Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34263458›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2021

Perceived impacts of a Medicaid rebalancing initiative to increase home- and community-based services.

Daniel Siconolfi, Sangeeta C Ahluwalia, Esther M Friedman, Debra Saliba, Regina A Shih

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Outcomes of Medicaid Rebalancing May Differ Across Enrollee Populations.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Daniel SiconolfiRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7805-5410
Sangeeta C AhluwaliaRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0152-0369
Esther M FriedmanRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6813-6471
Debra SalibaRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Regina A ShihRAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0062-6356

Funding

Evaluating disparities in older adult health, institutionalization, and mortality after implementation of Medicaid's Balancing Incentives ProgramR01MD010360 · NIMHD · RAND CORPORATION · PI SHIH, REGINA A · 2016 to 2020
$4.7M
NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD010360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders' perceived impacts of a Medicaid home- and community-based services (HCBS) rebalancing initiative, the Balancing Incentive Program (BIP). DATA SOURCES: Governmental stakeholders (Medicaid administrators) and nongovernmental stakeholders (service providers and consumer advocates) (n = 30) from eight states that participated in BIP. STUDY

designWe conducted key informant interviews. DATA COLLECTION: Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were professionally transcribed. We thematically coded transcripts using an iterative codebook with a priori and emergent codes. PRINCIPAL

findingsStakeholders reported that BIP participation had a range of impacts on the HCBS ecosystem, often beyond the mandated structural reforms. BIP activities were believed to have changed the culture of HCBS in some states, for example, at the level of state administration or in the provision of HCBS to consumers. Stakeholders also described significant improvements in cross-stakeholder relationships and communication, for example, in the context of troubleshooting consumers' unmet needs or improvements in the states' responsiveness to providers' inquiries. Stakeholders believed that within-state data harmonization undertaken through Core Standardized Assessment (CSA) was a positive impact of BIP, particularly with regard to its utility for administrative data, care planning, and patient-centeredness. Two stakeholders also voiced concerns regarding the validity of spending-based rebalancing metrics. The impacts that stakeholders attributed to BIP may help create a more sustained rebalancing environment through their changes to the ecosystem, including infrastructure upgrades, data harmonization, collaboration across stakeholders and agencies, more patient-centeredness, and greater recognition of HCBS.

conclusionsOur findings highlight additional BIP impacts to monitor over the longer term and to consider in evaluations of future rebalancing efforts. Some potential impacts of BIP are more readily quantified (e.g., HCBS spending), while others are less likely to be formally assessed (e.g., improved stakeholder cooperation). These latter impacts are likely instrumental to future rebalancing efforts.

Indexed as

Stakeholder ParticipationCommunity Health ServicesHome Care ServicesHumansInterviews as TopicLong-Term CareMedicaidQualitative ResearchUnited StatesBalancing Incentive Programcommunity integrationhome- and community-based serviceslong-term careMedicaid

Identifiers

PMID34263458
PMCPMC8586466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.