Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32084263›Full record

ArticleJournal of health politics, policy and law2020

How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?

C Daniel Myers, Edith C Kieffer, A Mark Fendrick, Hyungjin Myra Kim, Karen Calhoun, Lisa Szymecko, Lynnette LaHahnn, Charo Ledón, Marion Danis, Zachary Rowe and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health politics, policy and law, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Deliberating at a Distance: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Fully Virtual CHAT Exercise Among Low-Income Communities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

C Daniel MyersUniversity of Minnesota.
Edith C KiefferUniversity of Michigan.
A Mark FendrickUniversity of Michigan.
Hyungjin Myra KimUniversity of Michigan.
Karen CalhounMichigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research.
Lisa SzymeckoMichigan State University.
Lynnette LaHahnnCor de Holistic Care.
Charo LedónAcción Buenos Vecinos.
Marion DanisNational Institutes of Health.
Zachary RoweFriends of Parkside.
Susan Dorr GooldUniversity of Michigan.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R21 HS023566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextMedicaid plays a critical role in low-income, minority, and medically underserved communities, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Yet, the voices of underresourced communities are often unheard in decisions about how to allocate Medicaid's scarce resources, and traditional methods of public engagement are poorly suited to gathering such input. We argue that deliberative public engagement can be a useful tool for involving communities in setting Medicaid priorities.

methodWe engaged 209 residents of low-income, medically underserved Michigan communities in discussions about Medicaid spending priorities using an exercise in informed deliberation: CHAT (CHoosing All Together). Participants learned about Medicaid, deliberated in small groups, and set priorities both individually and collectively.

findingsParticipants prioritized broad eligibility consistent with the ACA expansion, accepted some cost sharing, and prioritized spending in areas-including mental health-that are historically underfunded. Participants allocated less funding beyond benefit coverage, such as spending on healthy communities. Participants perceived the deliberative process as fair and informative, and they supported using it in the policy-making process.

conclusionThe choices of participants from low-income, medically underserved communities reflect a unique set of priorities and suggest that engaging low-income communities more deeply in Medicaid policy making might result in different prioritization decisions.

Indexed as

MedicaidPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActEligibility DeterminationHumansPolicy MakingPovertyUnited StatesdeliberationMedicaidpublic engagementpublic opinionstate policy making

Identifiers

PMID32084263
PMCPMC9450686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.