Milesh M Patel1, Jonathan D Brown1, Sarah Croake1, Rita Lewis1, Junqing Liu1, Lisa Patton1, D E B Potter1, Sarah Hudson Scholle1. 1. Mr. Patel, Ms. Lewis, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Scholle are with the National Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, D.C. Dr. Brown and Ms. Croake are with Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Dr. Patton is with the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, Maryland. Ms. Potter is with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. Send correspondence to Dr. Scholle (e-mail: scholle@ncqa.org ).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review examined the extent to which existing behavioral health quality measures address the priority areas of the National Behavioral Health Quality Framework (NBHQF) as well as the extent to which the measures have received National Quality Forum endorsement and are used in major reporting programs. METHODS: This review identified behavioral health quality measures in widely used measure inventories, including the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, National Quality Forum, and the Center for Quality Assessment in Mental Health. Additional measures were identified through outreach to federal agencies. Measures were categorized by type, condition, target population, data source, reporting unit, endorsement status, and use in reporting programs. RESULTS: The review identified 510 measures. Nearly one-third of these measures address broad mental health or substance use conditions rather than a specific condition or diagnosis. Seventy-two percent are process measures. The most common data source for measures is administrative claims, and very few measures rely on electronic health records or surveys. Fifty-three (10%) measures have received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement, and 28 (5%) unique measures are used in major quality reporting programs. Several subdomains of the NBHQF, such as treatment intensification, financial barriers to care, and continuity of care, lack measures that are NQF endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the wide array of behavioral health quality measures, relatively few have received endorsement or are used in reporting programs. Future efforts should seek to fill gaps in measurement and to identify the most salient and strongest measures in each priority area.
OBJECTIVE: This review examined the extent to which existing behavioral health quality measures address the priority areas of the National Behavioral Health Quality Framework (NBHQF) as well as the extent to which the measures have received National Quality Forum endorsement and are used in major reporting programs. METHODS: This review identified behavioral health quality measures in widely used measure inventories, including the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, National Quality Forum, and the Center for Quality Assessment in Mental Health. Additional measures were identified through outreach to federal agencies. Measures were categorized by type, condition, target population, data source, reporting unit, endorsement status, and use in reporting programs. RESULTS: The review identified 510 measures. Nearly one-third of these measures address broad mental health or substance use conditions rather than a specific condition or diagnosis. Seventy-two percent are process measures. The most common data source for measures is administrative claims, and very few measures rely on electronic health records or surveys. Fifty-three (10%) measures have received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement, and 28 (5%) unique measures are used in major quality reporting programs. Several subdomains of the NBHQF, such as treatment intensification, financial barriers to care, and continuity of care, lack measures that are NQF endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the wide array of behavioral health quality measures, relatively few have received endorsement or are used in reporting programs. Future efforts should seek to fill gaps in measurement and to identify the most salient and strongest measures in each priority area.
Authors: Lauren Luther; Sadaaki Fukui; Jennifer M Garabrant; Angela L Rollins; Gary Morse; Nancy Henry; Dawn Shimp; Timothy Gearhart; Michelle P Salyers Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Katherine E Watkins; Susan M Paddock; Teresa J Hudson; Songthip Ounpraseuth; Amy M Schrader; Kimberly A Hepner; Bradley D Stein Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Kathryn Beck; Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee; Parashar Ramanuj; Robert W O'Brien; Naomi Tomoyasu; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Matthew L Goldman; Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee; Abraham D Nowels; Parashar Pravin Ramanuj; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Margarita Alegría; Irene Falgas-Bague; Marie Fukuda; Jenny Zhen-Duan; Cole Weaver; Isabel O'Malley; Timothy Layton; Jacob Wallace; Lulu Zhang; Sheri Markle; Charles Neighbors; Pat Lincourt; Shazia Hussain; Marc Manseau; Bradley D Stein; Nancy Rigotti; Sarah Wakeman; Martha Kane; A Eden Evins; Thomas McGuire Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Scott E Hadland; Amy M Yule; Sharon J Levy; Eliza Hallett; Michael Silverstein; Sarah M Bagley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Yelena Petrosyan; Yeva Sahakyan; Jan M Barnsley; Kerry Kuluski; Barbara Liu; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.267