Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31298711›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Perspectives of Medicare Advantage Plan Representatives on Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Response to the CHRONIC Care Act.

Kali S Thomas, Shayla N M Durfey, Emily A Gadbois, David J Meyers, Joan F Brazier, Ellen M McCreedy, Shekinah Fashaw, Terrie Wetle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Telehealth Benefits and Barriers.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Kali S ThomasProvidence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
Shayla N M DurfeyWarren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Emily A GadboisCenter for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
David J MeyersDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Joan F BrazierCenter for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Ellen M McCreedyCenter for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Shekinah FashawDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Terrie WetleCenter for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.

Funding

Evaluating Cash Benefit Programs for Veterans' Long Term CareIK2HX001775 · VA · PROVIDENCE VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI THOMAS, KALI ST. MARIE · 2020 to 2021
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX001775
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The passage of the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act in 2018 allows Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which enroll more than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries, greater flexibility to address members' social determinants of health (SDOH) through supplemental benefits. Objective: To understand MA plan representatives' perspectives on the importance of addressing members' SDOH and their responses to the passage of the CHRONIC Care Act. Design, Setting, and Participants: This semistructured qualitative interview study conducted via telephone from July 6, 2018, to November 7, 2018, included participants from 17 MA plans that collectively enrolled more than 13 million MA members (>65% of the total MA market). Data analysis was conducted from September 18, 2018, to December 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using a modified content analysis approach to identify major themes and subthemes. Results: Thirty-eight participants representing 17 MA plans varying in region, star rating, and size were interviewed. Analysis of interviews revealed 3 key themes. The first theme was that participants increasingly recognize the value of addressing members' SDOH. The second theme was that participants had different perspectives on whether MA plans should directly address SDOH and how to do so. While some reported that they were taking advantage of the increased flexibility provided by the CHRONIC Care Act to design new benefits or partner with community-based organizations, others indicated that it was outside of their purview to directly address members' SDOH. The third theme was that participants described complex decision-making around how to provide supplemental benefits, including a need for evidence, return on investment, strong community partnerships, and guidance from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the changes in MA plans' benefit packages in response to the CHRONIC Care Act and their efforts to address SDOH will vary. Therefore, it is likely that MA enrollees will be differentially affected by the implementation of the CHRONIC Care Act.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareMedicare Part CSocial Determinants of HealthCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Chronic DiseaseHumansInsurance BenefitsQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31298711
PMCPMC6628593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.