Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Abstract Background Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries enroll in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Unlike Traditional Medicare (TM), MA plans coordinate patient care through physician networks and care practices, often relying on Primary Care Providers (PCPs). PCPs also play an important role in diagnosing dementia; the majority of persons living with dementia are diagnosed by PCPs. Studies document that dementia diagnosis rates are lower in MA than TM. There is a gap in knowledge about how barriers to and incentives for diagnosing dementia among physicians in MA and TM impact rates of diagnosis. To examine whether incident dementia diagnosis rates vary for beneficiaries in TM and MA seen by the same Primary Care Provider (PCP). Methods We use propensity score matching and linear regression models, with and without PCP fixed effects, to analyze differences in incident dementia diagnoses in 2017 in MA relative to TM. The analysis includes 100% of Medicare claims for TM and MA beneficiaries who were 65 and over and who were continuously enrolled in Part D and in either TM or MA from 2016 to 2018 or died in 2018. Each beneficiary is assigned to the PCP with whom they have the maximum number of evaluation and management visits in a year. Results Among 15,633,290 beneficiaries with assigned PCPs, the dementia diagnosis rate was 3.12% in TM and 2.78% in MA. Adjusting for patient characteristics, we find that the probability of incident dementia diagnosis was 0.27 percentage points lower for MA patients compared to TM. Adjusting for patient characteristics and PCP, we find that the probability of incident dementia diagnosis was 0.12 percentage points lower (around 4% lower relative to TM mean) for MA patients compared to TM patients assigned to the same PCP. Conclusion We find that even for a matched sample of TM and MA patients with the same PCP, dementiadiagnosis rates are lower in MA relative to TM. Differences in care practices as indicated by access to dementia specialists and incentives for coding dementia diagnosis may contribute to some of the differences in diagnosis rates.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study found that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were slightly less likely to receive a new dementia diagnosis than traditional Medicare beneficiaries seen by the same primary care provider. It is about diagnosis rates, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 33/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 0 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 33 of 100.33 of 100 points earned67 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024
Impact for its field and year 0 / 6 Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Julie Zissimopoulos: h-index 36 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of Southern California: institution h-index 1,521 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 33 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Haye, S., Jacobson, M., & Zissimopoulos, J. (2024). Differences in Dementia Diagnosis Rates in Primary Care in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.089315

Vancouver

Haye S, Jacobson M, Zissimopoulos J. Differences in Dementia Diagnosis Rates in Primary Care in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.089315.

BibTeX

@article{haye2024-6bbd6aad,
  author  = {Haye, Sidra and Jacobson, Mireille and Zissimopoulos, Julie},
  title   = {{Differences in Dementia Diagnosis Rates in Primary Care in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage}},
  journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.089315},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.089315}
}

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →