Risk Adjustment of Florida Mental Health Outcomes Data: Concepts, Methods, and Results

Overview

Journal J Behav Health Serv Res

Publisher Springer

Specialty Health Services

Date 2001 Aug 11

PMID 11497022

Citations 7

Authors

M G DOW

T L Boaz

D Thornton

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This article discusses outcome evaluation systems for mental health programs. It reviews and critically evaluates design and analysis methods for strengthening the validity of such uncontrolled comparisons. The article examines methods for statistically adjusting preexisting groups, now referred to as risk adjustment or case-mix adjustment, and offers guidelines for determining when this procedure is appropriate. Then, analyses on two dependent variables--a global rating of functioning and a consumer satisfaction measure--available from an outcomes evaluation system currently underway in Florida are used to demonstrate the proposed method of risk adjustment. Results for 24 providers of mental health services showed that while risk adjustment only made a small difference in the overall provider rankings, the ranking of some specific providers changed considerably. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of this research.

Citing Articles

Investigating the relationship between costs and outcomes for English mental health providers: a bi-variate multi-level regression analysis.

Moran V, Jacobs R Eur J Health Econ. 2017; 19(5):709-718.

PMID: 28647862 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0915-5.

Development of mental health quality indicators (MHQIs) for inpatient psychiatry based on the interRAI mental health assessment.

Perlman C, Hirdes J, Barbaree H, Fries B, McKillop I, Morris J BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13:15.

PMID: 23305286 PMC: 3560122. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-15.

Improving risk adjustment of self-reported mental health outcomes.

Rosen A, Chatterjee S, Glickman M, Spiro 3rd A, Seal P, Eisen S J Behav Health Serv Res. 2009; 37(3):291-306.

PMID: 19862622 DOI: 10.1007/s11414-009-9196-9.

Case-mix adjustment of consumer reports about managed behavioral health care and health plans.

Eselius L, Cleary P, Zaslavsky A, Huskamp H, Busch S Health Serv Res. 2008; 43(6):2014-32.

PMID: 18783456 PMC: 2613989. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00894.x.

Does community care work? A model to evaluate the effectiveness of mental health services.

Monzani E, Erlicher A, Lora A, Lovaglio P, Vittadini G Int J Ment Health Syst. 2008; 2(1):10.

PMID: 18601741 PMC: 2488329. DOI: 10.1186/1752-4458-2-10.

References

LORD F . A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychol Bull. 1967; 68(5):304-5. DOI: 10.1037/h0025105. View

Cunningham W, Tisnado D, Lui H, Nakazono T, Carlisle D . The effect of hospital experience on mortality among patients hospitalized with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in California. Am J Med. 1999; 107(2):137-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00195-3. View

DOW M, Boaz T . Assisting clients of community mental health centers to secure SSI benefits: a controlled evaluation. Community Ment Health J. 1994; 30(5):429-40. DOI: 10.1007/BF02189061. View

Hendryx M, Dyck D, Srebnik D . Risk-adjusted outcome models for public mental health outpatient programs. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34(1 Pt 1):171-95. PMC: 1088990. View

Ettner S, Frank R, McGuire T, NEWHOUSE J, Notman E . Risk adjustment of mental health and substance abuse payments. Inquiry. 1998; 35(2):223-39. View

Moore G, Rucker M, Pearson S . The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling. When good apples look bad. JAMA. 1994; 272(11):871-4. View

Pandiani J, Banks S, Schacht L . Using incarceration rates to measure mental health program performance. J Behav Health Serv Res. 1998; 25(3):300-11. DOI: 10.1007/BF02287469. View

DesHarnais S, McMahon Jr L, Wroblewski R, HOGAN A . Measuring hospital performance. The development and validation of risk-adjusted indexes of mortality, readmissions, and complications. Med Care. 1990; 28(12):1127-41. View

RELMAN A . Assessment and accountability: the third revolution in medical care. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319(18):1220-2. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198811033191810. View

10.

Banks S, Pandiani J, SCHACHT L, Gauvin L . A risk-adjusted measure of hospitalization rates for evaluating community mental health program performance. Adm Policy Ment Health. 1999; 26(4):269-79. DOI: 10.1023/a:1022222010381. View

11.

Hornbrook M, GOODMAN M . Chronic disease, functional health status, and demographics: a multi-dimensional approach to risk adjustment. Health Serv Res. 1996; 31(3):283-307. PMC: 1070120. View

12.

Fowles J, Weiner J, Knutson D, Fowler E, Tucker A, Ireland M . Taking health status into account when setting capitation rates: a comparison of risk-adjustment methods. JAMA. 1996; 276(16):1316-21. View

13.

SHADISH W, Ragsdale K . Random versus nonrandom assignment in controlled experiments: do you get the same answer?. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996; 64(6):1290-305. View