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 32 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Incident dementia diagnoses increased in MA relative to traditional Medicare, despite an overall downward trend in diagnosis rates. Increases were larger among enrollees in MA health maintenance organization plans (20.8%) than in preferred provider organization plans (7.6%) and varied across insurers, ranging from 7.2% (United Healthcare) to 21.6% (Kaiser Permanente). Increases were more pronounced in urban than in rural areas. Reintroducing ADRD into the MA risk-adjustment model was associated with increased diagnostic coding, with substantial variation across plan types, insurers, and geographic contexts. Because ADRD diagnoses increase risk-adjusted payments, larger increases across some plans may reflect coding practices rather than true disease prevalence, highlighting the need for closer monitoring.

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

APA 7th

Haye, S., Jacobson, M., & Zissimopoulos, J. (2026). Heterogeneous responses to risk-adjustment reform: evidence from dementia diagnosis in Medicare Advantage. Health Affairs Scholar. https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag167

Vancouver

Haye S, Jacobson M, Zissimopoulos J. Heterogeneous responses to risk-adjustment reform: evidence from dementia diagnosis in Medicare Advantage. Health Affairs Scholar. 2026. doi:10.1093/haschl/qxag167. PMID: 42516522.

BibTeX

@article{haye2026-42516522,
  author  = {Haye, Sidra and Jacobson, Mireille and Zissimopoulos, Julie},
  title   = {{Heterogeneous responses to risk-adjustment reform: evidence from dementia diagnosis in Medicare Advantage}},
  journal = {Health Affairs Scholar},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1093/haschl/qxag167},
  pmid    = {42516522},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag167}
}

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.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study found that new dementia diagnoses in Medicare Advantage increased after Alzheimer's disease and related dementias were reintroduced into the risk adjustment model, with variation across plan types and insurers. It notes that larger increases may reflect coding practices rather than true disease prevalence, and it is not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 32/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 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 left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 31 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 32 of 100. Total 32 of 100.31 of the 96 points we could judge = 32 of 100

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. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 31 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 32 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Health Affairs Scholar)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Health Affairs Scholar: journal h-index 21 (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 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 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 2 year(s) since 2026
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 — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Julie Zissimopoulos holds only 5 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
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 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42516522)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 31 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 32 out of 100.
Total 32 / 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).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

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 →