Literature DB >> 30913002

The importance of identification when measuring performance in addiction treatment.

Deborah Garnick1, Constance Horgan1, Tami L Mark2, Margaret Lee1, Andrea Acevedo3, Sarah Neager4, Peggy O'Brien4, Ali Hashmi4, Bill Marder4, Kay Miller4.   

Abstract

Background: Identifying and effectively treating individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) is an important priority for state Medicaid programs, given the enormous toll that SUDs take on individuals, their families, and their communities. In this paper, we describe how the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure "Identification of Alcohol and Other Drug Services" can be used, along with eligible population prevalence rates, to expand states' ability to track how well their Medicaid programs identify enrollees with SUDs and link them with treatment (measured by initiation and engagement performance measures).
Methods: We use the 2009 Medicaid MAX data on utilization and enrollment along with information from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to obtain state-level estimates of alcohol and drug abuse and dependence among Medicaid beneficiaries for 7 illustrative states. We calculate identification, initiation, and engagement measures using specifications from the National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA).
Results: NSDUH data showed that the eligible population prevalence rate (the average rate of alcohol or drug abuse or dependence) among the 7 states was 10.0%, whereas the average identification rate was 2.9%. The gap between the prevalence and identification rates ranged from 5.1% to 11.0% among the 7 states. The initiation rates ranged from 36.9% to 57.1%. The states' engagement rates ranged from 11.8% to 31.1%, although rates differ by age, gender, and race/ethnicity in some states.
Conclusion: Including identification along with initiation and engagement measures allows states to determine how well they are performing in a more complete spectrum from need, to recognition and documentation of enrollees with SUDs, to initiation of treatment, to continuation of early treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Engagement; Medicaid; identification; performance; quality

Year:  2019        PMID: 30913002      PMCID: PMC6763371          DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1580240

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Subst Abus        ISSN: 0889-7077            Impact factor:   3.716


  10 in total

1.  Are Washington Circle performance measures associated with decreased criminal activity following treatment?

Authors:  Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Margaret T Lee; Lee Panas; Grant A Ritter; Steve Davis; Tracy Leeper; Rebecca Moore; Mark Reynolds
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2007-05-23

2.  Lessons from five states: public sector use of the Washington Circle performance measures.

Authors:  Deborah W Garnick; Margaret T Lee; Constance Horgan; Andrea Acevedo; Michael Botticelli; Spencer Clark; Steven Davis; Robert Gallati; Karin Haberlin; Andrew Hanchett; Dawn Lambert-Wacey; Tracy Leeper; James Siemianowski; Minakshi Tikoo
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2011-01-22

3.  Protection or harm? Suppressing substance-use data.

Authors:  Austin B Frakt; Nicholas Bagley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  National estimates of behavioral health conditions and their treatment among adults newly insured under the ACA.

Authors:  Tami L Mark; Lauren M Wier; Kevin Malone; Michael Penne; Alexander J Cowell
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2015-01-02       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  The Washington circle engagement performance measures' association with adolescent treatment outcomes.

Authors:  Deborah W Garnick; Margaret T Lee; Peggy L O'Brien; Lee Panas; Grant A Ritter; Andrea Acevedo; Bryan R Garner; Rodney R Funk; Mark D Godley
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 4.492

6.  Association Between Process-Based Quality Indicators and Mortality for Patients With Substance Use Disorders.

Authors:  Susan M Paddock; Kimberly A Hepner; Teresa Hudson; Songthip Ounpraseuth; Amy M Schrader; Greer Sullivan; Katherine E Watkins
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.582

7.  Criminal justice outcomes after engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment.

Authors:  Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Andrea Acevedo; Margaret T Lee; Lee Panas; Grant A Ritter; Robert Dunigan; Alfred Bidorini; Kevin Campbell; Karin Haberlin; Alice Huber; Dawn Lambert-Wacey; Tracy Leeper; Mark Reynolds; David Wright
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2013-10-14

8.  Engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment and employment outcomes.

Authors:  Robert Dunigan; Andrea Acevedo; Kevin Campbell; Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Alice Huber; Margaret T Lee; Lee Panas; Grant A Ritter
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.505

9.  Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population.

Authors:  Katharine A Bradley; Kristen R Bush; Amee J Epler; Dorcas J Dobie; Tania M Davis; Jennifer L Sporleder; Charles Maynard; Marcia L Burman; Daniel R Kivlahan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-04-14

10.  Does meeting the HEDIS substance abuse treatment engagement criterion predict patient outcomes?

Authors:  Alex H S Harris; Keith Humphreys; Thomas Bowe; Quyen Tiet; John W Finney
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.505

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.