Page 71

2. Explain how the state will isolate the effects of the demonstration

(from other initiatives occurring in the state at the same time) through the use of comparison groups.

3. A discussion of how propensity score matching and difference in

differences design may be used to adjust for differences in comparison populations over time (if applicable).

4. The application of sensitivity analyses, as appropriate, should be

considered.

vil. Other Additions — The state may provide any other information pertinent to the Evaluation Design of the demonstration.

Table A. Example Design Table for the Evaluation of the Demonstration

Research Outcome Sample or population | Data Sources Analytic Question | measures used to subgroups to be Methods address the compared research question Hypothesis 1 Research -Measure 1 -Sample e.g. All -Medicaid fee- for- |-Interrupted time question la -Measure 2 attributed Medicaid service and series -Measure 3 beneficiaries encounter claims -Beneficiaries with records diabetes diagnosis Research -Measure 1 -sample, e.g., PPS -Patient survey Descriptive question 1b -Measure 2 patients who meet survey statistics -Measure 3 selection requirements -Measure 4 (used services within the last 6 months) Hypothesis 2 Research -Measure 1 -Sample, e.g., PPS -Key informants Qualitative question 2a -Measure 2 administrators analysis of interview material

2.3. Methodological Limitations — This section provides detailed information on the limitations of the evaluation. This could include the design, the data sources or collection process, or

analytic methods. The state should also identify any efforts to minimize the limitations.

Additionally, this section should include any information about features of the demonstration that effectively present methodological constraints that the state would like CMS to take into consideration in its review.

2.4.

Special Methodological Considerations — CMS recognizes that there may be certain

instances where a state cannot meet the rigor of an evaluation as expected by CMS. In these instances, the state should document for CMS why it is not able to incorporate key

components of a rigorous evaluation, including comparison groups and baseline data analyses. Examples of considerations include:

Wisconsin BadgerCare Reform Approval Period: October 29, 2024 through December 31, 2029

Page 67

Page 71

Official source

2. Explain how the state will isolate the effects of the demonstration

(from other initiatives occurring in the state at the same time) through the use of comparison groups.

3. A discussion of how propensity score matching and difference in

differences design may be used to adjust for differences in comparison populations over time (if applicable).

4. The application of sensitivity analyses, as appropriate, should be

considered.

vil. Other Additions — The state may provide any other information pertinent to the Evaluation Design of the demonstration.

Table A. Example Design Table for the Evaluation of the Demonstration

2.3. Methodological Limitations — This section provides detailed information on the limitations of the evaluation. This could include the design, the data sources or collection process, or

analytic methods. The state should also identify any efforts to minimize the limitations.

2.4.

Special Methodological Considerations — CMS recognizes that there may be certain

instances where a state cannot meet the rigor of an evaluation as expected by CMS. In these instances, the state should document for CMS why it is not able to incorporate key

components of a rigorous evaluation, including comparison groups and baseline data analyses. Examples of considerations include:

Wisconsin BadgerCare Reform Approval Period: October 29, 2024 through December 31, 2029

Page 67