Observational studyHealth services research2026
Comparing Health Care Utilization Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare by Dementia Status: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis.
Observational study 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare health care utilization between Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries, stratified by Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) status. STUDY SETTING AND
designRepeated cross-sectional observational analysis of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years continuously enrolled in MA or TM. Eight self- or proxy-reported binary utilization outcomes over a 12-month reference period were estimated by survey-weighted linear probability models stratified by ADRD status. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: Secondary analysis of pooled 2018-2022 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) public use files (N = 43,995: 974 TM and 954 MA with ADRD; 23,050 TM and 19,017 MA without ADRD), excluding beneficiaries entitled through disability or end-stage renal disease and records with missing covariates. Dual-eligible beneficiaries were retained and dual eligibility included as a covariate. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights multiplied by MCBS full-sample weights addressed non-random MA enrollment. PRINCIPAL
findingsAmong beneficiaries with ADRD, seven of eight adjusted MA - TM differences were not statistically significant. Specialist visits were more common among MA beneficiaries with ADRD (5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 10.2). Among beneficiaries without ADRD, MA was associated with lower outpatient hospital visits (-2.6; -3.7 to -1.6) and lower reported need for home health visits (-0.9; -1.5 to -0.3). Effect modification by ADRD status was significant only for specialist visits (interaction 6.3 percentage points; p = 0.004).
conclusionsAdjusted health care utilization was broadly comparable between MA and TM for beneficiaries with ADRD, with the exception of higher specialist use in MA. Among beneficiaries without ADRD, MA was associated with lower outpatient hospital use. Plan-type differences were smaller and fewer for beneficiaries with ADRD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42885186What 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.