Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30091862›Full record

ArticleThe American economic review2018

Do Larger Health Insurance Subsidies Benefit Patients or Producers? Evidence from Medicare Advantage.

Marika Cabral, Michael Geruso, Neale Mahoney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American economic review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Healthcare Rationing in Public Insurance Programs: Evidence from Medicaid.American economic journal. Economic policy · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Effects of establishing a financing scheme for outpatient care on inpatient services: empirical evidence from a quasi-experiment in China.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Marika CabralDepartment of Economics, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Austin, TX 78712
Michael GerusoDepartment of Economics, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Austin, TX 78712
Neale MahoneyUniversity of Chicago Booth School of Business, 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637

Funding

Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARK D. HAYWARD · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A central question in the debate over privatized Medicare is whether increased government payments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans generate lower premiums for consumers or higher profits for producers. Using difference‑in‑differences variation brought about by a sharp legislative change, we find that MA insurers pass through 45 percent of increased payments in lower premiums and an additional 9 percent in more generous benefits. We show that advantageous selection into MA cannot explain this incomplete pass‑through. Instead, our evidence suggests that market power is important, with premium pass‑through rates of 13 percent in the least competitive markets and 74 percent in the most competitive.

Indexed as

Capitation FeeCost SharingHumansInsurance BenefitsInsurance CarriersMedicare Part CModels, EconometricUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30091862
PMCPMC10782851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.