ArticleMedical care2026
Medicaid Home-Based and Community-Based Services Long-Term Care Expenditures: Evaluation of the Balancing Incentive Program.
Article in Medical care, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Balancing Incentive Program (BIP), legislated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, offered states financial incentives to increase access to Medicaid home-based and community-based services (HCBS). Despite the major infrastructure changes required by BIP, no evaluation to date has quantified the increase in spending attributable to BIP, which is of concern to Medicaid HCBS policymakers, providers, and consumers. This is the first causal estimate of BIP's effects, including the timing of implementation in each state, compared with a counterfactual.
designUsing state-level expenditure data, we estimated the change in HCBS spending as a percentage of long-term services and supports (LTSS) spending in 17 BIP participant states compared with a counterfactual or synthetic control calculated as a weighted average of the outcome in 17 BIP eligible, nonparticipant states. Synthetic control weights were estimated using pre-BIP characteristics. To assess how BIP effects evolved over time, we estimated cumulative change in the outcome in multiple post-BIP years (2013, 2016, and 2019).
resultsOur primary analysis indicates that cumulatively from FY 2013 to 2019, BIP states increased their HCBS spending as a percentage of LTSS spending by an average of 5.2 percentage points (95% CI: 0.0, 9.8), compared with the synthetic control. IMPLICATIONS: Although many state-run programs have sought to increase HCBS access, our study's causal estimate of BIP effects in 17 states, compared with 17 states that did not, represents a more substantial growth than findings of prior studies.
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.