Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39701605›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2025

Transporting difference-in-differences estimates to assess health equity impacts of payment and delivery models.

Katherine Ianni, Alyssa Chen, Daniela Rodrigues, Laura A Hatfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Katherine IanniHarvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Alyssa ChenDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniela RodriguesDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Laura A HatfieldStatistics and Data Science, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0366-3929

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS028985AHRQ HHS R01HS028985
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo demonstrate the use of transportability methods to extend findings from payment model evaluations to groups of historically underserved beneficiaries. STUDY SETTING AND

designWe used a simulation study to transport the effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model to a target population of Black fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries living outside the original 18 CPC+ regions. Our main outcome variable was total Medicare spending per beneficiary per year (pbpy). DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We simulated practice-level spending in 18 CPC+ regions and 32 non-CPC+ regions (1200 practices per region). We calibrated the simulation parameters to values from the literature and then varied four key parameters to create 16 realistic simulation scenarios. These scenarios varied the representativeness of practices in CPC+ regions that joined CPC+ (i.e., the sample) relative to the target population by changing the distribution of Black beneficiaries across practices and the distribution of practices across regions. Practices were characterized by their experience with the Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP) and system/hospital ownership because these are known to modify the effect of CPC+ on spending. PRINCIPAL

findingsAcross the 16 simulation scenarios, transporting the treatment effect of CPC+ to Black FFS beneficiaries in non-CPC+ regions yielded median treatment effects that ranged from $15.5 pbpy smaller to $10 pbpy larger than in the sample. These differences are roughly the same magnitude as the estimated overall effect of $13 pbpy.

conclusionsThe Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has pledged to put equity at the center of its demonstration models. However, offering models in limited geographic areas with voluntary provider participation may result in unrepresentative samples. Naively generalizing CPC+ effects from geographically limited, voluntary samples to all Black FFS beneficiaries could be misleading. Under some circumstances, transportability methods can be used to estimate effects in this target population.

Indexed as

Fee-for-Service PlansHealth EquityHealth ExpendituresMedicareModels, EconomicPrimary Health CareBlack or African AmericanHumansUnited Statesbiostatistical methodsevaluation design and researchhealth equityMedicareobservational data/quasi‐experimentsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID39701605
PMCPMC12047698

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.