ArticleHealth services research2020
A polling experiment on public opinion on the future expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.
Article in Health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Framing social policy preferences: A scoping review and research agenda.Open research Europe · 2025Review
- A polling experiment on public opinion on the future expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.Health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a polling experiment to understand the possible framing effects that drive constituents' views around Medicare For All (MFA) and Medicaid Buy-In (MBI). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
settingFive thousand and fifty-one US adults aged 18 and older were recruited to participate in an online poll conducted between September 12, 2018, and September 26, 2018. STUDY
designParticipants were randomized to receive one of four polls: (a) a poll measuring respondent approval for MFA, with the name of the proposal stated with a description; (b) a poll measuring approval for MFA, with only a description of the proposal; (c) a poll measuring approval for MBI, with the name stated with a description; or (d) a poll measuring approval for MBI, with only a description. PRINCIPAL
findingsIncluding the names "Medicare For All" and "Medicaid Buy-In" increases approval by 3.4 (from 32.7 percent to 36.1 percent) and 5.0 (from 50.1 percent to 55.1 percent) percentage points, respectively. Support varies by age, where MBI is most strongly supported by Millennials, while Baby Boomers and those older than 65 are more likely to support MFA.
conclusionsConstituents are more likely to support a proposal when given the names of the proposal. Approval is also higher for health policies that are framed as expansions of existing policies than as new programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.