Medicare Coverage Choice Is Not Neutral: How Policy Design Shapes Beneficiary Enrollment

Clicks: 17
ID: 313634
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #99 of 168 articles by views in Health Affairs Scholar

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 168 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Medicare enrollment has shifted substantially toward Medicare Advantage (MA), rising from 33% in 2016 to over half of beneficiaries by 2025. While often interpreted as reflecting beneficiary preference, Medicare coverage choice is not neutral; policy design systematically advantages MA at the point of enrollment. Medicare’s choice architecture concentrates salient financial protections and supplemental benefits within MA while deferring the consequences of managed care restrictions as future considerations, when switching options are limited. We identify three domains that create structural asymmetries between MA and Traditional Medicare (TM): affordability and benefit offerings, integrated plan design, and information and marketing. Together, these features make MA’s advantages more visible at enrollment, through out-of-pocket caps, supplemental benefits, streamlined coverage, and third-party steering, while TM remains comparatively fragmented. We outline policy options to address these imbalances, including introducing an out-of-pocket cap in TM, expanding benefits, simplifying coverage design, improving decision and support tools, and strengthening oversight of marketing and brokerage practices. Leveling the playing field is not about steering beneficiaries toward TM or MA, but about ensuring that Medicare’s growing reliance on enrollee choice rests on a foundation of comparability, transparency, and informed decision-making.
Reference Key
openalex_W7161006021 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Angela Liu, Isabelle Jouve
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Health Affairs Scholar
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/haschl/qxag113
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag113
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.