ArticleBMJ open2025
Evaluating the impact of the Medicaid Balancing Incentive Programme on long-term care utilisation by living arrangement: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMJ 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of the Medicaid Balancing Incentive Programme (BIP) on long-term services and supports utilisation among older adults, focusing on differences in living arrangements.
designQuasi-experimental study using a generalised difference-in-differences approach.
settingStates that participated and completed BIP (treatment group: 18 states) and states that were eligible but did not participate (control group: 17 states).
participantsOlder Medicaid beneficiaries from the Health and Retirement Study (2006-2018) across states that participated in BIP and those that did not. A negative control analysis was conducted using non-Medicaid beneficiaries. OUTCOMES: We examined the probability of long-term nursing home stays (over 100 days), professional home healthcare and three types of home care services for activities of daily living: paid professional caregiving, paid informal caregiving and unpaid informal caregiving. Analysis was stratified by living arrangement (living alone vs with others).
resultsBIP participation was associated with a 5 percentage point (pp) decrease in long-term nursing home stays among Medicaid beneficiaries living alone (average treatment effect on the treated, ATT=-0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; p<0.01). Among Medicaid beneficiaries living with others, BIP was associated with a 5 pp increase in paid informal caregiving (ATT 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; p<0.01). No significant effects were observed for non-Medicaid beneficiaries.
conclusionsBIP contributed to a reduction in institutionalisation for individuals living alone while increasing support for family caregivers in multiperson households. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring long-term care policies to the specific needs of populations based on their living arrangements.
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.