Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2025
No Association Between Medicare Advantage Providers' Network Restrictiveness and Star Rating Between 2013 and 2017: An Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedicare beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which employs a wide range of practices around restriction of the networks of providers that beneficiaries visit. Though Medicare beneficiaries highly value provider choice, it is unknown whether the MA contract quality metrics which beneficiaries use to inform their contract selection capture the restrictiveness of contracts' provider networks.
objectiveWe evaluated whether there are meaningful associations between provider network restrictiveness (across primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology providers) and contracts' overall star quality rating, as well as between network restrictiveness and contracts' performance on access to care measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.
participantsMedicare Advantage contracts with health maintenance organization (HMO), local preferred provider organization (PPO), and point of service (POS) plans with available data.
designA cross-sectional analysis using multivariable linear regressions to assess the relationship between provider network restrictiveness and contract quality scores in 2013 through 2017. MEASURES: Statistical significance in the relationship between network restrictiveness and contract performance on quality measures.
resultsAcross all study years, we included 562 unique contracts and 2801 contract-years. We find no evidence of consistent relationships between MA physician network restrictiveness and contract star rating. For primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology, respectively, a 10 percentage point increase in restrictiveness was associated with a 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.01 to 0.04), 0.0008 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02), and -0.01 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.001) difference in star rating (p-value > 0.05 for all). Similarly, we find no evidence of consistent relationships between network restrictiveness and access to care measures.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that existing MA contract quality measures are not useful for indicating differences in network restrictiveness. Given the importance of provider choice to beneficiaries, more specific metrics may be needed to facilitate informed decisions about MA coverage.
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.