ArticleHealth services research2026
Medicare Advantage's Provision of Expanded Supplemental Benefits and Acute Care Utilization.
Article in Health services research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans' provision of expanded supplemental benefits reduces enrollees' acute care utilization. Expanded supplemental benefits included non-medical primarily health-related (PHR) benefits such as in-home support services, starting in 2019, and Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI) such as food security and housing quality benefits, starting in 2020. STUDY SETTING AND
designQuasi-experimental design using staggered difference-in-differences models. We created indicators for offering the following benefits: Any expanded PHR, ≥ 2 expanded PHR, any SSBCI, and ≥ 2 SSBCI. Acute care utilization was measured by three binary indicators of adverse health events: annual emergency department (ED) use, hospitalizations, and re-admissions. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used 2017-2022 MA encounter data from a random 20% sample of enrollees. We estimated separate models for each benefit indicator, for all non-dual and all dual-eligible enrollees, and for highly frail patients within each non-dual and dual-eligible group. We used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics between treatment and control groups. PRINCIPAL
findingsOffering expanded supplemental benefits did not generally reduce acute care utilization in all non-dual or all dual-eligible enrollees. A few significant effects were relatively small or were not robust to potential differential trends between benefit-offering and not-offering plans. However, among highly frail non-dual enrollees, offering any PHR reduced re-admissions by -2.82 percentage points (95% CI: -4.78, -0.86), offering ≥ 2 expanded PHR reduced hospitalizations by -1.79 percentage points (95% CI: -2.61, -0.98) and ED use by -1.76 percentage points (95% CI: -2.38, -1.14), and offering ≥ 2 SSBCI reduced ED use by -3.51 percentage points (95% CI: -4.96, -2.05) and hospitalizations by -2.05 percentage points (95% CI: -3.12, -0.099).
conclusionsProvision of expanded supplemental benefits may reduce acute care utilization for certain enrollees. As spending on MA supplemental benefits rises, continued efforts are needed to assess impacts of those benefits.
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.