ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)2025
Medigap Regulations Provide Protections For Beneficiaries, Especially After Health Shocks, But May Raise Premiums.
Article in Health affairs (Project Hope), 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.
- Medicare Advantage Beneficiary Enrollment Decisions Following New Complex Conditions.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regulations for guaranteed issue and community rating for Medigap (supplemental) plans protect Medicare beneficiaries who want to leave the Medicare Advantage program from medical underwriting. These regulations, adopted in a handful of states, may be particularly valuable for beneficiaries with health shocks, defined as being newly diagnosed with a serious illness. Using a 20 percent random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from the period 2015-19, we found that disenrollment by those with health shocks was 2.75 percent in states with both regulations compared to 1.42 percent in states with neither regulation. The analogous estimates were 1.49 percent and 1.28 percent for those without health shocks. Whether these regulations are, on balance, beneficial depends on how one weighs the protection from underwriting against other consequences (such as higher Medigap premiums for low-risk beneficiaries).
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.