Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42577772›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026

Unattributed Medicare beneficiaries have greater social disadvantage than those linked to primary care physicians.

Katherine M Ianni, Laura A Hatfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katherine M IanniDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10022, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-6497
Laura A HatfieldStatistics & Data Science Department, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0366-3929

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS028985
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Attributing patients to physicians using claims data is a key design feature of most payment and delivery models. However, claims-based attribution makes model participants less representative by excluding beneficiaries who use less care. Methods: We used the attribution methodology from the largest completed primary care model, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+), to describe differences in attributable and unattributable Medicare beneficiaries living in CPC + regions from 2016 to 2021. Results: Unattributed beneficiaries were more male (56% vs 43%), eligible for the low-income drug subsidy (15% vs 12%), dual eligible (13% vs 10%), and non-White (22% vs 15%). Conclusion: Tests of models that use claims-based attribution may fail to generate evidence relevant to underserved groups. Policymakers should consider attribution designs that could improve representativeness of model test populations.

Indexed as

alternative payment modelshealth equityMedicarepayment reform

Identifiers

PMID42577772
PMCPMC13455352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.