ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2024
Differences in healthcare utilization between enrollees of fully integrated dual eligible special needs plans versus non-fully integrated plans.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2024. 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.
- Older adults living with dementia enrolled in similar Medicare Advantage plans compared to those without dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia. Behavior & socioeconomics of aging · 2025Article
- Medicaid Spending in Coordination-Only Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolicymakers advocate care integration models to enhance Medicare and Medicaid service coordination for dually eligible individuals. One rapidly expanding model is the fully integrated dual eligible (FIDE) plan, a sub-type of the dual eligible special needs plan (D-SNP) in which a parent insurer manages Medicare and Medicaid spending for dually eligible individuals. We examined healthcare utilization differences among dually eligible individuals aged 65 years or older enrolled in D-SNPs by plan type (FIDE vs non-FIDE).
methodsUsing 2018 Medicare Advantage encounters and Medicaid claims of FIDE and non-FIDE enrollees in six states (AZ, CA, FL, NY, TN, WI), we compared healthcare utilization between plan types, adjusting for enrollee characteristics and county indicators. We applied propensity score weighting to address differences between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees.
resultsIn our main analysis, which included all dually eligible individuals in our sample, we observed no significant difference in healthcare utilization between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees. However, we identified some differences in healthcare utilization between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees in subgroup analyses. For example, among home and community-based service (HCBS) users, FIDE plan enrollees had 6.0 fewer hospitalizations per 1000 person-months (95% CI: -7.9, -4.0) and were 7.0 percentage points more likely to be discharged to home (95% CI: 2.6, 11.5) after hospitalization, compared to non-FIDE plan enrollees.
conclusionWhile we found no differences in healthcare utilization between FIDE and non-FIDE plan enrollees when considering all dually eligible individuals in our sample, some differences emerged when focusing on subgroups. For example, HCBS users with FIDE plans had fewer hospitalizations and were more likely to be discharged to their home following hospitalization, compared to HCBS users with non-FIDE plans. These findings suggest that FIDE plans may improve care coordination for specific subsets of dually eligible individuals.
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.