the continued decline in the nonbiologics’ price index, resulted in about a 1.1 percent decline
in the overall Part B drug price index between the third quarter of 2018 and the fourth quarter
of 2019.
• The nonbiologic group includes single-source drugs and drugs with generic competition. The
more than decade-long downward price trend for nonbiologics in part reflects patent
expiration and generic entry for some of these products. It also reflects the design of the
ASP payment system, which spurs price competition among generics and their associated
brand-name products by assigning these products to a single billing code and paying them
the same average rate.
Chart 10-7. In 2021, approximately 88 percent of Medicare
beneficiaries are enrolled in Part D plans or have
other sources of creditable drug coverage
No creditable
coverage
12%
Other sources of
creditable coverage
12% Non-LIS enrollees
in PDPs
28% PDPs
Primary coverage
37%
through employers that
received RDS
2%
LIS enrollees in
LIS enrollees in PDPs
MA–PDs 9%
9% Non-LIS enrollees
in MA–PDs
27%
MA‒PDs 37%
Note: LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy), PDP (prescription drug plan), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]),
RDS (retiree drug subsidy). “Creditable coverage” means the value of drug benefits is equal to or greater than that of the
basic Part D benefit. Enrollment is as of April 13, 2021. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of PDP and MA–PD enrollment data and LIS enrollment data from CMS, Medicare enrollment
projections from the 2020 Medicare Trustees’ report, and analysis of the 2018 Medicare denominator file.
• In 2021, approximately 88 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Part D plans, have
prescription drug coverage through employer-sponsored plans that receive Medicare’s RDS,
or have other sources of drug coverage that are equal to or greater than the average value of
Part D’s defined standard benefit (called “creditable coverage”). Twelve percent of Medicare
beneficiaries have no drug coverage or coverage that is less generous.
• In 2021, nearly three-quarters of Medicare beneficiaries receive prescription drug benefits

through Part D plans: 37 percent in stand-alone PDPs and 37 percent in MA–PDs.
• About 18 percent of Medicare beneficiaries receive Part D’s LIS in 2021. Of all LIS
beneficiaries, half of them (9 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries) are enrolled in stand-
alone PDPs, and the other half are in MA–PDs.
• Non-LIS enrollees in stand-alone PDPs account for 28 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.
Another 27 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in MA–PDs and do not receive
low-income subsidies.

Chart 10-7. In 2021, approximately 88 percent of Medicare
beneficiaries are enrolled in Part D plans or have
other sources of creditable drug coverage
(continued)
• Employer and union health plans continue to be important sources of drug coverage for
Medicare beneficiaries. In 2021, 11 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are in Part D plans
(including PDPs and MA–PDs) set up by employers or unions for their retirees (data not
shown). Under these employer group waiver plans (EGWPs), Medicare is the primary payer
for basic drug benefits, and typically the employer offers wrap-around coverage. Separately,
Medicare trustees estimate that 2 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are in plans offered by
employers that receive Medicare’s RDS. (If an employer remains the primary payer of
creditable drug coverage for its retirees, Medicare provides the employer with a tax-free
subsidy for 28 percent of each eligible individual’s drug costs that fall within a specified
range of spending.) Additionally, approximately 12 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have
creditable drug coverage from sources other than Part D, much (but not all) of which is
related to past employment, for example, through the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program, TRICARE, and employers that do not sponsor an EGWP or receive the RDS.
Chart 10-8. Changes in parameters of the Part D defined
standard benefit over time
Cumulative
change
2006 2019 2020 2021 2006–2021
Deductible $250.00 $415.00 $435.00 $445.00 78%

Initial coverage limit 2,250.00 3,820.00 4,020.00 4,130.00 84%
Annual out-of-pocket threshold 3,600.00 5,100.00 6,350.00 6,550.00 82%
Total covered drug spending at annual
out-of-pocket threshold
Enrollees eligible for manufacturers’
coverage-gap discount 5,100.00 8,139.54 9,719.38 10,048.39 97%
Other enrollees 5,100.00 7,653.75 9,038.75 9,313.75 83%
Cost sharing above the annual
out-of-pocket threshold is the greater of
5% coinsurance or these amounts:
Copay for generic/preferred
multisource drugs 2.00 3.40 3.60 3.70 85%
Copay for other prescription drugs 5.00 8.50 8.95 9.20 84%
Note: Under Part D’s defined standard benefit, the enrollee pays the deductible and then 25 percent of covered drug spending
(75 percent is paid by the plan) until total covered drug spending reaches the initial coverage limit (ICL). Before 2011,
enrollees exceeding the ICL were responsible for 100 percent of covered drug spending up to the annual out-of-pocket
(OOP) threshold. Beginning in 2011, certain enrollees pay reduced cost sharing in the coverage gap because
manufacturers of brand-name drugs must provide a discount. Criteria to be eligible for the coverage-gap discount exclude
most enrollees who receive Part D’s low-income subsidy as well as enrollees in qualified retiree drug plans. For 2011 and
later years, the amount of total covered drug spending at the annual OOP threshold depended on the mix of brand-name
and generic drugs filled during the coverage gap. The amounts shown are for individuals who have no source of
supplemental coverage with the average mix of brand and generic spending. Cost sharing paid by most sources of
supplemental coverage does not count toward this threshold. Above the OOP limit, the enrollee pays 5 percent
coinsurance or the respective copay shown above, whichever is greater.
Source: CMS Office of the Actuary.
• The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 specified a
defined standard benefit structure for Part D. In 2021, the standard benefit has a $445
deductible, 25 percent coinsurance on covered drugs until the enrollee reaches $4,130 in
total covered drug spending, and then a coverage gap until OOP spending reaches the
annual threshold. (The total dollar amount of drug spending at which a beneficiary reaches
the OOP threshold varies from person to person, depending on the mix of brand-name and
generic prescriptions filled. CMS estimates that in 2021, a person who does not receive
Part D’s low-income subsidy and has no supplemental coverage would, on average, reach
the threshold at about $10,048 in total drug spending.) Before 2011, enrollees were
responsible for paying the full discounted price of drugs filled during the coverage gap.
Subsequently, certain enrollees pay reduced cost sharing for drugs filled in the coverage
gap because manufacturers of brand-name drugs must provide a discount. In 2021, the cost
sharing for drugs filled during the gap phase is about 25 percent for brand-name drugs and
generics. Enrollees with drug spending that exceeds the annual threshold pay the greater of
$3.70 to $9.20 or 5 percent coinsurance per prescription.

Chart 10-8. Changes in parameters of the Part D defined
standard benefit over time (continued)
• Most parameters of this defined standard benefit structure have changed over time at the
same rate as the annual change in average total drug expenses of Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled in Part D, with cumulative changes of 78 percent to 97 percent between 2006 and
2021. The out-of-pocket threshold for 2020 was much higher than that for 2019 because the
2019 amount was restrained by a provision in law that limited increases between 2014 and
2019. In 2020, the OOP threshold reverted to what it otherwise would have been had CMS
increased it by the same factor as other benefit parameters—that is, annual growth in Part D
spending per enrollee. The effects of this increase on beneficiaries were somewhat muted
by the fact that manufacturers provide a 70 percent discount on brand-name drugs in the
coverage-gap phase, which counts as beneficiary spending toward the threshold.
• Within certain limits, sponsoring organizations may offer Part D plans that have the same
actuarial value as the defined standard benefit but a different benefit structure, and most
sponsoring organizations do offer such plans. For example, a plan may use tiered
copayments rather than 25 percent coinsurance or have no deductible but use cost-sharing
requirements that are equivalent to a rate higher than 25 percent. Defined standard benefit
plans and plans that are actuarially equivalent to the defined standard benefit are both
known as “basic benefits.”
• Once a sponsoring organization offers one plan with basic benefits within a prescription drug
plan region, it may also offer plans with enhanced benefits—basic and supplemental
coverage combined.
• Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, manufacturers of brand-name drugs must provide
a 70 percent discount in the coverage gap, enrollees pay 25 percent cost sharing, and plan
sponsors are responsible for covering only 5 percent of the cost of brand-name drugs.
Chart 10-9. Characteristics of stand-alone Medicare PDPs
2020 2021
Enrollees as of Enrollees as of
Plans February 2020 Plans February 2021
Number Number
Number Percent (in millions) Percent Number Percent (in millions) Percent
Total 948 100% 20.5 100% 996 100% 19.7 100%

Type of organization
National 716 76 18.8 92 764 77 18.0 91
Other 232 24 1.7 8 232 23 1.7 9
Type of benefit
Defined standard 0 0 0.0 0 1 <0.5 0.0 0
Actuarially equivalent 382 40 11.3 55 377 38 9.8 50
Enhanced 566 60 9.2 45 618 62 10.0 50
Type of deductible
Zero 133 14 3.0 15 139 14 2.7 14
Reduced 161 17 5.0 25 192 19 4.5 23
Defined standard* 654 69 12.4 61 665 67 12.5 63
Some formulary tiers not subject to a deductible
Some 504 53 11.5 56 587 59 12.0 61
None 444 47 9.0 44 409 41 7.7 39
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan). The PDPs and enrollment described here exclude employer-only plans and plans offered in
U.S. territories. “National” data reflect the total number of plans for organizations with at least 1 PDP in each of the 34
PDP regions. “Actuarially equivalent” includes both actuarially equivalent standard and basic alternative benefits.
“Enhanced” refers to plans with basic plus supplemental coverage. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
*The defined standard benefit’s deductible was $435 in 2020 and is $445 in 2021.
Source: MedPAC analysis of CMS landscape, premium, and enrollment data.
• Plan sponsors are offering 996 stand-alone PDPs in 2021 compared with 948 in 2020—an
increase of more than 5 percent. Total enrollment in PDPs declined by 3.8 percent to 19.7
million beneficiaries in 2021 from 20.5 million in 2020.
• In 2021, 77 percent of all PDPs are offered by sponsoring organizations that have at least 1
PDP in each of the 34 PDP regions (shown as “national” organizations in the table). Plans
offered by those national sponsors account for 91 percent of all PDP enrollment.
• For 2021, 62 percent of PDP offerings include enhanced benefits (basic plus supplemental
coverage), a small increase over the share in 2020. In 2021, the share of PDPs with
actuarially equivalent benefits (having the same average value as the defined standard benefit
but with alternative benefit designs) declined slightly to 38 percent. Enhanced plans and
actuarially equivalent plans have nearly equal shares of PDP enrollees (50 percent each).
• In 2021, 67 percent of PDPs use the same $445 deductible as in Part D’s defined standard
benefit, compared with 69 percent in 2020. Only 14 percent of PDP enrollees are in plans with
no deductible. Also in 2021, 59 percent of all PDPs designate certain formulary tiers that are
not subject to the deductible. If, for example, a PDP used such a designation for preferred
generic drugs, an enrollee would pay just the plan’s cost sharing for that tier rather than the full
cost of the prescription up to the amount of the deductible. In 2021, 61 percent of PDP
enrollees were in such plans, up from 56 percent in 2020.

