Comparing alternative risk-adjustment models

The use of mental health indicators to compare provider performance requires that comparisons be fair. Fair provider comparisons mean that scores are risk adjusted for client characteristics that influence scores and that are beyond provider control. Data for the study are collected from 336 outpati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of behavioral health services & research 2001-08, Vol.28 (3), p.247-257
Main Authors: Hendryx, M S, Teague, G B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Benchmarking
Bipolar disorder
Business metrics
Capitation
Community Mental Health Services - standards
Comparative studies
Consumers
Diagnosis-Related Groups - statistics & numerical data
Drug abuse
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Health maintenance organizations
Health risk assessment
Health risks
Health services
HMOs
Humans
Hypotheses
Male
Management information systems
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - epidemiology
Mental Disorders - therapy
Mental health
Mental health services
Middle Aged
Models, Statistical
Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data
Performance indicators
Population
Quality Indicators, Health Care
Regression Analysis
Risk
Risk Adjustment
Sampling Studies
Schizophrenia
Variables
Washington - epidemiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The use of mental health indicators to compare provider performance requires that comparisons be fair. Fair provider comparisons mean that scores are risk adjusted for client characteristics that influence scores and that are beyond provider control. Data for the study are collected from 336 outpatients receiving publicly funded mental health services in Washington State. The study compares alternative specifications of multiple regression-based risk-adjustment models to argue that the particular form of the model will lead to different conclusions about comparative treatment agency performance. In order to evaluate performance fairly it is necessary to not only incorporate risk adjustment, but also identify the most correct form that the risk-adjustment model should take. Future research is needed to specify; test, and validate the mental health risk-adjustment models best suited to particular treatment populations and performance indicators.
ISSN:1094-3412
1556-3308
DOI:10.1007/BF02287242