Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39841476›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Medicaid Spending in Coordination-Only Dual-Eligible Special Needs Plans.

Neto Coulibaly, Kelley A Jones, Valerie A Smith, Megan Shepherd-Banigan, Michelle Scotton Franklin, Courtney H Van Houtven, M Kate Bundorf, Brystana G Kaufman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Neto CoulibalyBrown University School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Kelley A JonesDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Valerie A SmithDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Megan Shepherd-BaniganDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Michelle Scotton FranklinDuke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Courtney H Van HoutvenDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
M Kate BundorfDuke Margolis Institute for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Brystana G KaufmanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: More than 4 million Medicare beneficiaries have enrolled in dual-eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs), and coordination-only D-SNPs are common. Little is known about the impact of coordination-only D-SNPs on Medicaid-covered services and spending, including long-term services and supports, which are financed primarily by Medicaid. Objective: To evaluate changes in Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) spending before and after new enrollment in coordination-only D-SNPs vs new enrollment in non-D-SNP Medicare Advantage (MA) plans among community-living beneficiaries enrolled in both Medicare and North Carolina Medicaid. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a new user, active comparator design to control for selection into MA and inverse probability of treatment weighting to improve the comparability between groups. The cohort included community-living dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in North Carolina with 365 days of Medicare FFS enrollment prior to new enrollment in D-SNP (treatment) or other MA plan (active comparator). Linked 100% Medicare and North Carolina Medicaid claims data (2014-2017) provided payments across both payers prior to MA enrollment; after MA enrollment, payments for Medicaid-funded services and supplemental Medicaid payments for Medicare-funded services were observed. Data were analyzed from August 2023 to November 2024. Exposure: New D-SNP enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included annualized 1-year Medicaid FFS spending overall and by claim type, including inpatient, outpatient, carrier, home health, personal care services, and behavioral health services. Results: Among 8869 participants in the D-SNP cohort, 4762 (53.7%) were younger than 65 years, 5833 (65.8%), were female, and 975 (11.0%) resided in rural areas. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, characteristics were similar among the comparison MA cohort of 4389 participants (4706 [53.2%] aged <65 years; 5739 [64.9%] female; 971 [11.0%] rural). There were no significant differences in Medicaid FFS spending per person-year (PPY) at baseline or differential change in the year following new enrollment (mean marginal effect, -$387 [95% CI, -$1274 to $501) between groups. There were significant differences between groups in the change in spending on long-term services and supports, with maintained spending on community-based personal care services following new enrollment in D-SNPs compared with reductions for other MA, resulting in a relative increase of $343 (95% CI, $147 to $539). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that coordination-only D-SNPs was associated with maintained North Carolina Medicaid FFS spending levels for long-term services and supports compared with other MA plans, despite limited integration requirements. However, to reduce or delay nursing home transitions, higher levels of integration may be necessary.

Indexed as

Fee-for-Service PlansHealth ExpendituresMedicaidMedicare Part CAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMedicareMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39841476
PMCPMC11755192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.