Chart 10-10. Characteristics of MA–PDs
2020 2021
Enrollees as of Enrollees as of
Plans February 2020 Plans February 2021
Number Number
Number Percent (in millions) Percent Number Percent (in millions) Percent
Totals 2,799 100% 15.3 100% 3,133 100% 16.9 100%

Type of organization
Local HMO 1,848 66 10.6 69 2,007 64 11.3 67
Local PPO 891 32 4.0 26 1,072 34 4.9 29
PFFS 26 1 0.1 0 21 1 0.0 0
Regional PPO 34 1 0.7 4 33 1 0.6 3
Type of benefit
Defined standard 43 2 0.1 <0.5 31 1 0.1 1
Actuarially equivalent 81 3 0.2 2 66 2 0.1 1
Enhanced 2,675 96 15.0 98 3,036 97 16.6 99
Type of deductible
Zero 1,349 48 7.4 49 1,582 50 9.1 54
Reduced 1,244 44 7.3 48 1,317 42 7.2 43
Defined standard* 206 7 0.5 4 234 7 0.5 3
Some formulary tiers not subject to a deductible
Some 1,386 50 7.7 50 1,497 48 7.6 45
None 1,413 50 7.6 50 1,636 52 9.2 55
Note: MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]), HMO (health maintenance organization), PPO (preferred
provider organization), PFFS (private fee-for-service). The MA–PDs and enrollment described here exclude employer-only
plans, plans offered in U.S. territories, 1876 cost plans, special needs plans, demonstrations, and Part B–only plans.
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding. “Actuarially equivalent” includes both actuarially equivalent standard
and basic alternative benefits. “Enhanced” refers to plans with basic plus supplemental coverage.
*The defined standard benefit’s deductible was $435 in 2020 and is $445 in 2021.
Source: MedPAC analysis of CMS landscape, premium, and enrollment data.
• There are 12 percent more MA–PDs in 2021 than in 2020. Sponsors are offering 3,133 MA–
PDs in 2021 compared with 2,799 the year before. Enrollment in MA–PDs grew from 15.3
million in 2020 to 16.9 million in 2021 (10 percent).
• Between 2020 and 2021, the number of drug plans offered by HMOs grew from 1,848 to
2,007; HMO drug plans remain the dominant type of MA–PD, making up 64 percent of all
offerings. Over the same period, the number of drug plans offered by local PPOs also
increased from 891 plans to 1,072 plans.
• A much larger share of MA–PDs than stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) offer
enhanced benefits. In 2021, 97 percent of MA–PDs have enhanced benefits compared with
62 percent of all PDPs (see Chart 10-9). In 2021, enhanced MA–PDs attracted 99 percent of
total MA–PD enrollment.
• Fifty percent of MA–PDs have no deductible in 2021, and those plans attracted 54 percent of
all MA–PD enrollees.
• In 2021, 48 percent of MA–PDs designate certain cost-sharing tiers of their formularies that
are not subject to a deductible. Those plans account for 45 percent of MA–PD enrollment.
Chart 10-11. Change in average Part D premiums, 2017–2021
Cumulative change
Average monthly premium weighted by enrollment in weighted
average
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 premium,
2017–2021
All plans $32 $32 $29 $27 $26 –17 %

Basic plans 30 30 32 30 32 4
Enhanced plans
Basic benefits 27 26 22 20 18 –35
Supplemental benefits 6 7 6 6 6 6
Total premium 33 33 28 26 24 –27
All basic coverage 29 28 25 23 22 –23
PDPs 41 41 40 38 38 –6
Basic plans 31 31 32 30 32 2
Enhanced plans
Basic benefits 43 42 35 33 29 –33
Supplemental benefits 11 15 15 15 16 42
Total premium 54 57 50 48 45 –17
MA–PDs, including SNPs 19 18 16 15 15 –23

Basic plans 26 28 28 26 31 16
Enhanced plans
Basic benefits 16 15 13 12 12 –25
Supplemental benefits 2 1 1 1 1 –29
Total premium 18 17 14 13 13 –27
MA–PD buy-down of basic

16 16 16 15 19 20
premium
MA–PD buy-down of
15 16 17 20 21 45
supplemental benefits
Base beneficiary premium 35.63 35.02 33.19 32.74 33.06 –7
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]), SNP (special needs plan). All
calculations exclude employer-only groups and plans offered in U.S. territories. In addition, MA–PDs exclude Part B–only
plans, demonstrations, and 1876 cost plans. The MA–PD data reflect the portion of Medicare Advantage plans’ total monthly
premium attributable to Part D benefits for plans that offer Part D coverage, as well as Part C rebate dollars that were used to
offset Part D premium costs. The fact that average premiums for enhanced MA–PDs are lower than for basic MA–PDs could
reflect several factors such as changes in enrollment among plan sponsors and counties of operation and differences in the
average health status of plan enrollees. Cumulative changes were calculated from unrounded data. Components may not
sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of CMS landscape, plan report, enrollment data, and bid data.

Chart 10-11. Change in average Part D premiums, 2017–2021
(continued)
• Part D enrollees can select between plans with basic or enhanced benefits (the latter
combine basic and supplemental coverage). Medicare aims to subsidize 74.5 percent of the
average cost of basic benefits; enrollees pay premiums for the remaining 25.5 percent and
all of the cost of any supplemental benefits. (For more about how plan premiums are
determined, see Part D Payment Basics at http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-
source/payment-basics/medpac_payment_basics_20_partd_final_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0.)
• The overall average premium paid by enrollees for any type of Part D coverage declined
from $27 per month in 2020 to $26 per month in 2021. Over the period from 2017 to 2021,
year-to-year changes in average premiums have varied by type of benefit (basic vs.
enhanced) and type of plan (PDP vs. MA−PD); the changes have not necessarily
corresponded to changes observed in the base beneficiary premium.
• Across all basic plans and the basic portion of enhanced plans, the average premium for
basic benefits fell from $29 in 2017 to $22 per month in 2021, a cumulative decline of 23
percent. This decline occurred despite very rapid growth in spending for Part D’s
catastrophic phase of the benefit (data not shown). In the catastrophic phase, Medicare
subsidizes 80 percent of enrollees’ drug spending. (For more information about Medicare’s
Part D spending, see Chapter 14 of the Commission’s March 2021 report to the Congress at
http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-
source/reports/mar21_medpac_report_ch13_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0.)
• Over the five-year period, the average enrollee premium for basic coverage in PDPs ranged
between a low of $30 in 2020 and a high of $32 per month in 2021. Between 2017 and 2021,
the average premium increased by a cumulative 2 percent. Among enhanced plans offered by
PDPs, the average enrollee premium has ranged from $45 in 2021 to $57 in 2018. Over the
five-year period, the average premium decreased by a cumulative 17 percent. Of the $45
average premium in 2021 among enhanced PDPs, $29 was for basic benefits and $16 was for
supplemental benefits. The portion of enhanced premiums attributable to supplemental benefits
has grown, while the portion for basic benefits has declined.
• The average Part D premium paid by beneficiaries enrolled in MA−PDs with basic coverage
ranged between a low of $26 in 2020 and a high of $31 per month in 2021. From 2017 to
2021, the average premium increased by a cumulative 16 percent. The average premium
paid by beneficiaries enrolled in MA−PDs offering enhanced coverage has decreased from
$18 in 2017 to $13 in 2021, a cumulative 27 percent decrease. MA−PD sponsors typically
use a portion of Medicare’s Part C (Medicare Advantage) payments to “buy down” the
premiums that plan enrollees would otherwise have to pay for Part D basic premiums and
supplemental benefits. Because of those Part C payment “rebates,” in 2021, MA−PD
enrollees avoided having to pay $19 per month in basic premiums and an additional $21 per
month for supplemental coverage, on average.
Chart 10-12. More premium-free PDPs for LIS enrollees in 2021
Number of PDPs that have zero
Number of PDPs premium for LIS enrollees
PDP region State(s) 2020 2021 Difference 2020 2021 Difference
1 ME, NH 26 28 2 6 7 1
2 CT, MA, RI, VT 25 27 2 7 8 1
3 NY 27 28 1 9 7 2
4 NJ 28 30 2 8 7 –1
5 DC, DE, MD 27 27 0 10 9 –1
6 PA, WV 31 33 2 10 10 0
7 VA 29 30 1 7 7 0
8 NC 28 31 3 9 9 0
9 SC 28 29 1 5 5 0
10 GA 28 32 4 6 8 2
11 FL 27 28 1 4 5 1
12 AL, TN 30 32 2 7 8 1
13 MI 30 29 –1 9 9 0
14 OH 28 30 2 2 5 3
15 IN, KY 28 30 2 7 8 1
16 WI 30 31 1 9 9 0
17 IL 28 31 3 8 10 2
18 MO 28 29 1 5 6 1
19 AR 27 31 4 6 7 1
20 MS 25 27 2 7 7 0
21 LA 26 26 0 9 8 –1
22 TX 30 35 5 5 8 3
23 OK 29 30 1 8 9 1
24 KS 28 29 1 6 7 1
25 IA, MN, MT, ND,
NE, SD, WY 29 28 –1 8 7 –1
26 NM 26 27 1 7 7 0
27 CO 26 27 1 7 8 1
28 AZ 31 32 1 12 10 –2
29 NV 28 29 1 5 7 2
30 OR, WA 28 29 1 8 9 1
31 ID, UT 28 28 0 8 9 1
32 CA 32 32 0 8 7 –1
33 HI 25 26 1 5 5 0
34 AK 24 25 1 7 7 0
Total 948 996 48 244 259 15
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy).
Source: MedPAC based on 2020 and 2021 Part D plan report file provided by CMS.
• The total number of stand-alone PDPs increased by 5 percent, from 948 in 2020 to 996 in 2021. The
median number of plans offered in PDP regions increased to 29 plans from 28 in 2020 (data not
shown). In 2021, Alaska has the fewest stand-alone PDPs, with 25, and Region 22 (Texas) had the
most, with 35.
• In 2021, 259 PDPs qualify as premium free to LIS enrollees. At least five premium-free PDPs are
available in any given region.

Chart 10-13. In 2021, about one in two listed drugs are subject to
some utilization management
PDP enrollees MA–PD enrollees
5-tier formulary structurea (in percent) 100%b 99%
Drugs on formulary as % of all Part D drugsc 72% 78%
Median cost-sharing amounts

Tier 1: generic drugs $0 $1
Tier 2: other generic drugs 5 10
Tier 3: preferred brand-name drugs 40 47
Tier 4: nonpreferred drugs 40% 100
Tier 5: specialty-tier drugs 25% 33%
Drugs with utilization management requirement (in percent)

Prior authorization 28% 26%
Step therapy 1 1
Quantity limits 37 36
Any utilization management 51 48
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]). Calculations are weighted by
enrollment. All calculations exclude employer-only groups and plans offered in U.S. territories. In addition, MA–PDs
exclude demonstration programs, special needs plans, and 1876 cost plans. Values reflect the share of listed chemical
entities that are subject to utilization management, weighted by plan enrollment. “Prior authorization” means that the
enrollee must get preapproval from the plan before coverage. “Step therapy” refers to a requirement that the enrollee try
specified drugs before being prescribed other drugs in the same therapeutic category. “Quantity limits” means that plans
limit the number of doses of a drug available to the enrollee in a given time period. Generic drugs placed on Tier 1 are
“preferred” (i.e., lowest cost sharing) relative to generic drugs placed on higher tiers, including Tier 2.
a
Includes formularies with an additional (sixth) tier used for certain types of drugs, such as over-the-counter medications.
b
Less than 1 percent of enrollees were in a plan that did not use a tiered formulary structure.
c
Number of all Part D drugs is based on the counts of unique chemical entities listed on CMS’s formulary reference file
for 2021 benefit year.
Source: MedPAC analysis of formularies submitted to CMS.
• Most Part D enrollees choose plans that have a five-tier structure: two generic, one
preferred brand-name tier, and one nonpreferred drug tier (which may include both brand-
name and generic drugs), plus a specialty tier. In 2021, nearly all enrollees are enrolled in
plans with this five-tier structure, including plans with an additional (sixth) tier for certain
types of drugs, such as over-the-counter medications.
• The number of drugs listed on a plan’s formulary affects a beneficiary’s access to
medications. In 2021, on average, PDP enrollees have access to 72 percent of all Part D
covered drug products compared with 78 percent among MA–PD enrollees.
Chart 10-13. In 2021, about one in two listed drugs are subject to
some utilization management, 2021 (continued)
• For enrollees in PDPs with a five-tier structure, the median copay in 2021 is $0 for a generic
drug on a lower tier and $5 for other generic drugs. The median copay is $40 for a preferred
brand-name drug and 40 percent coinsurance for a nonpreferred drug. For MA–PD
enrollees, in 2021, the median copays for generic drugs are $1 and $10 for the two generic
tiers, respectively. The median copay is $47 for a preferred brand and $100 for a
nonpreferred drug. (About 14 percent of MA–PDs use 45 percent coinsurance for
nonpreferred drugs.) Both PDPs and MA–PDs use coinsurance for specialty-tier drugs (25
percent and 33 percent, respectively).
• In addition to the number of drugs listed on a plan’s formulary, plans’ processes for
nonformulary exceptions and use of utilization management tools—prior authorization
(preapproval for coverage), quantity limits (limitations on the number of doses of a particular
drug covered in a given period), and step therapy requirements (enrollees being required to
try specified drugs before being prescribed other drugs in the same therapeutic category)—
can affect access to certain drugs.
• In 2021, the use of some form of utilization management, on average, increased to 51

percent of drugs listed on a plan’s formulary in stand-alone PDPs and 48 percent in MA–
PDs. Part D plans typically use quantity limits or prior authorization to manage enrollees’
prescription drug use.
• Among the drugs listed on plan formularies, on average, the share that requires prior
authorization in 2021 increased for both stand-alone PDPs and MA–PDs (to 28 percent and
26 percent, respectively). The share with quantity limits increased for both types of plans. In
2021, on average, quantity limits apply to 37 percent and 36 percent of drugs listed on
formularies of stand-alone PDPs and MA–PDs, respectively. The share of drugs listed on
plan formularies that require the use of step therapy remains very low for both stand-alone
PDPs and MA–PDs.

