Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39937338›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2025

Medicare Advantage penetration and the financial distress of rural hospitals.

Guido Cataife, Siying Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Guido CataifeHealth Division, American Institutes for Research, 1400 Crystal Drive, 10th Floor, Arlington, VA, 22202-3289, USA.
Siying LiuHealth Division, American Institutes for Research, 1400 Crystal Drive, 10th Floor, Arlington, VA, 22202-3289, USA. sliu@air.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1621-6781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedicare Advantage (MA) penetration rates have shown an increase in rural areas in the past decade, increasing the bargaining power of MA plans relative to rural hospitals. We study the effect that this increase has had in the revenue of rural hospitals through reductions in the number of inpatient days paid by the plans, which has been reported to be part of the financial bargaining between the two parties.

methodsWe use 2014-2020 hospital level data from the American Hospital Association's annual survey and county-level MA penetration rates. We estimate the correlation between MA penetration rates and Medicare and non-Medicare inpatient days using multivariate regressions with hospital and year fixed effects. We use results for urban areas where competition among multiple MA sponsors reduces their individual bargaining power as a falsification test.

resultsWe find that a 10 percentage points increase in the county-level MA penetration rate is associated with a decrease of 0.87% inpatient days paid to rural hospitals, which unveils a new main factor affecting the fragile finances of rural hospitals. Consistent with our hypothesis, urban hospitals do not exhibit similar effects, underscoring the role of MA plans in rural areas.

conclusionsAs MA plans increase their penetration in rural areas, their bargaining power increases relative to rural hospitals. MA plans use this increased bargaining power to reduce the number of paid inpatient days, which creates adverse financial conditions for rural hospitals. Policymakers can safeguard rural hospitals by modifying the fee-for-service prices received by rural hospitals or strengthening the network adequacy criteria of MA plans for rural areas.

Indexed as

BargainingHospital closureHospital financeMedicare AdvantageRural hospitals

Identifiers

PMID39937338
PMCPMC11817615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.