The Effect of COVID-19 on Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries: A Scoping Review.
Sarah J Marks, Natalie M Davoodi, Robbie Felton and 2 others
PMID 37696498WHAT IT FOUND
Dual eligible older adults and people with disabilities had mixed pandemic outcomes: more hospitalizations and deaths in some studies, but less social disconnection in others, with worse food insecurity among those with disabilities.
Key findings
01Across fifteen included studies, dual eligibles had poorer outcomes in nine studies and same or better outcomes in six studies.
02Dual eligibles had higher odds of COVID-19 hospitalization and higher odds of dying from COVID-19 in some studies.
03Dual eligibles with disabilities were more likely to report food insecurity, anxiety, and depression, while some general dual eligible samples reported less social disconnection than non-dual eligibles.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review did not follow a registered protocol, and it searched only PubMed and CINAHL for US English-language studies. The included studies measured different populations and outcomes, so results cannot be combined into one conclusion about all dual eligibles. No included study was specific to dual eligible beneficiaries; dual eligibility was often only a subgroup within larger Medicare samples. Several studies used claims data, which may miss events, and survey studies were subject to sampling and acquiescence bias. There was insufficient published data on integrated Medicare-Medicaid plans, so the review could not evaluate those programs.
Declared interests
Two authors are officers of Intus Care, a technology company that provides services to Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that dual eligibility causes worse outcomes or that integrated care plans work. The review included no studies specific to dual eligibles, and results varied by setting, outcome, and subgroup.