Chart 10-14. Characteristics of Part D enrollees, 2019
All Plan type Subsidy status
Medicare Part D PDP MA–PD LIS Non-LIS
Beneficiariesa (in millions) 65.4 48.4 27.2 21.2 14.1 34.2

Percent of all Medicare 100% 74% 42% 32% 22% 52%
Gender
Male 46% 43% 43% 43% 41% 44%
Female 54 57 57 57 59 56
Race/ethnicityb
White, non-Hispanic 74 73 78 66 53 81
African American,
non-Hispanic 10 11 9 13 20 7
Hispanic 9 10 6 15 17 7
Asian 3 4 3 4 6 2
Other 3 3 3 2 3 3
Age (years)c
<65 14 14 15 14 36 5
65–69 24 22 22 22 18 24
70–74 23 23 23 24 15 27
75–79 16 17 16 17 11 19
80+ 23 23 24 22 20 25
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy).
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a
Figures for “All Medicare” and “Part D” include all beneficiaries with at least one month of enrollment in the respective
program. A beneficiary was classified as “LIS” if that individual received Part D’s LIS at some point during the year. For
individuals who switched plan types during the year, classification into plan types was based on the greater number of
months of enrollment.
b
Because we did not have race and ethnicity information for 2019 that was adjusted for undercounting Hispanic
population, the figures shown are distributions based on 2018 data.
c
Age as of July 2019.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the common Medicare environment file from CMS.
• In 2019, 48.4 million Medicare beneficiaries (74 percent) were enrolled in Part D at some
point in the year. About 27 million were in stand-alone PDPs, and the remaining 21 million
were in MA–PDs. Just over 14 million enrollees received Part D’s LIS.
• Demographic characteristics of Part D enrollees are generally similar to the overall Medicare
population, with the exception of gender (Part D enrollees are more likely to be female).
MA–PD enrollees are more likely to be Hispanic or African American compared with PDP
enrollees; LIS enrollees are more likely to be female, minority, and disabled beneficiaries
under age 65 compared with non-LIS enrollees.
Chart 10-15. Part D enrollment trends, 2007–2019
Average annual growth rate
2007− 2010− 2014−
2007 2010 2014 2019 2010 2014 2019
Part D enrollment (in millions)*
Total 26.1 29.7 40.0 48.4 4.4% 7.7 % 3.9 %
Employer group waiver plans 2.0 2.6 7.0 7.5 9.2 27.4 1.5
By plan type
PDP 18.3 18.9 25.1 27.2 1.1 7.3 1.6
MA–PD 7.8 10.6 14.9 21.2 10.9 8.9 7.2
By subsidy status
LIS 10.4 11.3 12.8 14.1 2.7 3.1 2.0
Non-LIS 15.7 18.4 27.2 34.2 5.5 10.2 4.7
By age (years)b
<65 5.5 6.3 7.8 6.8 4.7 5.5 –2.5
65–69 5.4 6.6 9.5 10.8 6.5 9.9 2.5
70–79 8.8 9.9 13.9 19.5 3.8 8.9 7.0
80+ 6.4 7.1 8.8 11.3 3.2 5.7 5.1
Part D enrollment (in percent)
Total 100 % 100 % 100% 100 %
Employer group waiver plans 8 9 17 15
By plan type
PDP 70 64 63 56
MA–PD 30 36 37 44
By subsidy status
LIS 40 38 32 29
Non-LIS 60 62 68 71
By age (years)**
<65 21 21 19 14
65–69 21 22 24 22
70–79 34 33 35 40
80+ 25 24 22 23
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy). A
beneficiary was classified as “LIS” if that individual received Part D’s LIS at some point during the year. If a beneficiary was
enrolled in both a PDP and an MA–PD during the year, that individual was classified into the type of plan with the greater
number of months of enrollment. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding. Average annual growth rate is
calculated on unrounded numbers.
*Figures include all beneficiaries with at least one month of enrollment.
**Age as of July of the respective year. Changes in the distribution of enrollment by age for 2019 are largely due to the
changes in the data source.
Source: MedPAC analysis of common Medicare environment file from CMS.
• Part D enrollment grew faster between 2010 and 2014 (average annual growth rate (AAGR)
of 7.7 percent) than between 2007 and 2010 (AAGR of 4.4 percent) or between 2014 and
2019 (AAGR of 3.9 percent). The faster enrollment growth between 2010 and 2014 largely
reflects the growth in enrollment in Part D plans operated by employers for their retirees
(employer group waiver plans, or EGWPs). Enrollment in EGWPs grew from 2.6 million to
7.0 million (AAGR of 27.4 percent) during this period.

Chart 10-15. Part D enrollment trends, 2007–2019 (continued)
• The number of enrollees receiving the LIS grew modestly between 2007 and 2019, with an
AAGR of between 2 percent (from 2014 to 2019) and 3.1 percent (from 2010 to 2014).
During the same period, the number of non-LIS enrollees grew faster than LIS enrollees,
with an AAGR of 10.2 percent between 2010 and 2014 and an AAGR of 4.7 percent or
greater before 2010 and after 2014. Faster enrollment growth among non-LIS enrollees is
partly attributable to the recent growth in EGWPs that shifted beneficiaries into Part D plans
from employer plans that had previously received Medicare’s retiree drug subsidy (RDS)
(see Chart 10-7 for information on the RDS).
• Between 2014 and 2019, the largest growth in enrollment was observed for beneficiaries
ages 70 to 79 (7 percent annually, on average), reflecting the aging of the baby-boom
cohort.
• While MA–PD enrollment growth decelerated in recent years from the nearly 11 percent
AAGR observed between 2007 and 2010, enrollment in MA–PDs continued to exceed that
of PDPs between 2014 and 2019 (AAGR of 7.2 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively).
Chart 10-16. Part D enrollment by region, 2019
Share of Share of Part D enrollment*
PDP Medicare enrollment Plan type Subsidy status
region State(s) Part D* EGWP PDP MA–PD LIS Non-LIS
1 ME, NH 72% 9% 67% 33% 31% 69%
2 CT, MA, RI, VT 78 15 64 36 33 67
3 NY 79 19 52 48 37 63
4 NJ 75 17 76 24 24 76
5 DE, DC, MD 65 15 83 17 31 69
6 PA, WV 78 14 54 46 27 73
7 VA 66 9 71 29 27 73
8 NC 76 12 54 46 29 71
9 SC 74 13 62 38 29 71
10 GA 74 12 49 51 34 66
11 FL 78 7 43 57 29 71
12 AL, TN 75 9 48 52 33 67
13 MI 80 26 68 32 25 75
14 OH 80 13 56 44 25 75
15 IN, KY 77 12 65 35 29 71
16 WI 74 9 54 46 23 77
17 IL 75 12 68 32 28 72
18 MO 77 9 57 43 26 74
19 AR 72 3 66 34 36 64
20 MS 73 3 75 25 43 57
21 LA 77 10 52 48 39 61
22 TX 74 11 56 44 31 69
23 OK 69 9 72 28 30 70
24 KS 73 4 78 22 22 78
25 IA, MN, MT, NE,
ND, SD, WY 76 6 69 31 21 79
26 NM 73 13 52 48 38 62
27 CO 74 10 53 47 23 77
28 AZ 75 8 48 52 27 73
29 NV 71 6 49 51 25 75
30 OR, WA 70 7 49 51 26 74
31 ID, UT 72 7 53 47 21 79
32 CA 79 13 47 53 34 66
33 HI 72 25 37 63 26 74
34 AK 66 27 99 1 33 67
Mean 74 11 56 44 29 71
Minimum 65 3 37 1 21 57
Maximum 80 27 99 63 43 79
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), EGWP (employer group waiver plans), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug
[plan]), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy). Definition of regions is based on PDP regions used in Part D.
*Includes enrollment in Part D plans operated for EGWPs.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D denominator and common Medicare environment files from CMS.
• Among Part D regions in 2019, all regions had 65 percent or more of all Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled in Part D. In some regions with lower than average enrollment in Part D (Region 5 and
Region 7), many beneficiaries likely received their drug coverage through the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program.
• Since 2010, many employers have switched from operating retiree drug subsidy (RDS)–eligible
employer plans to sponsoring Part D plans for their retirees (EGWPs). In 2019, 11 percent of
Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in EGWPs compared with 5 percent or less before 2010 (see
Chart 10-7 for information on the RDS).

Chart 10-16. Part D enrollment by region, 2019 (continued)
• Before 2019, beneficiaries in Alaska were less likely to enroll in Part D because alternative employer-
sponsored drug coverage was more widely available: The share of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in
employer-sponsored plans that received the RDS was 26 percent, compared with an average of 2
percent nationwide. In 2019, those beneficiaries were moved to Part D as employers switched from
operating RDS-eligible plans to operating EGWPs.
• The share of Medicare beneficiaries in EGWPs varied from 3 percent in Region 19 (AR) and Region
20 (MS) to 25 percent or more in Region 13 (MI), Region 33 (HI), and Region 34 (AK).
• Wide variation was seen in the shares of Part D beneficiaries who enrolled in PDPs and MA–PDs
across PDP regions. The pattern of MA–PD enrollment is generally consistent with availability of and
enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans.
• The share of Part D enrollees receiving the LIS ranged from 21 percent in Region 25 (IA, MN, MT,
NE, ND, SD, and WY) and Region 31 (ID and UT) to 43 percent in Region 20 (MS).
Chart 10-17. Components of Part D spending growth
Average
annual growth
2009 2019 2009–2019
Total gross spending (in billions) $73.7 $183.1 9.5%
High-cost beneficiaries 29.2 116.6 14.9%
Lower cost beneficiaries 44.6 66.5 4.1%
Number of beneficiaries using a Part D drug (in millions) 26.5 45.1 5.4%
High-cost beneficiaries 2.4 4.3 6.2%
Lower cost beneficiaries 24.1 40.8 5.4%
Amount per beneficiary who used Part D drugs
Gross drug spending per year $2,781 $4,062 3.9%
Average price per 30-day prescription $55 $72 2.7%
Number of 30-day prescriptions 50.4 56.3 1.1%
Amount per high-cost beneficiary who used Part D drugs
Gross drug spending per year $12,294 $26,983 8.2%
Average price per 30-day prescription $110 $236 7.9%

Amount per lower cost beneficiary who used Part D drugs
Gross drug spending per year $1,846 $1,632 –1.2%
Average price per 30-day prescription $42 $33 –2.4%
Note: “High-cost beneficiaries” refers to individuals who incurred spending high enough to reach the catastrophic phase of the
benefit. “Gross spending” reflects payments to pharmacies from all payers, including beneficiary cost sharing, but does
not include rebates and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the pharmacies.
Changes in the average price per prescription reflect both price inflation and changes in the mix of drugs used.
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Part D prescription drug event data and denominator files from CMS.
• Between 2009 and 2019, gross spending on drugs under the Part D program grew by an annual
average rate of 9.5 percent. The annual growth in spending was considerably higher (14.9 percent)
among high-cost beneficiaries (individuals who incurred spending high enough to reach the
catastrophic phase of the benefit) compared with 4.1 percent for lower cost beneficiaries.
• During the 2009 through 2019 period, the number of beneficiaries who used Part D drugs grew by an
annual average rate of 5.4 percent. The number of high-cost beneficiaries grew more rapidly (6.2
percent) compared with lower cost beneficiaries (5.4 percent).
• The average price per 30-day prescription covered under Part D rose from $55 in 2009 to $72 in
2019. Overall, growth in price per prescription accounted for more than two-thirds (2.7 percentage
points) of the 3.9 percent average annual growth in spending per beneficiary among beneficiaries
who used Part D drugs.
• The average annual growth rate in overall spending per beneficiary reflects two distinct patterns of
price and spending growth, one for high-cost beneficiaries and another for lower cost beneficiaries.
Among high-cost beneficiaries, annual growth in prices (7.9 percent) accounted for nearly all of the
spending growth (8.2 percent) during this period. In contrast, among lower cost beneficiaries, the
average annual decrease in prices (–2.4 percent) resulted in an overall decrease in spending (–1.2
percent annually), despite an increase in the number of prescriptions filled during the same period.

