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.

53/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Analysis included a total of 121 145 patients in non-D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 173 662 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.8] years; 122 565 female [70.6%]; 6078 Asian [3.5%], 34 150 Black [19.7%], 37 580 Hispanic [21.6%], 95 854 White [55.2%]) and 78 166 patients in D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 122 681 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.0] years; 87 329 female [71.2%]; 10 530 Asian [8.6%], 33 280 Black [27.1%], 43 294 Hispanic [35.3%], 35 577 White [29.0%]). Dual-eligible enrollees with ADRD had a preventable hospitalization rate of 10.8% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.4%), a 30-day readmission rate of 22.3% (95% CI, 21.6%-22.9%), and an avoidable ED visit rate of 21.1% (95% CI, 20.3-21.9) in D-SNPs. These rates were 11.1% (95% CI, 10.7%-11.5%), 23.6% (95% CI, 22.9%-24.3%), and 20.8% (95% CI, 20.1%-21.6%) in non-D-SNP MA plans. There were no statistical differences in rates of preventable hospitalizations or avoidable ED visits between dual-eligible enrollees with ADRD in D-SNPs and those in non-D-SNP MA plans. Compared with non-D-SNPs, enrollees in FIDE SNPs had lower probabilities of preventable hospitalizations by 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, -2.7 to -0.2 percentage points) and 30-day readmissions by 7.2 percentage points (95% CI, -9.3 to -5.1 percentage points). Conclusions and Relevance: Dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD enrolled in D-SNPs and non-D-SNP MA plans had similar rates of adverse events. Dual-eligible beneficiaries with ADRD may benefit from enrollment in more coordinated MA plans, such as FIDE SNPs, by lowering unnecessary hospitalizations.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

This is a cross-sectional study of 121 participants. This study compared outcomes for dual-eligible beneficiaries with dementia in different types of Medicare Advantage plans and found no statistical differences in preventable hospitalizations or avoidable emergency department visits between D-SNPs and non-D-SNP plans. Reported effect size: 70.6%; 3.5%; 19.7%.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Xu, W., Raver, E., Carlin, C., Feldman, R. D., Retchin, S. M., & Jung, J. K. (2025). Outcomes for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries With Dementia in Special Needs Plans and Other Medicare Advantage Plans. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61219

Vancouver

Xu W, Raver E, Carlin C, Feldman RD, Retchin SM, Jung JK. Outcomes for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries With Dementia in Special Needs Plans and Other Medicare Advantage Plans. JAMA Network Open. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61219. PMID: 39982721.

BibTeX

@article{xu2025-39982721,
  author  = {Xu, Wendy and Raver, Eli and Carlin, Caroline and Feldman, Roger D and Retchin, Sheldon M. and Jung, Jeah Kyoungrae},
  title   = {{Outcomes for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries With Dementia in Special Needs Plans and Other Medicare Advantage Plans}},
  journal = {JAMA Network Open},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61219},
  pmid    = {39982721},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61219}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record lists 121 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “70.6%; 3.5%; 19.7%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Analysis included a total of 121 145 patients in non-D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 173 662 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.8] years; 122 565 female [70.6%]; 6078 Asian [3.5%], 34 150 Black [19.7%], 37 580 Hispanic [21.6%], 95 854 White [55.2%]) and 78 166 patients in D-SNP plans with an enrollment of 122 681 patient-years (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [8.0] years; 87 329 female [71.2%]; 10 530 Asian [8.6%], 33 280 Black [27.1%], 43 294 Hispanic [35.3%], 35 577 White [29.0%]).
Dual-eligible enrollees with ADRD had a preventable hospitalization rate of 10.8% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.4%), a 30-day readmission rate of 22.3% (95% CI, 21.6%-22.9%), and an avoidable ED visit rate of 21.1% (95% CI, 20.3-21.9) in D-SNPs.
These rates were 11.1% (95% CI, 10.7%-11.5%), 23.6% (95% CI, 22.9%-24.3%), and 20.8% (95% CI, 20.1%-21.6%) in non-D-SNP MA plans.
There were no statistical differences in rates of preventable hospitalizations or avoidable ED visits between dual-eligible enrollees with ADRD in D-SNPs and those in non-D-SNP MA plans.
Compared with non-D-SNPs, enrollees in FIDE SNPs had lower probabilities of preventable hospitalizations by 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, -2.7 to -0.2 percentage points) and 30-day readmissions by 7.2 percentage points (95% CI, -9.3 to -5.1 percentage points).

Why it matters

This study compared outcomes for dual-eligible beneficiaries with dementia in different types of Medicare Advantage plans and found no statistical differences in preventable hospitalizations or avoidable emergency department visits between D-SNPs and non-D-SNP plans. It does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease, though it found lower rates of preventable hospitalizations and readmissions in FIDE SNPs.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants121
Effect size70.6%; 3.5%; 19.7%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 53/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA Network Open)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Network Open: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	121 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 6 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	2.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 5.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 6 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Jeah Kyoungrae Jung: h-index 16 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Minnesota: institution h-index 1,568 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39982721)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	53 / 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 in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

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

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 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 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →