Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38756175›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024

Comparing HEDIS performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans with other coverage types for dually eligible people.

Amelia M Haviland, Megan Mathews, Steven C Martino, Yvette Overton, Jacob W Dembosky, Jessica Maksut, Marc N Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Amelia M HavilandRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1068-4031
Megan MathewsRAND Corporation, Arlington, VA 22202, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8813-6847
Steven C MartinoRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1514-4133
Yvette OvertonOffice of Minority Health, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD 21244United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8066-9160
Jacob W DemboskyRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8229-7914
Jessica MaksutOffice of Minority Health, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD 21244United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8551-8930
Marc N ElliottRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90401, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage ("dually eligible individuals") have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their 3 most common Medicare coverage options are Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these 3 coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on 6 HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files). D-SNPs and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all 6 measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for 2 measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other 4 measures. For the 4 measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNPs than in non-D-SNP MA plans.

Indexed as

clinical caredual eligibleHEDISMedicarespecial needs plan

Identifiers

PMID38756175
PMCPMC11034528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.