Chart 10-18. The majority of Part D spending was incurred by just
over one-fifth of all Part D enrollees, 2019
100
2
7
90
13 Total annual drug
80 39 spending, by benefit
phase reached in 2019
70
Catastrophic phase
60 84
(≥$26,469)
Percent
Catastrophic phase
50 60 24 (<$26,469)
Coverage gap
40 phase
Initial coverage
30
20 phase
20 Deductible
11
10 $0
15
7 1
0
Percent of enrollees Percent of spending
Note: “Spending” (gross) reflects payments from all payers, including beneficiaries (cost sharing) but does not include rebates
and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the pharmacies. In 2019, the defined
standard basic benefit included a $415 deductible and 25 percent coinsurance until the enrollee reached $3,820 in total
covered drug spending. An individual with an average mix of drugs who did not receive Part D’s low-income subsidy and
who had no other supplemental coverage would have reached the catastrophic phase of the benefit at about $8,140 in
total drug spending. In 2019, among those who reached the catastrophic phase of the benefit, an enrollee at the 75th
percentile of the distribution had drug spending totaling $26,469. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D prescription drug event data from CMS.
• Medicare Part D spending is concentrated in a subset of beneficiaries. In 2019, about 22 percent of Part D
enrollees had annual spending exceeding the initial coverage limit (ICL) (typically set at $3,820 in gross
drug spending). For spending exceeding the ICL until they reached the catastrophic phase of the benefit
(at about $8,140 in gross drug spending under the defined standard benefit for beneficiaries not receiving
Part D’s low-income subsidy (LIS)), enrollees were responsible for a coinsurance 25 percent or greater.
(For LIS enrollees, Part D’s LIS paid the difference between the 100 percent coinsurance and the
applicable maximum copay amounts of no more than $8.50.) These beneficiaries accounted for 84 percent
of total Part D spending.
• Spending on prescription drugs has become more concentrated over time. The costliest 9 percent of
beneficiaries, those with drug spending above the catastrophic threshold, accounted for about 64 percent of
total Part D spending. Before 2011, the costliest 8 percent of beneficiaries accounted for 40 percent or less of
total Part D spending (data not shown). Just 2 percent of Part D enrollees with the highest spending (annual
spending at or above $26,469) accounted for 39 percent of total Part D spending. In comparison, for
Medicare Part A and Part B spending, Medicare fee-for-service spending accounted for by the costliest 5
percent of beneficiaries was 43 percent in 2018 (data not shown; see Chart 1-14).
• While the majority (65 percent) of beneficiaries with the highest spending continues to be those who receive
the LIS, those who do not receive the LIS are increasingly reaching the catastrophic phase of the benefit
(data not shown; see Chart 10-19).
Chart 10-19. Characteristics of Part D enrollees, by benefit phase
reached, 2019
Annual drug spending
Below initial Coverage-gap
Catastrophic phase
coverage limit phase
Sex
Male 43% 43% 43%
Female 57 57 57
Age (years)
<65 12 14 32
65–69 24 17 18
70–74 24 22 19
75–80 17 19 14
80+ 23 29 18
LIS status*
LIS 25 32 65
Non-LIS 75 68 35
Plan type**
PDP 55 60 62
MA–PD 45 40 38
Note: LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy), PDP (prescription drug plan), MA−PD (Medicare Advantage−Prescription Drug [plan]).
“Spending” (gross) reflects payments from all payers, including beneficiaries (cost sharing) but does not include rebates
and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the pharmacies. In 2019, the defined
standard basic benefit included a $415 deductible and 25 percent coinsurance until the enrollee reached $3,820 in total
covered drug spending, and then a coverage gap until out-of-pocket (OOP) spending reached the annual OOP threshold
of $5,100. (The total dollar amount of drug spending at which a beneficiary reaches the OOP threshold varies from person
to person, depending on the mix of brand-name and generic prescriptions filled. CMS estimated that in 2019, a person
who did not receive Part D’s LIS and had no supplemental coverage would, on average, have reached the threshold at
about $8,140 in total drug spending.) A small number of beneficiaries were excluded from the analysis because of missing
data. Components may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
*A beneficiary was assigned LIS status if that individual received Part D’s LIS at some point during the year.
**If a beneficiary was enrolled in both a PDP and an MA–PD during the year, that individual was classified in the type of
plan with the greater number of months of enrollment.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D prescription drug event data and common Medicare environment file from CMS.
• In 2019, Part D enrollees who reached the catastrophic phase of the benefit were more likely to
be disabled and under age 65, and receiving the LIS compared with Part D enrollees with annual
spending below the catastrophic threshold.
• While LIS enrollees are more likely to reach the catastrophic phase of the benefit, their share has
been declining, from more than 80 percent in 2010 and earlier years (data not shown) to 65
percent in 2019. This decline reflects more rapid growth in enrollment of individuals who do not
receive the LIS as well as the growth in average prices of drugs taken by those individuals.
• Part D enrollees who reached the catastrophic phase of the benefit were more likely to be
enrolled in stand-alone PDPs (62 percent) compared with enrollees whose spending was below
the initial coverage limit (55 percent) or enrollees in the coverage gap who did not reach the
catastrophic threshold (60 percent). Some of this difference likely reflects the facts that LIS
enrollees are more costly on average and were more likely to be in PDPs in 2019.

Chart 10-20. Part D spending and use per enrollee, 2019
Plan type LIS status
Part D PDP MA–PD LIS Non-LIS
Total gross spending (billions)* $183.1 $111.0 $72.1 $87.5 $95.6
Total number of prescriptions

2,538 1,429 1,108 897 1,640
(millions)
Average spending per prescription $72 $78 $65 $97 $58
Per enrollee per month

Total spending $333 $362 $297 $554 $244
OOP spending 31 36 26 5 42
Manufacturer gap discount 18 21 15 N/A 26
Plan liability 223 239 204 384 158
Low-income cost-sharing subsidy 47 50 43 164 N/A
Other** 13 16 9 <1 18
Number of prescriptions 4.6 4.7 4.6 5.7 4.2

Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy), OOP
(out-of-pocket), N/A (not applicable). “Total gross spending” reflects payments from all payers, including beneficiaries (cost
sharing) but does not include rebates and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the
pharmacies. Part D prescription drug event (PDE) records are classified into plan types based on the contract identification on
each record. For purposes of classifying the PDE records by LIS status, monthly LIS eligibility information in Part D’s
denominator file was used. Estimates are sensitive to the method used to classify PDE records to each plan type and LIS
status. “Plan liability” includes plan payments for drugs covered by both basic and supplemental (enhanced) benefits. In
addition to the major categories shown in the chart, total spending includes amounts paid by other relatively minor payers
such as group health plans, workers’ compensation, and charities. “Number of prescriptions” is standardized to a 30-day
supply. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
*“Total gross spending” includes slightly over $10 billion in manufacturer discounts for brand-name drugs and biologics filled
by non-LIS enrollees during the coverage gap.
**“Other” amount includes payments by patient assistance organizations and third-party payers other than Part D plans that
reduce the patient cost-sharing liability.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D PDE data and Part D denominator file from CMS.
• In 2019, gross spending on drugs for the Part D program totaled $183.1 billion, with more than 60 percent ($111
billion) accounted for by Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone PDPs. Part D enrollees receiving the LIS
accounted for about 48 percent ($87.5 billion) of the total. Manufacturer discounts for brand-name drugs filled by
non-LIS enrollees while they were in the coverage gap accounted for 5.5 percent of the total, or 10.5 percent of the
gross spending by non-LIS enrollees (up from 4.1 percent and 8 percent, respectively, in 2018; data not shown).
• The number of prescriptions filled by Part D enrollees totaled over 2.5 billion, with 56 percent (over 1.4 billion)
accounted for by PDP enrollees. The 29 percent of enrollees who received the LIS accounted for about 35 percent
(897 million) of the total number of prescriptions filled.
• In 2019, Part D enrollees filled 4.6 prescriptions at $333 per month on average, an increase from $317 per month
(for 4.6 prescriptions) in 2018 (2018 data not shown). The average monthly plan liability for PDP enrollees ($239)
was considerably higher than that of MA–PD enrollees ($204). The average monthly OOP spending was smaller for
MA–PD enrollees than PDP enrollees ($36 vs. $26, respectively). The average monthly low-income cost-sharing
subsidy among PDP enrollees ($50) continues to exceed that for MA–PD enrollees ($43), although that difference
has been decreasing as an increasing share of LIS beneficiaries have enrolled in MA–PDs.
• Average monthly spending per LIS enrollee ($554) was more than double that of a non-LIS enrollee ($244), and the
average number of prescriptions filled per month by an LIS enrollee was 5.7 compared with 4.2 for a non-LIS
enrollee. LIS enrollees had much lower monthly OOP spending, on average, than non-LIS enrollees ($5 vs. $42,
respectively). Part D’s LIS pays for most of the cost sharing for LIS enrollees, averaging $164 per month in 2019.
Chart 10-21. Trends in Part D spending and use per enrollee per
month, 2007–2019
$600
All Part D PDP $554
Gross Part D spending per enrollee per month
MA-PD LIS
$500
Non-LIS
$400 $377
$362
$301 $333
$300 $275
$297
$239 $242
$185 $244
$200 $212
$156
$179
$151
$100
$0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: PDP (prescription drug plan), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy), MA–PD (Medicare Advantage–Prescription Drug [plan]).
“Spending” (gross) reflects payments from all payers, including beneficiaries (cost sharing) but does not include rebates
and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the pharmacies. Part D prescription
drug event (PDE) records are classified into plan types based on the contract identification on each record. For purposes
of classifying the PDE records by LIS status, monthly LIS eligibility information in Part D’s denominator file was used.
Figures are sensitive to the method used to classify PDE records to each plan type and LIS status.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D PDE data and Part D denominator file from CMS.
• Between 2007 and 2019, average per capita spending per month for Part D–covered drugs grew
from $212 to $333, an average growth rate of 3.8 percent annually, or about 57 percent
cumulatively. The rate of growth in average per capita spending more than doubled after 2013, in
part reflecting the introduction of new hepatitis C treatments in 2014 and other new expensive
therapies in subsequent years.
• Between 2007 and 2019, monthly per capita spending for LIS enrollees grew faster than that for
non-LIS enrollees, increasing from $301 to $554 (a cumulative growth of 84 percent) compared
with an increase from $156 to $244 for non-LIS enrollees (a cumulative growth of 56 percent). The
number of prescriptions filled by both LIS and non-LIS enrollees grew by just under 2 percent
annually during this period (data not shown).
• The growth in monthly per capita drug spending among MA−PD enrollees exceeded that of PDP
enrollees during the 2007 to 2019 period (annual average growth of 5.8 percent and 3.5 percent,
respectively). The average per capita spending for MA−PD enrollees continued to be lower than
that of PDP enrollees (by $65 per month in 2019); however, that difference has been declining
since 2014.

