ArticleMedical care2021
Payment Discrepancies and Access to Primary Care Physicians for Dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries.
Article in Medical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicaid Lesser-of Rules and Disparities in Skilled Nursing Facility Quality.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- State Expansions in Medicaid Financial Assistance for Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries: Changes in Enrollment and Use.Health services research · 2026Article
- Evolving Economics: The Erosion of Medicare Reimbursement in Breast Surgery (2003-2023).Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for Top Burn Surgery Procedures by State Between 2011 and 2022.Cureus · 2024Article
- State Variation in Medicare Reimbursement for the Top 100 Cardiothoracic Surgery Procedures, 2013-2022.Cureus · 2024Article
- The Impact of the Medicaid Reimbursement Bump on Influenza Vaccination Rates Among US Teens: Evidence from the National Immunization Survey-Teen 2011-2020.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians often receive lower payments for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries versus nondual Medicare beneficiaries because of state reimbursement caps. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) primary care fee bump temporarily eliminated this differential in 2013-2014.
objectiveTo examine how dual payment policy impacts primary care physicians' (PCP) acceptance of duals. RESEARCH
designWe assessed differences in the likelihood that PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement using linear probability models adjusted for physician and area-level traits. Using a triple-difference approach, we examined changes in dual caseloads for PCPs versus a control group of specialists in states with fee bumps versus no change during years postbump versus prebump. SUBJECTS: PCPs and specialists (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons) that billed fee-for-service Medicare. MEASURES: State dual payment policies and physicians' dual caseloads as a percentage of their Medicare patients.
resultsIn 2012, 81% of PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% and this was less likely among PCPs in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement (eg, difference=-4.52 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.80 to -2.25). The proportion of PCPs with dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% decreased significantly between 2012 and 2017 and the fee bump was not consistently associated with increases in dual caseloads.
conclusionsPre-ACA, PCPs' participation in the dual program appeared to be lower in states with lower reimbursement for duals. Despite the ACA fee bump, dual caseloads declined over time, raising concerns of worsening access to care.
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.