ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025
Impact of a multi-payer full-risk model on preserving primary care access for traditional medicare beneficiaries.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Amid growing primary care shortages and increased use of value-based care (VBC), we evaluated whether adopting a multipayer, full-risk VBC model for Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries-supported by an enablement organization-affected primary care providers' (PCPs) acceptance of new patients with TM insurance. Methods: Using a difference-in-differences analysis of 2019-2023 claims, we compared 2 groups of PCPs with at least 50 TM patients in their panels: 208 PCPs who received support to adopt a VBC model for TM and Medicare Advantage patients in 2022, and 3657 similar PCPs who maintained their existing payment models.Between the preadoption period and 2023, access to new patient visits for patients with TM insurance declined more for nonadopters than adopters. Results: Primary care providers' in the VBC group saw, on average, 8 more new TM patients annually than nonadopters. This change is sizable relative to their 22.6 new TM patients in 2023. Additionally, the VBC group kept their panels open to new patients with TM insurance for 0.7 more months per year, on average, than nonadopters, relative to preadoption. Conclusion: These findings suggest that a VBC model with support may help sustain access to primary care for TM beneficiaries, even as overall availability declines.
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.