Chart 10-22. Top 15 therapeutic classes of drugs covered under
Part D, by spending and volume, 2019
Top 15 therapeutic classes by spending Top 15 therapeutic classes by volume
Dollars Prescriptions
Billions Percent Millions Percent
Diabetic therapy $30.7 16.8% Antihyperlipidemics 273.6 10.8%

Asthma/COPD therapy agents 13.3 7.3 Antihypertensive therapy 260.1 10.3
agents
Anticoagulants 12.4 6.8 Diabetic therapy 173.6 6.8
Antineoplastics (enzyme 11.5 6.3 Antidepressants 160.3 6.3
inhibitors)
Antivirals 9.3 5.1 Beta-adrenergic blockers 155.6 6.1
Analgesics (anti-inflammatory/ 8.8 4.8 Peptic ulcer therapy 128.9 5.1
antipyretic, non-narcotic)
Antipsychotics 6.6 3.6 Diuretics 121.9 4.8
Antineoplastics 5.9 3.2 Calcium channel blockers 117.4 4.6
(immunomodulators)
Anticonvulsants 5.7 3.1 Thyroid therapy 100.8 4.0
Antihypertensive therapy 5.5 3.0 Anticonvulsants 98.1 3.9
agents
Antihyperlipidemics 4.7 2.5 Asthma/COPD therapy agents 74.0 2.9
Antineoplastics (hormone 3.2 1.8 Analgesics (narcotic) 67.0 2.6
antagonists)
Analgesics (narcotic) 2.8 1.5 Antibacterial agents 59.2 2.3
Antidepressants 2.8 1.5 Prostatic hypertrophy agents 52.1 2.1
Urinary incontinence treatment 2.5 1.4 Anticoagulants
48.5 1.9
agents
Subtotal, top 15 classes 125.6 68.6 Subtotal, top 15 classes 1,891.2 74.5
Total, all classes 183.1 100.0 Total, all classes 2,537.1 100.0
Note: COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). “Spending” (gross) reflects payments from all payers, including
beneficiaries (cost sharing) but does not include rebates and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not
reflected in prices at the pharmacies. “Volume” is the number of prescriptions, standardized to a 30-day supply.
Therapeutic classification is based on the First DataBank Enhanced Therapeutic Classification System 1.0. Components
may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D prescription drug event data from CMS.
• In 2019, the top 15 therapeutic classes by spending accounted for more than two-thirds of the $183.1
billion spent on prescription drugs covered by Part D plans. The top 15 therapeutic classes by volume
accounted for nearly three-quarters of the over 2.5 billion prescriptions dispensed in 2019.
• While many of the same therapeutic classes on the top-15 list appear year after year, the ranking has
changed from time to time. For example, market entries of new hepatitis C therapies more than tripled
Part D spending on antivirals between 2013 and 2015 (data not shown). In 2019, antivirals accounted
for $9.3 billion, down from $11.7 billion in 2016 (2016 data not shown). The growth in spending for
drugs to treat cancer resulted in three classes of antineoplastic therapies (enzyme inhibitors,
immunomodulators, and hormone antagonists) appearing on the top-15 list for the first time in 2018,
compared with just one class between 2012 and 2014 and none before 2012 (data not shown). In
2019, these three classes of antineoplastics accounted for about $21 billion, or 11.2 percent of
spending for the top 15 therapeutic classes.
Chart 10-22. Top 15 therapeutic classes of drugs covered under
Part D, by spending and volume, 2019 (continued)
• Spending on drugs to treat diabetes has grown at a double-digit rate since 2007 (data not shown). In
2019, spending on diabetic therapy totaled $30.7 billion, an increase of about 15 percent from $26.8
billion in 2018 (2018 data not shown). The number of prescriptions filled for diabetic therapy totaled
173.6 million, an increase of about 6 percent from 163.9 million in 2018.
• Eight therapeutic classes are among the top 15 in both spending and volume. Diabetic therapy
dominates the list by spending, accounting for almost 17 percent of total spending and nearly a
quarter of spending for the top 15 therapeutic classes, followed by asthma/COPD therapy agents.
Cardiovascular agents (antihyperlipidemics, antihypertensive therapy agents, beta-adrenergic
blockers, diuretics, and calcium channel blockers) dominate the list by volume, accounting for about
37 percent of all prescriptions and nearly 50 percent of the prescriptions in the top 15 therapeutic
classes.

Chart 10-23. Part D patterns of prescribing by provider type, 2018
Provider type
Primary Specialty/ NP/PA/
Part D care* others CNS
Number of individual prescribers (thousands) 1,205 251 683 271

Share of all individual prescribers 21% 57% 23%
Average beneficiary count 161 264 126 151
Average per beneficiary

Gross spending $780 $947 $775 $645
Number of prescriptions 5.8 10.9 4.0 5.4
Top 1 percent of prescribers based on

number of prescriptions filled per beneficiary
Number of individual prescribers 9,531 6,415 1,802 1,314

Share of top 1 percent of prescribers 67% 19% 14%
Total gross spending (billions) $9.4 $7.1 $1.5 $0.8

Share of provider type’s total gross spending 6% 12% 2% 3%
Total number of prescriptions (millions) 129 104 16 9

Share of provider type’s total prescriptions filled 9% 13% 4% 4%
Average per beneficiary

Gross spending $4,028 $3,428 $5,521 $4,910
Number of prescriptions 42 43 42 41
Note: NP (nurse practitioner), PA (physician assistant), CNS (clinical nurse specialist). “Gross spending” reflects payments from
all payers, including beneficiaries (cost sharing) but does not include rebates and discounts from pharmacies and
manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the pharmacies. “Number of prescriptions” is a count of prescription drug
events and is not adjusted for the size (number of days’ supply) of the prescriptions. As such, these figures are not
comparable with the prescription counts shown in Chart 10-17, Chart 10-20, and Chart 10-22. Components may not sum
to totals due to rounding.
*The definition of “primary care” used here includes practitioners who have a primary Medicare specialty designation of
family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, or geriatrics.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D prescriber-level public use file from CMS.
• In 2018, over 1.2 million individual providers wrote prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries that
were filled under Part D. Of those, about 21 percent were primary care providers, 57 percent
were specialty or other types of providers, and 23 percent were NPs, PAs, or CNSs in primary
and specialty care. While historically, NPs and PAs have been concentrated in primary care,
more recent patterns suggest that they are increasingly practicing in specialty fields.
• The average count of Medicare beneficiaries was higher among primary care providers
compared with specialty and other types of providers and with NPs, PAs, and CNSs—264
beneficiaries versus 126 beneficiaries and 151 beneficiaries, respectively.
Chart 10-23. Part D patterns of prescribing by provider type, 2018
(continued)
• On a per beneficiary basis, average gross spending for Part D prescriptions was much higher
for prescriptions written by primary care providers ($947) compared with the average for
specialty and other providers ($775) and for NPs, PAs, and CNSs ($645). Primary care
providers also wrote more prescriptions per beneficiary, on average: 10.9 compared with 4.0
for specialty and other providers and 5.4 for NPs, PAs, and CNSs.
• More than 9,500 prescribers were among the top 1 percent of all prescribers, as ranked by the
average number of Part D prescriptions filled per beneficiary in 2018. The top prescribers
were much more likely than all providers to be practicing in primary care: 67 percent were
primary care providers, 19 percent were specialty and other providers, and 14 percent were
NPs, PAs, and CNSs.
• The top 1 percent of prescribers accounted for 6 percent of total gross spending and 9 percent
of all prescriptions filled. Among primary care prescribers who were within the top 1 percent,
results were more concentrated: They accounted for 12 percent of gross prescription spending
and 13 percent of all prescriptions written by primary care providers.
• Among the prescriptions that were written by prescribers in the top 1 percent of all prescribers
in 2018, per beneficiary Part D spending averaged $4,028 for 42 prescriptions filled.

Chart 10-24. Part D patterns of prescribing for selected
specialties, 2018
Number of Share of all Average per beneficiary
individual Part D Part D
prescribers prescribers Gross spending Number of
(thousands) (percent) (in dollars) prescriptions
All Part D 1,204.9 100 % $780 5.8

All specialty/others 683.0 57 775 4.0
Selected specialties:
Psychiatry 25.3 4 1,327 13.1
Cardiology 19.8 3 839 7.9
Ophthalmology 19.8 3 476 4.0
Psychiatry & neurology 14.4 2 1,255 11.0
Neurology 14.1 2 3,148 7.2
Gastroenterology 13.9 2 1,486 3.5
Urology 10.8 2 479 3.8
Pulmonary disease 9.5 1 3,357 6.7
Nephrology 8.8 1 1,209 7.8
Hematology & oncology 8.5 1 9,376 6.0
Endocrinology 6.1 1 2,640 7.9
Infectious disease 5.5 1 6,728 8.6
Rheumatology 4.8 1 3,717 7.6
Medical oncology 3.2 <0.5 8,571 5.6
Note: “Gross spending” reflects payments from all payers, including beneficiaries (cost sharing) but does not include rebates
and discounts from pharmacies and manufacturers that are not reflected in prices at the pharmacies. “Number of
prescriptions” is a count of prescription drug events and is not adjusted for the size (number of days’ supply) of the
prescriptions. As such, they are not comparable with the prescription counts shown in Chart 10-17, Chart 10-20, and
Chart 10-22.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Part D prescriber-level public use file from CMS.
• Of specialty care prescribers, psychiatrists were among the most numerous, making up 4
percent of all Part D prescribers in 2018. Cardiologists, ophthalmologists,
psychiatrists/neurologists, neurologists, gastroenterologists, and urologists each made up
another 2 percent to 3 percent of Part D prescribers.
• Psychiatrists wrote an average of 13.1 prescriptions per beneficiary, with an average of

$1,327 in gross spending per patient. Those averages were higher than the overall Part D
averages of 5.8 prescriptions and $780 in average gross spending per beneficiary. Other
specialties with comparatively high average gross spending per beneficiary include
psychiatry/neurology, neurology, gastroenterology, pulmonary disease, nephrology,
hematology/oncology, endocrinology, infectious disease, rheumatology, and medical
oncology.
Chart 10-24. Part D patterns of prescribing for selected
specialties, 2018 (continued)
• Other specialties such as ophthalmology and urology had lower average gross spending per
beneficiary. Cardiologists had average gross spending per beneficiary slightly higher than
that of all Part D specialty prescribers ($839 vs. $775 respectively) but wrote an average of
7.9 prescriptions per beneficiary—considerably more than the average of 4.0 per beneficiary
for all Part D specialty prescribers.

Chart 10-25. Price growth for Part D–covered drugs, 2006–2019
4.00
3.75 3.65
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75 Single-source brand-
2.50 name drugs
2.25
All Part D–covered 1.95
2.00 drugs
1.75
1.50
1.25 1.11
1.00
0.75 All Part D–covered drugs accounting for
0.50 generic substitution
0.21
0.25 Generic drugs
0.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q4
Note: Q1 (first quarter), Q4 (fourth quarter). Part D indexes reflect total amounts paid to pharmacies and do not reflect
retrospective rebates or discounts from manufacturers and pharmacies. These measures of price growth reflect growth in
the price of individual products but do not reflect changes in price due to the introduction of new products or to changes in
the mix of products used.
• Measured by individual national drug codes, prices of drugs and biologics covered under Part D rose
95 percent cumulatively between 2006 and 2019 (an index of 1.95). (Prices reflect total amounts paid
to pharmacies and do not reflect retrospective rebates or discounts from manufacturers and
pharmacies.)
• As measured by a price index that takes generic substitution into account, Part D prices decreased by
2.1 percent between December of 2018 and December of 2019, reversing the inflationary trend that
began after 2012. As a result, cumulative increase in prices at the end of 2019 were lower (11
percent, or an index of 1.11) compared with cumulative increase in prices at the end of 2018 (14
percent, or an index of 1.14). New and increased generic competition for selected therapeutic
classes, such as anticonvulsants, antineoplastics, and drugs for multiple sclerosis, played a key role
in the decline in the overall Part D prices in 2019.
• Overall, between 2006 and 2019, prices of generic drugs covered under Part D decreased to 21
percent of the average price observed at the beginning of 2006. In comparison, prices of single-
source, brand-name drugs (drugs with no generic substitutes) grew by a cumulative 265 percent (an
index of 3.65) during the same period.
Chart 10-26. Comparison of price growth for Part B and Part D
biologics, 2006–2019
4.00
3.70
3.50
3.32
3.00
Part D biologics
2.50
Part D biologics
2.00
excluding insulin
1.50
1.53
1.00 Part B biologics
0.50
0.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q4
Note: Q1 (first quarter), Q4 (fourth quarter). Part D indexes reflect total amounts paid to pharmacies and do not reflect retrospective
rebates or discounts from manufacturers and pharmacies. The Part B index reflects growth in the average sales price of Part
B–covered biologics over time, measured for individual biologics at the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System billing
code level. These measures of price growth reflect growth in the price of individual products but do not reflect changes in
price due to the introduction of new products or the changes in the mix of products used. The Part B price index for biologics
in this chart and in Chart 10-6 are different due to the different periods of analysis.
• Measured by the change in the average sales price of individual Part B–covered biologics, the
prices of Part B–covered biologics rose by an average of 53 percent cumulatively between 2006
and 2019 (an index of 1.53). Measured by individual national drug codes, prices of biologics
covered under Part D rose 270 percent cumulatively during the same period (an index of 3.70).
(Prices reflect total amounts paid to pharmacies and do not reflect retrospective rebates or
discounts from manufacturers and pharmacies).
• The price index for Part B biologics, which had increased for more than a decade, declined 0.6
percent between third quarter 2019 and fourth quarter 2019, largely due to price declines
among products with biosimilar competition. (See Chart 10-5 for more information on
biosimilars.)
• Prices of noninsulin biologics covered under Part D grew less rapidly (by an average of 232
percent cumulatively, an index of 3.32) compared with the growth in prices of all Part D biologics
during the same period.

