Skip to main content
Journal of General Internal Medicine logoLink to Journal of General Internal Medicine
letter
. 2021 Jan 26;37(3):686–688. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06535-1

Adoption of Telehealth Benefits by Medicare Advantage Plans in 2020 and 2021

Sungchul Park 1,, Brent A Langellier 1, David J Meyers 2
PMCID: PMC7837334  PMID: 33501540

Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment grew to 24.1 million in 2020, representing 36% of all Medicare beneficiaries.1 MA plans must offer telehealth services covered under traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM) and can optionally provide extra telehealth services. Starting in 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allowed MA plans to cover telehealth services as basic benefits rather than supplemental benefits and thus be paid for providing telehealth services as part of their capitated payments.2 This gives MA plans more flexibility in tailoring benefit design overall and reallocating funds. In the first year of telehealth benefits expansion, 58.1% of MA plans provided new telehealth benefits.3

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, CMS issued new rules making telehealth more widely available in MA plans.4 We analyzed adoption of telehealth benefits in MA plans in 2020 and 2021.

METHODS

We used four CMS data sources: the 2020–2021 Q1 Plan Benefits Package files, the 2020 Landscape files, the 2020 MA Plan Directory file, and the 2020 MA enrollment data. This study used publicly available data, and thus was considered non-human subjects research. We identified unique MA plans with more than ten enrollees in January 2020.

We conducted two descriptive analyses of plans’ provision of telehealth benefits in 2020 and 2021. First, we estimated the proportion of MA plans that offered any telehealth benefits and the 10 most common types of telehealth services in 2020 and 2021; we also estimated the proportion of MA enrollees in these plans. Second, we categorized plans into the following three groups based on status of offering any telehealth benefits: those that already offered telehealth benefits in 2020, those that newly offered telehealth benefits in 2021, and those that did not offer telehealth benefits in either year. We then examined how the proportion of MA plans offering any telehealth benefits and the proportion of MA enrollees in these plans differed by plan characteristics. We included the following plan characteristics: the proportion of MA enrollees in rural counties, plan type, ownership by a national parent company, profit status, plan monthly premium, plan enrollment size, contract star rating, contract start year, and special needs plans. We defined non-metro countries as rural counties based on the Rural-Urban Continuum Code developed by the Economic Research Service at the US Department of Agriculture.

RESULTS

Of 3668 unique MA plans, 57.4% offered any telehealth benefits in 2020 and these plans enrolled 70.6% of MA enrollees (Fig. 1). Adoption of telehealth benefits increased to 94.0% of plans in 2021, covering 94.1% of enrollees. Increases in telehealth coverage were prevalent across most services and particularly large for skilled nursing facility (8.1-fold increase), specialist care (4.2-fold increase), other professional care (3.5-fold increase), and mental health (2.0-fold increase). Provision of telehealth benefits was mainly concentrated in non-facility settings except for skilled nursing facility.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Percent of Medicare Advantage plans offering telehealth benefits and Medicare Advantage enrollees in plans offering telehealth benefits in 2020 and 2021 by types of services.

While adoption of any telehealth benefits varied by plan characteristics in 2020 (ranging from 34.6 to 69.8%), coverage was much more consistent in 2021 (ranging from 88.3 to 96.2%). Adoption of telehealth benefits for national, for-profit, special needs plans, and plans in contracts with a low star rating (≤ 3.5) remained relatively lower in 2021 (11.71%, 9.38%, 9.71%, and 8.30%, respectively) but was still much higher than the 2020 levels. Overall, provision of telehealth benefits was slightly higher in plans with more rural enrollees than plans with fewer rural enrollees (4.46%, 4.80%, and 7.42% of plans in the highest, middle, and lowest tertiles of rural enrollees offered no telehealth benefits) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Number and Percent of Medicare Advantage Plans and Medicare Advantage Enrollees by Plan Characteristics and Coverage Status of Any Telehealth Benefits in 2020 and 2021

