ArticleCancer medicine2025
Spillover Effects of Medicare Advantage on Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With Prostate Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMedicare Advantage (MA) managed care plans, now chosen by 51% of Medicare beneficiaries, are incentivized to constrain healthcare spending and utilization, a shift in financial incentives compared to Traditional Medicare's fee-for-service payment model. Beyond its primary beneficiaries, MA's mechanisms to constrain utilization may impact Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer through "spillover" effects on physician behavior.
methodsFrom a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2016 to 2019. We calculated MA penetration [MA beneficiaries/(Traditional Medicare and MA beneficiaries)] at the practice-level. We assessed the relationship between practice-level MA penetration and two measures of quality-potential overtreatment (i.e., treatment among those with > 75% noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis) and confirmatory testing (repeat prostate biopsy, MRI, or genomic test)-using a multilevel logistic regression. We also assessed two measures of utilization, price standardized spending (i.e., global utilization) and overall treatment.
resultsWe identified 41,092 patients. Median practice-level MA penetration was 33% (IQR 23%-43%). Increasing practice-level MA penetration was associated with increased odds of overall treatment among all Traditional Medicare beneficiaries (adjusted OR 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.05), p = 0.01, per 10% increase in MA penetration). However, MA penetration was not associated with our quality measures, potential overtreatment and confirmatory testing, or price-standardized spending.
conclusionsMA penetration at the urology practice-level varies considerably. In men with prostate cancer, greater practice-level MA penetration was associated with increased odds of treatment, but not overall utilization-even where it might influence quality.
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.