Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39428989›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2025

Private Medicare plans' responses to benchmark changes and competition before and after the Affordable Care Act's payment cuts.

Daria Pelech, Zirui Song

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Daria PelechHealth Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9840-8255
Zirui SongHealth Care Policy, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1042-1162

Funding

Tradeoffs in the Design of Public Long-Term Care BenefitsP01AG032952 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI Bruce E. Landon · 2009 to 2026
$39.0M
Arnold VenturesNIA NIH HHS P01 AG032952NIA NIH HHS P01-AG032952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine how private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans responded to slower growth in federal payments after the Affordable Care Act (ACA). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY

settingWe used publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on MA plan subsidies ("benchmarks"), asking prices ("bids"), plan premiums, cost-sharing, and covered benefits. Data covered all counties with MA plans between 2006 through 2019. STUDY

designWe examined plan responses to changes in benchmark subsidies by comparing changes in bids, rebates, and other outcomes between counties experiencing larger changes in benchmarks and counties with smaller changes, pre- and post-ACA. We used longitudinal fixed effects regression models to assess heterogeneity in how plans adjusted premiums and benefits across more and less competitive markets. DATA COLLECTION: Analyses included all counties with at least one MA plan available to individual beneficiaries. Plans targeting special populations were excluded. PRINCIPAL

findingsAverage plan benchmarks fell by $89 per month post-ACA, adjusted for inflation. Plans responded similarly to benchmark subsidy decreases and increases, increasing bids by 62 cents for every dollar increase in subsidies pre-ACA (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.67) and decreasing them by 57 cents for every dollar reduction in subsidies post-ACA (95% CI: 0.49-0.65). However, post-ACA, plans altered less salient benefits, such as cost-sharing, by about twice as much as they had pre-ACA. Premiums changed by similar amounts before and after the ACA (-$0.07, 95% CI: from -$0.09 to -$0.06). Plans in more competitive markets responded less to payment changes than plans did in less competitive markets, suggesting the former are operating closer to marginal costs. Finally, payments to plans declined far less than projected due in part to other changes in MA policy.

conclusionsPlans used partial pass-through of benchmark subsidy decreases to shield beneficiaries from cuts and allocated benchmark decreases to benefits that were less salient to the average enrollee. These findings, combined with higher-than-projected payments post-ACA, may explain the continued growth in MA enrollment.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingEconomic CompetitionMedicare Part CPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActCost SharingHumansUnited Statesaffordable care actcompetitive biddingFederal Subsidiesinsurance marketsMedicare advantagepass‐throughplan behavior

Identifiers

PMID39428989
PMCPMC11911228

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.