Plan Enrollee
Characteristics Total, N (N = 3668) Already offered in 2020, % (N = 2107) Newly offered in 2021, % (N = 1342) Not offered, % (N = 219) Total, N (N = 21,827,033) Already offered in 2020, % (N = 15,404,025) Newly offered in 2021, % (N = 5,139,446) Not offered, % (N = 1,282,875
Percent of MA enrollees in rural counties*
Low (0%) 1807 54.18 38.41 7.42 6,994,766 70.18 23.39 6.42
Medium (> 0–13%) 583 58.66 36.54 4.80 6,081,365 69.00 23.27 7.73
High (≥ 14%) 1278 61.50 34.04 4.46 8,750,902 71.98 23.86 4.16
Type
HMO 2543 57.88 35.67 6.45 15,508,831 70.90 22.77 6.33
PPO 1088 56.07 38.88 5.06 6,219,656 70.05 25.11 4.85
Other 37 67.57 32.43 0.00 98,546 52.43 47.57 0.00
Parent company
Non-national 2487 54.80 38.32 6.88 12,589,954 67.10 26.39 6.51
National 1181 63.00 32.94 4.06 9,237,079 75.31 19.67 5.01
Profit status
Non-profit 2751 55.91 39.26 4.83 14,967,876 72.66 22.93 4.41
For-profit 917 62.05 28.57 9.38 6,859,157 66.02 24.89 9.08
Plan monthly premium§
Low ($0) 1653 54.26 39.99 5.75 10,568,816 68.70 25.49 5.81
Medium (> $0–$36) 867 61.59 34.60 3.81 4,612,829 81.77 15.40 2.84
High (≥ $37) 1148 58.89 33.19 7.93 6,645,388 65.78 26.12 8.09
Plan enrollment size
Small (11–936) 1116 48.03 45.25 6.72 325,673 48.70 43.67 7.42
Medium (940–4066) 1261 55.27 38.46 6.26 2,404,989 55.60 38.07 6.33
Large (≥ 4079) 1291 67.70 27.27 5.03 19,096,371 72.83 21.37 5.79
Contract star rating
2.0–3.5 879 43.12 48.58 8.30 4,319,743 52.92 41.85 5.21
4.0–4.5 2088 69.83 25.48 4.69 15,031,371 75.64 17.95 6.41
5.0 190 48.95 45.26 5.79 1,881,040 78.54 17.95 3.51
Missing 511 34.64 58.12 7.24 594,879 45.49 49.73 4.79
Contract start year
< 2006 1790 61.17 32.91 5.92 13,819,304 70.92 22.41 6.67
2006–2013 1017 61.36 33.24 5.41 5,586,914 72.30 24.99 2.69
2014–2020 861 45.06 48.20 6.74 2,420,815 64.59 26.69 8.71
SNP status
Non-SNP 2988 58.10 36.78 5.12 18,634,152 70.91 23.92 5.17
SNP 680 54.56 35.74 9.71 3,192,881 68.61 21.37 10.00

MA, Medicare Advantage; HMO, health maintenance organization; PPO, preferred provider organization; SNP, special needs plan

*MA plans can offer their services in multiple counties. To measure rurality, the proportion of MA enrollees in rural counties was calculated for each plan. Non-metro countries were defined as rural based on the Rural-Urban Continuum Code developed by the Economic Research Service at the US Department of Agriculture. Categories are based on tertiles of the proportion of MA enrollees in rural counties in 2020

Other includes private fee-for-service, cost, or medical savings account plans

National plans were defined if they operated in more than one state

§Categories are based on tertiles of MA plan monthly premium in 2020

Categories are based on tertiles of plan enrollment in 2020

DISCUSSION

Following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an enormous expansion of telehealth benefits in MA plans for 2021. Adoption of these benefits was low before the 2020 benefits year, but has now expanded to nearly all plans, which may suggest the pandemic has accelerated the adoption curve. Our findings are limited in that our enrollment numbers are based on 2020 enrollment, as 2021 enrollment data are not yet available.

Our findings suggest the COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated adoption of telehealth benefits in MA plans. Despite increased coverage, it is unknown how often these services are used by enrollees and if telehealth coverage affects outcomes. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the promise and potential pitfalls of expanded telehealth services.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References


Articles from Journal of General Internal Medicine are provided here courtesy of Society of General Internal Medicine

RESOURCES