ArticleJAMA health forum2024
Nationwide Availability of and Enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans With Exclusively Aligned Enrollment.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2024. 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.
- Palliative Care for Advanced Cancer in Medicare Advantage and Physician Networks.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Medicare and Medicaid Plan Integration Among Dual-Eligible Individuals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Characteristics Across Dual-Eligible Medicare Advantage Plan Types.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Outcomes for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries With Dementia in Special Needs Plans and Other Medicare Advantage Plans.JAMA network open · 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
Importance: In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services designated a new category of dual-eligible special needs plans (D-SNPs) with exclusively aligned enrollment (receive Medicare and Medicaid benefits through the same plan or affiliated plans within the same organization). Objective: To assess the availability of and enrollment in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment and to compare the characteristics of beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment available vs beneficiaries without such enrollment available. Design, Setting, and Participants: Full-benefit beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs for 6 months or longer in 2021 or 2022. Availability of and beneficiary enrollment in D-SNPs were assessed by year and county for D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment available vs D-SNPs without exclusively aligned enrollment available. The D-SNP enrollees residing in counties with aligned plans available were compared based on demographic, social, health, and area characteristics vs D-SNP enrollees in counties without such plans available. Comparisons were also made based on beneficiaries who enrolled in the aligned D-SNPs vs those who did not enroll (were enrolled in unaligned D-SNPs). The data analyses were conducted from October 1, 2023, to August 2, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability of aligned D-SNPs and beneficiary residence by county; enrollment in exclusively aligned D-SNPs vs unaligned D-SNPs; and beneficiary demographic, social, health, and area characteristics. Results: Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. Of 2 689 045 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2022, 1 047 223 (38.9%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 318 906 (11.9%) enrolled. Beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs residing in counties without aligned enrollment available were more likely to live in rural or micropolitan areas (21.9%) vs beneficiaries in counties with aligned enrollment available (8.1%) (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.38-0.38]), be entitled to disability (44.4% vs 27.3%, respectively; SMD, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.36-0.36]), or be Black individuals (27.4% vs 21.4%; SMD, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.14-0.14]); were less likely to be Hispanic individuals (15.4% vs 33.7%; SMD, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.45-0.45]) or Asian or Pacific Islander individuals (6.1% vs 12.2%; SMD, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.22-0.22]); and lived in zip codes with a higher area deprivation index (mean, 66.8 [SD, 26.4] vs mean, 43.2 [SD, 29.0]; SMD, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.86-0.86]). Beneficiaries enrolled in aligned D-SNPs were more likely to be receiving long-term institutionalized care vs beneficiaries in nonaligned D-SNPs (4.3% vs 1.0%, respectively; SMD, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.24-0.25]) or have dementia or Alzheimer disease (9.2% vs 5.9%; SMD, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.13-0.13]). Conclusions: This study found that availability of and enrollment in D-SNPs with exclusively aligned enrollment are increasing, but the overall proportion enrolled remains low. Further reforms are needed to promote aligned enrollment.
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.