ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Characteristics of urologists participating in Medicare Advantage networks and implications for prostate cancer care.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) has expanded rapidly and MA plans may rely on selective provider networks to manage utilization. While selective contracting has been described for primary care physicians, less is known about how MA networks are constructed for surgical specialists such as urologists, who manage common and costly conditions including prostate cancer. Methods: We conducted a national observational study using a 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims (2016 to 2021) linked to 2021 MA network data. We identified 9124 urologists practicing in hospital referral regions (HRRs) with at least 1 MA network. Urologists were classified as in-network or out-of-network within each network HRR and further categorized by network breadth, defined as narrow (<30% of local urologists) or broad. Outcomes were weighted by network enrollment and included urologist characteristics, prostate cancer-related and benign procedure volume, and 2 claims-based quality measures: use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to prostate biopsy and consultation with radiation oncology after new prostate cancer diagnosis. Results: Among 9124 urologists, 98% participated in at least 1 MA network. Across 7516 network-HRR combinations, networks included a mean (SD) of 42 (47) urologists, with inclusion ranging from 9% to 100% of local urologists. Compared with the average urologist excluded from a network in the HRR, the average in-network urologist had a higher annual patient volume (107 vs 95; Conclusion: MA urology networks vary widely in breadth and composition. Narrow networks are associated with distinct prostate cancer management patterns that may have implications for access and quality, underscoring the need to assess specialty network adequacy standards.
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.