ArticleJMIR AI2025
Reinforcement Learning to Prevent Acute Care Events Among Medicaid Populations: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanistic interpretability of reinforcement learning in Medicaid care coordination.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary care management teams must rapidly prioritize interventions for patients with complex medical and social needs. Current approaches rely on individual training, judgment, and experience, missing opportunities to learn from longitudinal trajectories and prevent adverse outcomes through recommender systems.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate whether a reinforcement learning approach could outperform standard care management practices in recommending optimal interventions for patients with complex needs.
methodsUsing data from 3175 Medicaid beneficiaries in care management programs across 2 states from 2023 to 2024, we compared alternative approaches for recommending "next best step" interventions: the standard experience-based approach (status quo) and a state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) reinforcement learning model. We evaluated performance using clinical impact metrics, conducted counterfactual causal inference analyses to estimate reductions in acute care events, assessed fairness across demographic subgroups, and performed qualitative chart reviews where the models differed.
resultsIn counterfactual analyses, SARSA-guided care management reduced acute care events by 12 percentage points (95% CI 2.2-21.8 percentage points, a 20.7% relative reduction; P=.02) compared to the status quo approach, with a number needed to treat of 8.3 (95% CI 4.6-45.2) to prevent 1 acute event. The approach showed improved fairness across demographic groups, including gender (3.8% vs 5.3% disparity in acute event rates, reduction 1.5%, 95% CI 0.3%-2.7%) and race and ethnicity (5.6% vs 8.9% disparity, reduction 3.3%, 95% CI 1.1%-5.5%). In qualitative reviews, the SARSA model detected and recommended interventions for specific medical-social interactions, such as respiratory issues associated with poor housing quality or food insecurity in individuals with diabetes.
conclusionsSARSA-guided care management shows potential to reduce acute care use compared to standard practice. The approach demonstrates how reinforcement learning can improve complex decision-making in situations where patients face concurrent clinical and social factors while maintaining safety and fairness across demographic subgroups.
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.