Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39384529›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2025

Financial burden of care greatest among rural beneficiaries in Medicare advantage.

Sungchul Park, David J Meyers, Yubin Park, Amal N Trivedi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Sungchul ParkDepartment of Health Policy and Management, College of Health Science, Korea University, BK21 FOUR R&E Center for Learning Health Systems, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-9685
David J MeyersDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-1751
Yubin ParkDepartment of Computer Science, College of Arts and Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Amal N TrivediDepartment of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Center of Innovation for Long-term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9695-4727

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine differences in access to care and financial burden between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries in rural and urban areas and then explore whether there were potential differences in MA benefits between urban and rural areas. STUDY SETTING AND

designWe conducted a cross-sectional study within the Medicare setting in the United States. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTICAL SAMPLE: Data from three distinct sources for 2017-2021: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, the MA landscape data, and the Plan Benefit Package data. Our sample comprised 43,343 Medicare beneficiary-years, including TM and MA beneficiaries in urban and rural areas. PRINCIPAL

findingsOur adjusted analysis showed that rural MA beneficiaries experienced higher rates of delayed care due to costs (10.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.8-11.1]) compared with rural TM (9.5% [8.8-10.2]), urban MA (7.9% [7.4-8.4]), and urban TM (7.9% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. Similarly, rural MA beneficiaries (11.4% [95% CI: 10.3-12.5]) reported more difficulty paying medical bills compared with rural TM (9.4% [8.7-10.1]), urban MA (8.1% [7.7-8.6]), and urban TM (7.8% [7.5-8.2]) beneficiaries. This disparity was associated with less generous financial structures in rural MA plans. Compared to urban MA plans, rural MA plans offered lower out-of-pocket maximums for in-network care ($5918 vs. $5439), but required higher copayments ($1686 vs. $1724 for a 5-day hospitalization, $37 vs. $41 for a specialist visit, and $35 vs. $38 for a mental health visit). However, differences in quality of care and provision of supplemental benefits were small.

conclusionRural Medicare beneficiaries reported a greater financial burden of care than urban Medicare beneficiaries, but the most significant burden was observed among MA beneficiaries in rural areas. One possible mechanism could be the less generous financial structures offered by rural MA plans. These findings suggest the need for policies addressing the affordability of care for rural MA beneficiaries.

Indexed as

Health ExpendituresHealth Services AccessibilityMedicare Part CRural PopulationAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMedicareUnited StatesUrban Populationaccess to carefinancial burden of careMedicareMedicare advantagerural residencetraditional Medicare

Identifiers

PMID39384529
PMCPMC12120509

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.