Chart 10-26. Comparison of price growth for Part B and Part D
biologics, 2006–2019 (continued)
• These measures of price growth reflect growth in price at the individual product level and do not
reflect changes in price that occur as a result of shifts in the mix of biologics used or the
introduction of new, higher priced biologics.
• Currently, biologics that may be covered under either Part B or Part D are limited to a subset of
drugs within therapeutic classes such as therapies to treat inflammatory conditions (e.g.,
rheumatoid arthritis) and certain types of cancer.
11
0
Chart 11-1. Number of dialysis facilities is growing, and most
facilities are for profit and freestanding
Average annual
percent change
2019 2014–2019 2018–2019
Total number of:

Dialysis facilities 7,657 4% 3%
Hemodialysis stations 134,159 4 3
Mean number of
hemodialysis stations per facility 18 –0.1 0.1
Share of total facilities

Hospital based 5% –3 –1
Freestanding 95 3 3
Urban 83 4 3
Rural, micropolitan 10 2 1
Rural, adjacent to urban 4 2 2
Rural, not adjacent to urban 2 1 –2
Frontier 0.4 1 0
For profit 89 4 3
Nonprofit 11 −1 −0.1
Note: “Nonprofit” includes facilities designated as either nonprofit or government. “Average annual percent change” is based on
comparing 2014, 2018, and 2019 end-of-year files. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: Compiled by MedPAC from the institutional outpatient claims files and the Dialysis Compare files from CMS.
• Between 2014 and 2019, the number of facilities increased, on average, 4 percent per year.
The average size of a facility has remained relatively constant, averaging nearly 18 dialysis
treatment stations per facility.
• Since 2014, facilities’ capacity to provide care—as measured by hemodialysis treatment

stations—grew 4 percent annually on average. Capacity at urban facilities grew by 4 percent
per year, while capacity at rural facilities grew at a rate of 2 percent per year.
• Since 2014, the number of freestanding and for-profit facilities increased, while hospital-
based facilities decreased. Freestanding facilities increased by 3 percent per year to nearly
7,270 facilities while for-profit facilities increased by 4 percent per year to nearly 6,800
facilities.
Chart 11-2. Medicare spending for outpatient dialysis services
furnished by freestanding and hospital-based
dialysis facilities, 2018 and 2019
14
$12.7 $12.9
4% 4%
12
Spending on dialysis, dialysis drugs,
and other ESRD-related services
10
(in billions of dollars)
8
96% 96%
6
0
2018 2019
Freestanding Hospital-based
Note: ESRD (end-stage renal disease).
Source: Compiled by MedPAC from the institutional outpatient claims files from CMS.
• In 2019, total spending for dialysis, dialysis drugs, and ESRD-related clinical laboratory tests
was $12.9 billion. Medicare paid all facilities under a prospective payment system (PPS) that
includes in the payment bundle certain dialysis drugs and ESRD-related clinical laboratory
tests that were separately paid before 2011.
• Between 2018 and 2019, total ESRD expenditures increased by 2 percent. Ten percent of
total spending in 2019 consisted of payments for two calcimimetics paid under the ESRD
PPS’s transitional drug add-on payment adjustment; this policy pays providers according to
the number of units of a drug and the drug’s average sales price.
• Freestanding dialysis facilities treated most dialysis beneficiaries and accounted for 96
percent of expenditures in 2018 and 2019.
186 Other services

Chart 11-3. The ESRD population is growing, and most patients
with ESRD undergo dialysis
2008 2014 2018
Patients Patients Patients
(thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent (thousands) Percent
Total 550.8 100% 689.1 100% 785.9 100%
Dialysis 386.8 70 488.5 71 556.0 71

In-center hemodialysis 351.6 64 430.5 62 485.1 62
Home hemodialysis* 4.4 0.8 8.5 1 10.4 1
Peritoneal dialysis* 29.1 5 47.2 7 58.6 7
Unknown 1.7 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.0 0.2
Functioning graft and

kidney transplant 164.0 30 200.7 29 229.9 29
Note: ESRD (end-stage renal disease). Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding. Data include both Medicare
(fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) and non-Medicare patients. The “functioning graft and kidney transplant”
category includes patients who have a functioning graft at the start of the year in question (i.e., 2008, 2014, or 2018), or
who receive a transplant during the year in question.
*Home dialysis methods.
Source: Compiled by MedPAC from the U.S. Renal Data System.
• People with ESRD require either dialysis or a kidney transplant to maintain life. The total
number of ESRD patients increased by nearly 4 percent annually between 2008 and 2018.
• In hemodialysis, a patient’s blood flows through a machine with a special filter that removes
wastes and extra fluids. In peritoneal dialysis, the patient’s blood is cleansed by using the
lining of his or her abdomen as a filter. Peritoneal dialysis is the most common form of home
dialysis.
• Most people with ESRD undergo hemodialysis administered in a dialysis facility three times
a week. Between 2008 and 2018, the total number of in-center hemodialysis patients grew
by 3 percent annually, while the total number of peritoneal dialysis patients increased by
about 7 percent annually. Although a smaller proportion of all dialysis patients undergo
home hemodialysis, the number of these patients grew 9 percent per year during this period.
• Patients with functioning grafts have had a successful kidney transplant. Patients
undergoing a kidney transplant may receive either a living kidney or a cadaveric kidney
donation. In 2018, 29 percent of transplanted kidneys were from living donors and the
remainder were from cadaver donors (data not shown).
Chart 11-4. Asian Americans and Hispanics are among the
fastest growing segments of the ESRD population
Share Average annual
of total percent change
in 2018 2013–2018
Total (N = 785,883) 100% 3%
Age (years)
0–17 1 2
18–44 14 1
45–64 43 3
65–79 33 5
80+ 9 4
Sex
Male 58 4
Female 42 3
Race/ethnicity
White 62 4
Black 30 2
Native American 1 2
Asian American 7 6
Hispanic 18 5
Non-Hispanic 80 3
Unknown 2 1
Underlying cause of ESRD

Diabetes 39 4
Hypertension 26 4
Glomerulonephritis 15 2
Other causes 20 3
Note: ESRD (end-stage renal disease). Totals may not equal sum of the components due to rounding. ESRD patients include
those who undergo maintenance dialysis and those who have a functioning kidney transplant. Data include both Medicare
(fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) and non-Medicare patients.
Source: Compiled by MedPAC from the U.S. Renal Data System.
• Among patients with ESRD, nearly 42 percent are over age 65. About 62 percent are White.
• Diabetes is the most common cause of renal failure.
• The number of patients with ESRD increased by 3 percent annually between 2013 and
2018. Among the fastest growing groups are patients between the ages of 65 and 79 and
patients of Asian and Hispanic origins.
188 Other services

Chart 11-5. Characteristics of Medicare fee-for-service dialysis
patients, 2019
Share of all FFS dialysis patients
Age (years)
Under 45 10%
45–64 37
65–74 28
75–84 18
85+ 6
Sex
Male 56
Female 44
Race
White 47
Black 35
All other 18
Residence
Urban county 83
Rural county, micropolitan 10
Rural county, adjacent to urban 5
Rural county, not adjacent to urban 2
Frontier county 1
Prescription drug coverage status

Enrolled in Part D plan or other source of creditable drug coverage 89*
LIS 58
Dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid 52
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), LIS (low-income [drug] subsidy). Urban counties contain a core area with 50,000 or more people,
rural micropolitan counties contain at least one cluster of at least 10,000 and fewer than 50,000 people, rural counties
adjacent to urban areas do not have a city of 10,000 people in the county, and rural counties not adjacent to urban areas
do not have a city of 10,000 people. Frontier counties are counties with six or fewer people per square mile. Totals may
not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
*Part D enrollment data for 2018.
Source: MedPAC analysis of dialysis claims files and denominator files from CMS.
• Compared with all Medicare patients, FFS dialysis patients are disproportionately younger
and Black (see Chart 2-5).
• In 2019, about 17 percent of FFS dialysis patients resided in a rural county.
• More than half of all dialysis patients were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid
services.
• In 2018, nearly 90 percent of FFS dialysis patients were enrolled in Part D plans or had
other sources of creditable drug coverage.
Chart 11-6. Aggregate margins varied by type of freestanding
dialysis facility, 2019
Share of freestanding
Type of facility dialysis treatments Aggregate margin
All facilities 100% 8.4%
Urban 88 9.0
Rural 12 5.0
Treatment volume (quintile)

Lowest 7 –14.4
Second 13 –1.4
Third 18 6.4
Fourth 24 10.4
Highest 39 15.2
Note: Margins include payments and costs for dialysis services commonly provided under treatment, including injectable drugs
and laboratory tests that were separately paid before 2011. Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. The
Commission’s longstanding approach to calculating the Medicare end-stage renal disease (ESRD) prospective payment
system (PPS) margin uses only Medicare-allowable costs for ESRD services. Such an approach is consistent with the
methods we use to calculate the Medicare margin for other fee-for-service sectors. Our ESRD margin analysis relies on
the cost data that freestanding dialysis facilities report on the cost reports that they submit to CMS. In 2019, there was an
anomalous increase in non-ESRD drug costs compared with prior years. Consistent with our longstanding approach, non-
ESRD drug costs are not included in the Commission’s analysis of ESRD PPS costs incurred by freestanding dialysis
facilities or in our calculation of the ESRD PPS margin.
Source: Compiled by MedPAC from 2019 cost reports and the 2019 institutional outpatient file from CMS.
• For 2019, the aggregate Medicare margin for dialysis-related services, including ESRD-
related drugs and laboratory tests that were separately paid before 2011, was 8.4 percent.
• Between 2018 and 2019, the aggregate Medicare margin increased (from 2.1 percent to 8.4
percent) due to the profitability of the drugs paid under the transitional drug add-on payment
adjustment (TDAPA) policy. Excluding the payments and costs of the drugs paid under the
TDAPA (calcimimetics), we estimate that the 2019 aggregate Medicare margin would have
been about 0.5 percent.
• Generally, freestanding dialysis facilities’ margins vary by the size of the facility; facilities
with greater treatment volume have higher margins on average. Differences in capacity and
treatment volume explain some of the differences observed between the margins of urban
facilities versus rural facilities. Urban facilities are larger on average than rural facilities with
respect to the number of dialysis treatment stations and Medicare treatments provided.
Some rural facilities have benefited from the ESRD prospective payment system’s low-
volume adjustment.
190 Other services

Chart 11-7. Dialysis quality of care: Some measures show
progress, others need improvement, 2013–2018
Outcome measure 2013 2017 2018
Share of in-center hemodialysis patients:
Receiving adequate dialysis 97% 98% 98%
Dialyzed with an AV fistula 62 N/A* 66
Share of peritoneal dialysis patients
receiving adequate dialysis 91 93 92
Share of all dialysis patients managing anemia

