ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2026
Increasing the Probability of Comparing Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2026. 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.
- Comparing US medicare coverage options as a contributing mechanism to sticking or switching to an insurance plan.BMC health services research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHaving knowledge of out-of-pocket cost and access to services constitutes an advanced level of health literacy within the Medicare population. The cost and services offered within Medicare change annually, yet less than 30% of beneficiaries compare their coverage options (between traditional or fee-for-service Medicare and Medicare Advantage)-an important application of health care knowledge. Failure to compare can expose the financing of the Medicare program and the beneficiary to financial risk if a beneficiary has not elected a coverage option that best suits their individual needs. The factors driving beneficiaries to compare are poorly understood.
objectiveOur objective was to examine the association between different levels of information reviewed (exposure) and comparing coverage (outcome).
methodsThis pooled cross-sectional study included 28,924 Medicare beneficiaries using data from the 2019-2021 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Multivariable probit regressions were performed using Stata version 18. KEY
resultsReviewing both cost and service information increased the probability of comparing coverage by 159% (44.4 percentage points). Exposure to service-only information increased the probability of comparing coverage by 97% (27.2 percentage points) and 68% (19.1 percentage points) for cost-only information, relative to those who reviewed neither cost nor service information. Forty-seven percent of beneficiaries did not review cost nor service information, followed by 39% who reviewed both, 8% cost-only, and 6% service-only. The probability of comparing coverage increased by 8.2% (2.3 percentage points) for beneficiaries who reviewed both cost and service information and those who had an education greater than high school.
conclusionA targeted outreach and education campaign geared toward increasing the type of information reviewed could result in an increase in comparing Medicare coverage options.
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.