Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29130269›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2017

Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Performance on Clinical Quality and Patient Experience Measures: Comparisons from Three Large States.

Justin W Timbie, Andy Bogart, Cheryl L Damberg, Marc N Elliott, Ann Haas, Sarah J Gaillot, Elizabeth H Goldstein, Susan M Paddock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Assessing the impact of racial and ethnic disparities on 30-day emergency department visits after hysterectomy: A state-based retrospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Risk equalization and prevention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Justin W TimbieRAND, Arlington, VA.ORCID 0000-0002-9955-5270
Andy BogartRAND, Santa Monica, CA.
Cheryl L DambergRAND, Santa Monica, CA.
Marc N ElliottRAND, Santa Monica, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-7147-5535
Ann HaasRAND, Pittsburgh, PA.
Sarah J GaillotCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD.
Elizabeth H GoldsteinCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD.
Susan M PaddockRAND, Santa Monica, CA.

Funding

HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare performance between Medicare Advantage (MA) and Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare during a time of policy changes affecting both programs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingPerformance data for 16 clinical quality measures and 6 patient experience measures for 9.9 million beneficiaries living in California, New York, and Florida. STUDY

designWe compared MA and FFS performance overall, by plan type, and within service areas associated with contracts between CMS and MA organizations. Case mix-adjusted analyses (for measures not typically adjusted) were used to explore the effect of case mix on MA/FFS differences. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsPerformance measures were submitted by MA organizations, obtained from the nationwide fielding of the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) Survey, or derived from claims. PRINCIPAL

findingsOverall, MA outperformed FFS on all 16 clinical quality measures. Differences were large for HEDIS measures and small for Part D measures and remained after case mix adjustment. MA enrollees reported better experiences overall, but FFS beneficiaries reported better access to care. Relative to FFS, performance gaps were much wider for HMOs than PPOs. Excluding HEDIS measures, MA/FFS differences were much smaller in contract-level comparisons.

conclusionsMedicare Advantage/Fee-for-Service differences are often large but vary in important ways across types of measures and contracts.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMedicareMedicare Part CMedicare Part DMiddle AgedQuality Indicators, Health CareRisk AdjustmentUnited StatesYoung Adultcase mix adjustmentMedicare Advantagepatient experiencequality measurementquality of care

Identifiers

PMID29130269
PMCPMC5682140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.