Mean hemoglobin <10 g/dL 26 28 29
Mean hemoglobin 10 to <12 g/dL 69 67 66
Mean hemoglobin ≥12 g/dL 5 5 5
Share of all dialysis patients wait-listed for a kidney 17.5 14.1 13.5
Renal transplant rate per 100 patient years 3.5 3.5 3.6
Annual mortality rate per 100 patient years** 16.9 16.6 16.4
Total hospital admissions per patient year** 1.8 1.7 1.7
Hospital days per patient year** 11.5 11.3 11.3
Note: AV (arteriovenous), g/dL (grams per deciliter [of blood]). The rate per patient year is calculated by dividing the total
number of events by the fraction of the year that patients were followed. Data on dialysis adequacy, anemia management,
and fistula utilization represent the share of patients meeting CMS’s clinical performance measures. The U.S. Renal Data
System (USRDS) adjusts hospitalization and mortality measures by age, gender, race, and primary diagnosis of end-
stage renal disease.
*Data on 2017 AV fistula use not available from USRDS.
**Lower values suggest higher quality.
Source: All measures except for share of patients receiving adequate dialysis and anemia management compiled by MedPAC
using data from the USRDS. Measure of share of patients receiving adequate dialysis and anemia management compiled
by MedPAC using data from CMS’s 100 percent institutional outpatient files.
• Quality of dialysis care is mixed. Performance has improved on some measures, but
performance on others remains unchanged or has declined.
• Between 2013 and 2018, overall adjusted mortality rates decreased from 16.9 percent to 16.4
percent. During this period, the proportion of hemodialysis patients receiving adequate dialysis
remained high, and rates of hospitalization have held steady.
• All hemodialysis patients require vascular access—the site on the patient’s body where blood is
removed and returned during dialysis. Use of arteriovenous fistulas, considered the best type of
vascular access, has modestly increased from 62 percent to 66 percent of hemodialysis patients
between 2013 and 2018.
• Other measures suggest that improvements in dialysis quality are still needed. We look at access
to kidney transplantation because it is widely believed to be the best treatment option for
individuals with end-stage renal disease. Between 2013 and 2018, the share of dialysis patients
accepted on the kidney transplant waiting list declined from 17.5 to 13.5, and the renal transplant
rate per 100 dialysis-patient years remained relatively constant at 3.6.
Chart 11-8. Hospice spending and use increased in 2019
Average annual
change, Change,
2010 2018 2019 2010–2018 2018–2019
Medicare payments (in billions) $12.9 $19.2 $20.9 5.1% 8.5%
Beneficiaries in hospice 1.15 1.55 1.61 3.8% 3.7%

(in millions)
Number of hospice days for all 81.6 113.5 121.8 4.2% 7.3%
hospice beneficiaries (in millions)
Average length of stay 87.0 90.3 92.6 0.5% 2.5%

among decedents (in days)
Median length of stay 18 18 18 0 days 0 days

among decedents (in days)
Note: Lifetime length of stay is calculated for decedents who were using hospice at the time of death or before death and
reflects the total number of days the decedent was enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit during his or her lifetime.
Total spending, number of hospice users, number of hospice days, and average length of stay displayed in the table are
rounded; the percentage change for number of users and total spending is calculated using unrounded data. The length-
of-stay estimates in this table may differ from those published in prior data books because this analysis uses the data from
the Common Medicare Enrollment file instead of the denominator file (which was used in past years) and because we
have made some refinements to our methodology (e.g., beneficiaries residing in U.S. territories are included in this table,
whereas they were not in prior reports).
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Common Medicare Enrollment file and the Medicare Beneficiary Database from CMS.
• Total Medicare payments to hospices were about $20.9 billion in 2019, about 8.5 percent
higher than the prior year.
• The number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving hospice services, total number of days of
hospice care, and average length of stay continued to grow in 2019.
192 Other services

Chart 11-9. Hospice use increased across beneficiary groups
from 2010 to 2019
Average annual
Share of decedents using hospice percentage Percentage
point change point change
2010 2018 2019 2010–2018 2018–2019
All 43.8% 50.6% 51.6% 0.9 1.0%
FFS beneficiaries 42.8 49.7 50.7 0.9 1.0

MA beneficiaries 47.2 52.3 53.2 0.6 0.9
Dual eligible 41.5 47.5 49.2 0.8 1.7

Non–dual eligible 44.5 51.5 52.3 0.9 0.8
Age (years)
<65 25.7 28.8 29.4 0.4 0.6
65–84 42.1 46.5 47.3 0.6 0.8
85+ 50.2 61.1 62.7 1.4 1.6
Race/ethnicity
White 45.5 52.7 53.8 0.9 1.1
Non-White 33.9 40.0 40.9 0.8 0.9
Gender
Male 40.1 45.9 46.7 0.7 0.8
Female 47.0 55.0 56.1 1.0 1.2
Residence
Urban county 45.6 51.8 52.7 0.8 0.9
Rural county, micropolitan 39.2 48.2 49.7 1.1 1.5
Rural county, adjacent to urban 39.0 47.9 49.5 1.1 1.5
Rural county, nonadjacent
to urban 33.8 42.4 43.8 1.2 1.4
Frontier county 29.2 35.3 36.2 1.1 1.6
Note: FFS (fee-for-service), MA (Medicare Advantage). Beneficiary location reflects the beneficiary’s county of residence in one
of four categories (urban, micropolitan, rural adjacent to urban, or rural nonadjacent to urban) based on an aggregation of
the Urban Influence Codes (UICs). This chart uses the 2013 UIC definition. The frontier category is defined as population
density equal to or less than six people per square mile and overlaps with the beneficiary county of residence categories.
Yearly figures presented in the table are rounded, but figures in the percentage point change columns were calculated
using unrounded data. The estimates in this table may differ from those published in prior data books because this
analysis uses the data from the Common Medicare Enrollment file instead of the denominator file (which was used in past
years) and because we have made some refinements to our methodology (e.g., beneficiaries residing in U.S. territori es
are included in this table, whereas they were not in prior reports).
Source: MedPAC analysis of data from the Common Medicare Enrollment file and hospice claims data from CMS.
• Hospice use grew across beneficiary groups in 2019, continuing the trend of a growing
proportion of beneficiaries using hospice at the end of life.
• Despite this growth, hospice use continued to vary by demographic and beneficiary
characteristics. Medicare decedents who were not dual eligible, who were MA enrollees,
older, White, female, or living in an urban area were more likely to use hospice than their
respective counterparts.
Chart 11-10. Number of Medicare-participating hospices has
increased due to growth in for-profit hospices
2010 2017 2018 2019
All hospices 3,498 4,488 4,639 4,840
For profit 1,958 3,101 3,233 3,437

Nonprofit 1,316 1,226 1,246 1,248
Government 224 161 159 150
Freestanding 2,401 3,525 3,699 3,932

Hospital based 609 470 454 433
Home health based 465 471 464 456
SNF based 23 22 22 19
Urban 2,485 3,603 3,760 3,952

Rural 950 879 872 859
Note: SNF (skilled nursing facility). Numbers may not sum to totals because of missing data for a small number of providers.
The rural and urban definitions in this chart are based on updated definitions of the core-based statistical areas (which
rely on data from the 2010 census).
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare cost reports, Provider of Services file, and the standard analytic file of hospice claims from
CMS.
• There were 4,840 Medicare-participating hospices in 2019. About 71 percent of them were
for-profit hospices.
• The number of Medicare-participating hospices grew by about 200 providers between 2018
and 2019 and has increased about 38 percent since 2010. For-profit hospices accounted for
almost all of the net growth in providers between 2018 and 2019.
• Growth in the number of providers has occurred predominantly among freestanding

providers. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of hospital-based providers declined
substantially while the number of home health–based providers has oscillated over the
period and declined in the last few years. The number of SNF-based providers is small and
has changed little over the years. (A hospice’s status as freestanding versus hospital based,
home health based, or SNF based reflects the type of cost report submitted by the provider
and does not necessarily reflect the location of care.)
• The number of hospices located in rural areas has declined in the last several years,
decreasing about 2 percent between 2017 and 2019. The number of providers located in
rural areas is not necessarily an indicator of access to care. The share of rural decedents
using hospice has been increasing since 2010 (see Chart 11-9).
194 Other services

Chart 11-11. Hospice cases by diagnosis, 2019
Share
Diagnosis of total cases
Cancer 25%
Alzheimer’s, nervous system disorders,
organic psychosis 24
Circulatory, except heart failure 21
Heart failure 9
Other 6
Respiratory disease 6
Chronic airway obstruction, NOS 5
Genitourinary disease 2
Digestive disease 2
All 100
Note: NOS (not otherwise specified). Cases include all patients who received hospice care in 2019, not just decedents.
“Diagnosis” reflects primary diagnosis on the beneficiary’s last hospice claim in 2019.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 100 percent hospice claims standard analytic file from CMS and the Medicare Beneficiary Database.
• In 2019, the most common primary diagnoses among Medicare hospice patients were
cancer (25 percent), neurological conditions (Alzheimer’s disease, nervous system
disorders, and organic psychosis) (24 percent of cases), circulatory conditions other than
heart failure (21 percent), and heart failure (9 percent).
Chart 11-12. Hospice average length of stay among decedents
increased slightly in 2019
Average
length
of stay Percentiles of length of stay (in days)
Year (in days) 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th
2010 87.0 3 6 18 78 242

2017 89.3 2 5 18 80 251
2018 90.3 2 5 18 82 255
2019 92.6 2 5 18 85 266
Note: Lifetime length of stay is calculated for decedents who were using hospice at the time of death or before death and
reflects the total number of days the decedent was enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit during his or her lifetime. The
length-of-stay estimates in this table may differ from those published in prior data books because this analysis uses the
data from the Common Medicare Enrollment file instead of the denominator file (which was used in past years) and
because we have made some refinements to our methodology (e.g., beneficiaries residing in U.S. territories are included
in this table, whereas they were not in prior reports).
Source: MedPAC analysis of the Common Medicare Enrollment file and the Medicare Beneficiary Database from CMS.
• Average length of stay among decedents was 92.6 days in 2019, an increase from 2018 of
about two days.
• There is wide variation in hospice length of stay. In 2019, hospice length of stay among
decedents ranged from 2 days at the 10th percentile to 266 days at the 90th percentile.
• Between 2010 and 2019, growth in average length of stay among decedents has largely
been the result of increases in length of stay for patients with the longest stays. Length of
stay grew from 78 days to 85 days at the 75th percentile and from 242 days to 266 days at
the 90th percentile.
• Short stays in hospice have changed little since 2000. For example, among decedents,
median length of stay was 18 days in 2019 and 2010. Hospice length of stay at the 25th
percentile was 5 days in 2019 and 6 days in 2010.
196 Other services

Chart 11-13. Hospice length of stay among decedents, by
beneficiary and hospice characteristics, 2019
Average length Length-of-stay percentiles (in days)

of stay (in days) 10th 50th 90th
Beneficiary
Diagnosis
Cancer 52 3 17 129
Neurological 155 4 40 459
Heart/circulatory 99 2 18 297
COPD 124 2 30 362
Other 57 2 8 158
Site of service
Home 95 4 27 257
Nursing facility 109 3 22 324
Assisted living facility 161 5 56 457
Hospice
For profit 112 3 24 332
Nonprofit 71 2 14 195
Freestanding 95 2 19 275
Home health based 72 2 15 199
Hospital based 59 2 12 163
Note: COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Length of stay is calculated for Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2019
and used hospice that year and reflects the total number of days the decedent was enrolled in the Medicare hospice
benefit during his or her lifetime. This year, we made some refinements to our methodology (e.g., beneficiaries residing in
U.S. territories are included in this table, whereas they were not in prior reports), which makes the numbers not fully
comparable with those in past reports. The location categories reflect where the beneficiary spent the largest share of his
or her days while enrolled in hospice. “Diagnosis” reflects primary diagnosis on the beneficiary’s last hospice claim.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 100 percent hospice claims standard analytic file data, Medicare Beneficiary Database, Medicare
hospice cost reports, and Provider of Services file data from CMS.
• Hospice average length of stay among decedents varies by both beneficiary and provider
characteristics. Most of this variation reflects differences in length of stay among patients
with the longest stays (i.e., at the 90th percentile). Length of stay varies much less for
patients with shorter stays (i.e., at the 10th or 50th percentile).
• Beneficiaries with neurological conditions and COPD have the longest stays, while
beneficiaries with cancer have the shortest stays, on average.
• Beneficiaries who receive hospice services in assisted living facilities have longer stays on
average than beneficiaries who receive care at home or in a nursing facility.
• For-profit and freestanding hospices have longer average lengths of stay than nonprofit and
provider-based (home health−based and hospital-based) hospices.
Chart 11-14. More than half of Medicare hospice spending in
2019 was for patients with stays exceeding
180 days
Medicare hospice spending, 2019
(in billions)
All hospice users in 2019 $20.9
Beneficiaries with LOS > 180 days 12.3

