ArticleHealth economics review2025
Medicare Advantage penetration and the financial distress of rural hospitals.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.