Recently, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have surged in popularity, accounting for more than 50% of coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Consequently, this rise has intensified competition among payors, leading to increasingly aggressive marketing strategies.
To thrive in this competitive landscape, MA providers must differentiate their plans. Experience shows that targeting specific demographic segments is an effective strategy, and MA plans are no exception. Recently, there has been a increase in “affinity plans” (plans offered by a private company that contracts with Medicare), designed for specific groups such as Asian Americans, Latinx individuals, LGBTQ+ people, and U.S. veterans.
When executed correctly, these affinity plans offer significant benefits. They have proven to be successful in addressing unique needs and health equity issues of different segments. For instance, they have enhanced care delivery by overcoming language barriers, ensuring clinician diversity (i.e., someone who looks like me), and focusing on diseases prevalent in specific segments. Tailoring networks and services to meet the needs of these populations has led to better health outcomes, inspiring confidence in the potential of these plans.
However, creating effective affinity plans can be challenging. Issues such as clinician shortages, the small size of specific subpopulations, and the high costs of segmented marketing can hinder these efforts. Additionally, with the ongoing push to reduce payments to MA providers, there’s a risk that these plans may emphasize marketing over meaningful differentiation. If members feel misled, trust in the system could erode, potentially worsening health outcomes.
Trust is not just a factor but the cornerstone of healthcare. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure that it is maintained or enhanced, especially as affinity plans become more popular. Ensuring network adequacy is paramount, especially for services that certain populations need more urgently, such as behavioral health. Without proper implementation, the very issues these plans aim to address could be exacerbated, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
The key to successful affinity plans lies in their genuine intent and execution. These plans should not be mere tools for market share and profit but true efforts to improve healthcare. Given that taxpayers subsidize Medicare for the welfare of our elderly citizens, these plans must be developed with a focus on genuine improvement rather than exploitation, emphasizing the sincerity of these initiatives.
By learning from past experiences, we can create models that enhance our ability to provide differentiated care in a positive and effective manner. The goal should always be to improve healthcare delivery, ensuring that every segment of the population receives the care they need and deserve.