Days 1–180 4.1
Days 181–365 3.8
Days 366+ 4.3
Beneficiaries with LOS ≤ 180 days 8.6
Note: LOS (length of stay). LOS reflects the beneficiary’s lifetime LOS as of the end of 2019 (or at the time of death or discharge
in 2019 if the beneficiary was not enrolled in hospice at the end of 2019). All spending reflected in the chart occurred only
in 2019. Break-out groups do not sum to total because of rounding.
Source: MedPAC analysis of 100 percent hospice claims standard analytical file and an Acumen LLC data file on hospice lifetime
length of stay (which is based on an analysis of historic claims data).
• In 2019, Medicare hospice spending on patients with stays exceeding 180 days was about
$12.3 billion, nearly 60 percent of all Medicare hospice spending that year.
• About $4.3 billion, or about 20 percent, of Medicare hospice spending in 2019 was on
hospice care for patients who had already received at least one year of hospice.
198 Other services

Chart 11-15. Hospice aggregate Medicare margins, 2014–2018
Share of Medicare margin
hospices
(2018) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
All 100% 8.2% 9.9% 10.9% 12.5% 12.4%

Freestanding 80 11.6 13.8 14.0 15.3 15.1
Home health based 10 3.5 3.3 6.2 8.1 8.4
Hospital based 10 –20.8 –23.8 –16.7 –13.8 –16.5
For profit 70 15.3 17.7 17.9 20.0 19.0

Nonprofit 27 –0.4 0.1 2.2 2.5 3.8
Government 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 81 8.7 10.4 11.4 12.9 12.6

Rural 19 3.3 4.8 6.3 8.9 10.3
Below cap 83.7 8.4 9.9 10.7 12.6 12.5

Above cap 16.3 6.0 9.8 12.6 12.1 10.1
Above cap (including
cap overpayments) 16.3 18.8 21.4 20.2 21.9 21.8
Note: N/A (not available). Margins for all provider categories exclude overpayments to above-cap hospices except where
specifically indicated. Margins are calculated based on Medicare-allowable, reimbursable costs.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare hospice cost reports, 100 percent hospice claims standard analytic file, and Medicare
Provider of Services data from CMS.
• The aggregate Medicare margin was 12.4 percent in 2018, similar to 12.5 percent in 2017.
• In 2018, freestanding hospices had higher margins (15.1 percent) than home health–based
(8.4 percent) and hospital-based hospices (–16.5 percent).
• The 2018 margin among for-profit hospices was high at 19.0 percent. Nonprofit hospices as
a group had a margin of 3.8 percent in 2018, but the subset of nonprofit hospices that were
freestanding had a higher margin, 7.6 percent (latter figure not shown in chart).
• The aggregate 2018 margin was slightly higher for urban hospices (12.6 percent) than rural
hospices (10.3 percent).
• Hospices that exceeded the cap (Medicare’s aggregate average per beneficiary payment
limit) had a 2018 margin of about 22 percent before the return of the cap overpayments.
Chart 11-16. Medicare margins were higher among hospices with
more long stays, 2018
25
20
15
Margin (in percent)
21.7
10
18.4
15.5
5 7.5
0
-3.0
-5
1 2 3 4 5
Share of providers' patients with stays greater than 180 days, by quintiles
Note: Margins exclude overpayments to hospices that exceeded the cap on the average annual Medicare payment per
beneficiary. Margins are calculated based on Medicare-allowable, reimbursable costs. For hospice providers in the lowest
(first) quintile, the share of stays greater than 180 days was less than 12.4 percent; it was between 12.4 percent and 20.0
percent in the second quintile; it was between 20.0 percent and 26.7 percent in the third quintile; it was between 26.7
percent and 34.9 percent in the fourth quintile; and it was greater than 34.9 percent in the highest (fifth) quintile.
Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare hospice cost reports and 100 percent hospice claims standard analytic file from CMS.
• Medicare’s per diem payment system for hospice has provided an incentive for longer
lengths of stay.
• Hospices with more patients who had stays greater than 180 days generally had higher
margins in 2018. Hospices in the lowest length-of-stay quintile had a margin of –3.0 percent
compared with a 21.7 percent margin for hospices in the second highest length-of-stay
quintile.
• Margins were somewhat lower in the highest length-of-stay quintile (15.5 percent) compared
with the second highest quintile (21.7 percent) because some hospices in the highest
quintile exceeded Medicare’s aggregate payment cap and were required to repay the
overage. Hospices exceeding the cap had a margin of about 22 percent before the return of
overpayments (see Chart 11-15).
200 Other services

Chart 11-17. Hospices that exceeded Medicare’s annual
payment cap, 2014–2018
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Share of hospices
exceeding the cap 12.1% 12.3% 12.7% 14.0% 16.3%
Average payments over

the cap per hospice
exceeding the cap
(in thousands) $370 $316 $295 $273 $334
Payments over the cap

as a share of overall
Medicare hospice spending 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3%
in cap year
Note: The aggregate cap statistics reflect the Commission’s estimates and may differ from the CMS claims processing
contractors. Spending in cap year 2017 reflects an 11-month period from November 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017. For
years before 2017, the cap year was defined as the period beginning November 1 and ending October 31 of the following
year. Beginning 2018, the cap year is aligned with the federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30 of the following
year).
Source: MedPAC analysis of 100 percent hospice claims standard analytic file data, Medicare hospice cost reports, Provider of
Services file data from CMS, and CMS Providing Data Quickly system. Data on total spending for each fiscal year are
from the CMS Office of the Actuary or MedPAC estimates.
• The share of hospices exceeding the aggregate cap was 16.3 percent in 2018, up from 14.0
percent in 2017.
• On average, above-cap hospices exceeded the cap by about $334,000 per provider in 2018,
up from about $273,000 per provider in 2017.
• Medicare payments over the cap represented 1.3 percent of total Medicare hospice
spending in 2018.
Chart 11-18. Hospice live-discharge rates, 2017–2019
2017 2018 2019
Live discharge as a share of all discharges,

by reason for live discharge
All live discharges 16.7% 17.0% 17.4%
No longer terminally ill 6.5 6.3 6.5
Beneficiary revocation 6.4 6.6 6.5
Transfer hospice providers 2.1 2.2 2.3
Move out of service area 1.4 1.6 1.7
Discharge for cause 0.3 0.3 0.3
Providers’ overall rate of live discharge as a

share of all discharges, by percentile
(for providers with more than 30 discharges)
10th percentile 8.5 8.5 8.6
Note: Percentages may not sum to totals due to rounding. “All discharges” includes patients discharged alive or deceased.
Source: MedPAC analysis of the 100 percent hospice claims standard analytical file, Medicare hospice cost reports, and Medicare
Provider of Services file from CMS.
• In 2019, the overall live-discharge rate was 17.4 percent and has been on a slight upward
trend since 2017.
• The most common reasons for live discharge were the beneficiary no longer being terminally
ill and the beneficiary revoking the hospice benefit, each accounting for 6.5 percent of all
discharges in 2019. Less frequent reasons for live discharges included a beneficiary
transferring hospice providers, a beneficiary moving out of the service area, and a
beneficiary being discharged for cause.
• Among providers with more than 30 discharges, 10 percent of providers had live-discharge
rates in excess of 46 percent in 2019.
• Small hospices as a group have substantially higher live-discharge rates than larger
hospices. In 2019, the aggregate live-discharge rate was 45 percent for hospices with 30 or
fewer discharges (data not shown).
202 Other services

Chart 11-19. Medicare spending for clinical laboratory services,
2005–2019
11.0
Independent and physician office Hospital based
10.0
9.3 9.3
8.9
9.0 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.7
8.5 8.2
8.2 8.1
8.0
8.0 7.6
7.3 2.8
7.0 4.0 4.0
2.7 2.8 2.9

7.0
3.6 3.8 2.9 2.9
3.5
6.0 3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
5.0
4.0
3.0 5.7 5.8 6.1

5.7
5.2 5.3 5.2 5.3
4.7 4.9 4.7
2.0 4.0 4.3
3.6 3.7
1.0
0.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Calendar year
Note: Spending is for services paid under the clinical laboratory fee schedule. Hospital-based services are furnished in labs
owned or operated by hospitals. The components of each bar may not sum to the total at the top of each bar due to
rounding. The spending data include only program payments; there is no beneficiary cost sharing for clinical lab services.
Source: The annual report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare trust funds, 2015 and 2020.
• Medicare spending for clinical laboratory services in all settings grew by an average of 3.6
percent per year between 2005 and 2013.
• From 2013 to 2014, Medicare spending for lab services declined by about 9 percent because,
beginning in 2014, many lab tests provided in hospital outpatient departments are no longer paid
separately under the clinical lab fee schedule. Instead, many of these tests are packaged with
their associated visits or procedures under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
• Medicare spending for lab services decreased by an average of 0.9 percent per year from
2014 to 2017.
• Beginning in 2018, clinical laboratory fee schedule payment rates are based on private
sector rates. From 2017 to 2019, Medicare spending for lab services grew by an average of
3.8 percent per year.
• •
•

2021 July2021 Medpac Databook Sec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 July2021 Medpac Databook Sec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 July2021 Medpac Databook Sec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health Care Spending

7-14 Number of Medicare-certified ASCs increased by 11 percent, 2013–2019 ..................................

8-8 Trends in the provision of home health care .............................................................................

8-12 Number of FFS IRF cases increased in 2019 ............................................................................

9-1 Enrollment in MA plans, 2003–2021 .......................................................................................

11-19 Medicare spending for clinical laboratory services, 2005–2019 ........................................................

Total = $3.2 trillion

Medicare Medicaid and CHIP Other

4 National health care and Medicare spending

6 National health care and Medicare spending

Average annual percent change in:

• Medicare’s projected spending growth is driven by growth in the number of beneficiaries

8 National health care and Medicare spending

Private insurance, in network, excluding prescription drugs

Workers per HI beneficiary

• As the baby-boom generation ages, enrollment in the Medicare program is surging. By

• These demographics threaten the financial stability of the Medicare program.

10 National health care and Medicare spending

General revenue transfers

State transfers and drug fees

To maintain HI Trust Fund Increase 2.9% Or decrease Part A

12 National health care and Medicare spending

Average benefit in 2019 Average cost sharing in 2019

• To cover some of those cost-sharing requirements, 89 percent of FFS beneficiaries had

14 National health care and Medicare spending

Source: MedPAC analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2018.

• Medicare FFS spending is concentrated among a small number of beneficiaries. In 2018,

16 National health care and Medicare spending

Total beneficiaries: 60.9 million

Total beneficiaries: 59.3 million

Total spending: $767 billion

Aged Disabled ESRD

• A disproportionate share of Medicare expenditures is on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries

Average per capita spending = $12,594

Under 65 65-74 75-84 85+

• In 2018, average Medicare spending per beneficiary was $12,594.

20 Medicare beneficiary demographics

Excellent or very good health Good or fair health Poor health

22 Medicare beneficiary demographics

Total (55.8 million) 100% Living arrangement

• About one-fifth of beneficiaries live in rural areas.

• Twenty-eight percent of the Medicare population lives alone.

Other public sector Medicaid

All beneficiaries 48,821 18% 22% 10% 39% 0% 11%

28 Medicare beneficiary and other payer financial liability

Part A hospital costs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Source: MedPAC analysis of National Association of Insurance Commissioners data, 2020.

• Medicare beneficiaries often purchase Medigap plans, also known as Medicare

• Private sources of supplemental coverage—primarily employer-sponsored retiree coverage and

• Public sources of supplemental coverage—primarily Medicaid—paid about 5 percent of beneficiaries’

30 Medicare beneficiary and other payer financial liability

32 Medicare beneficiary and other payer financial liability

Share of FFS beneficiaries Share of FFS spending

Source: MedPAC analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2018.

• Dual-eligible beneficiaries account for a disproportionate share of Medicare FFS

• In 2018, average total spending⎯which includes Medicare, Medicaid, supplemental

Dual-eligible beneficiaries Non-dual-eligible beneficiaries

Source: MedPAC analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2018.

• Dual-eligible beneficiaries are more likely than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries to be under

Dual-eligible beneficiaries Non-dual-eligible beneficiaries