ArticleHealth services research2025
The Impact of Introducing Managed Care Intermediaries for Long-Term Services and Supports.
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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicaid funds direct care for one in four dual-eligible older adults nationally, but state variation is 4-fold.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Impact of Managed Long-Term Services and Supports on Nursing Home Use.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Examining State Policies and Administrative Factors as Determinants of Consumer-Reported Unmet Service Needs in Publicly Funded Home- and Community-Based Services in the United States.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- The Impact of Introducing Managed Care Intermediaries for Long-Term Services and Supports.Health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the impact of managed long-term services and supports (MLTSS) on the use of long-term care, as well as acute care. STUDY SETTING AND
designWe use a staggered difference-in-differences (DiDs) regression design, exploiting the variation in timing of the rollout of MLTSS programs across states between 2004 and 2018. We compared individuals in states that implemented MLTSS with individuals in states that did not implement MLTSS. Our outcomes included formal home care use, nursing home status, informal care use, hospitalizations, overnight nursing home visits, and falls. DATA SOURCE AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: This study uses secondary data from the Health and Retirement Study data, linked with state identifiers. The sample includes adults aged 65 and older who report at least one functional limitation. PRINCIPAL
findingsThe shift to MLTSS leads to a 2.5 percentage point (pp) increase (95% CI: 0.8 pp, 4.3 pp) in home care users, a 3-percentage point decrease (95% CI: -5.38 pp, -0.25 pp) in informal care users, and no statistically significant change in nursing home occupancy or health outcomes. We also find suggestive evidence of reductions in the number of home care individuals living in MLTSS states receive, with a 7.02-h (95% CI: -12.96, -1.07), or nearly 27% decrease, in monthly formal care received by this population.
conclusionThese findings suggest that MLTSS increased the share of home and community-based services (HCBS) users but restricted the amount of HCBS used per beneficiary, with ambiguity around whether this occurred at the expense of beneficiaries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.