Sixteen State Indicator Pilot Conference Call

November 22, 1999

1:00 PM EST

Ron Manderscheid convened the meeting and called roll.

1. Workgroup leaders provided Up-dates:

Penetration/Utilization Rates: John Pandiani (VT) asked states to submit State Hospital utilization data for FY 1999 during the next few weeks. The data should conform to the same specification as earlier data submissions, except that the most recent breakdown categories should be used. States that can easily provide regional breakdowns at this time were urged to do so.

Level of Functioning/Symptoms: Mary Smith (IL) reported that the work group was planning to convene a small meeting with scale developers to discuss comparability across measures. States are being urged to analyze data that they currently have. The group was asked to suggest technical people who should be invited to participate in the scale developing meeting.

Assertive Community Treatment and Supported Employment: John McGrew has compared notes with Peggy Clark, HCFA and finds that HCFA is subcontracting out to the Lewin group to determine what the key elements of ACT are; John and Peggy will continue mutual contact in terms of both projects. John will be distributing 2 separate checklists for ACT and Supported Employment (7 to 10 items each) to the State Indicator Pilot grantees for review and comment within the next month. A technical work group meeting is planned to address these measures, as well.

Consumer Satisfaction: Judy Hall (CO) reported that she has obtained consumer satisfaction data from 11 states. Nine are MHSIP compliant. An email will be distributed on the listserve listing which states have submitted data to date. The data is currently being matched and cleaned. Results will be available in January for individual states to review their results. Results will be reported in Mental Health 2000. She will peel off consumer survey data from inpatient facilities to feed into the NASMHPD ORYX system. Noelle Wood (RI) continues to work on cross-walking survey items, across different versions of the MHSIP survey, and different (non-MHSIP) surveys. Vijay Ganju (TX) requested comments on the latest draft MHSIP survey document by the end of the month.

Community contact within 7 days of Discharge: Victor Ingurgio (OK) reported that data have been received from two states (OK and SC). For those who are interested, the MHSIP web page includes an updated operationalization of this indicator. This will include a table into which states can enter projected data submission dates.

30 Day Readmission Rates: Al Volo (NY) Discussion centered on the time periods to use for readmission. After an extended discussion of the value, and interpretation of specific lengths community tenure to be monitored (e.g. 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, 180) the group decided to focus on 30 days and six months as the first indicators. Discussion also focused briefly on the need for an extended window (after the end of the year under examination) to allow for determination of total readmission rates. The possibility of adding other increments was left open for the future.

Cost per Client: Nancy Callahan (CA/WA) reported on the approach to cost per client she had used in California. The measure was applied to Medicaid clients and was completed on an annual, not a monthly basis. Rates were calculated separately for four treatment modalities: Inpatient, crisis, outpatient, and day services. Discussion centered on the time period to use and the services to include in each category. Annual calculations were selected. A work group will work on developing an operational definition of categories.

Administrative Costs: Eva Jakuba (CT) reported that work in this group is moving toward the Arizona model and intends to conduct a pilot analysis. Nancy Callahan was invited to join the group.

Recovery: Vijay Ganju (TX) reported on his plans to move forward on the recovery indicators, including plans for piloting. A number of other states (VT, AZ, CO, SC, and CT) indicated an interest in participating in this project.

Ted Lutterman reported on the availability of the ORYX indicators for the 16 state project. He will meet with ORYX Advisory group regarding direct reporting to the 16 state project as opposed to a two or three step reporting process that would have data going from NASMHPD to the hospitals to the states and then to the 16 state project.

2. Mental Health United States FY2000 Chapter

Ron Manderscheid (CMHS) reported on the planned contents of Mental Health United States 2000. A conference call of the lead people from selected work groups was scheduled for December 9, 1999 at 3:00 PM EST to discuss writing of an article on work and analysis being done on the 16 State indicators. This group will include people who have been working on penetration/utilization rates, 30 day readmission rates, rates of community contact within 7 days, consumer satisfaction, level of functioning, costs per person, assertive community treatment/supported employment, and possibly atypical medications.

3. Planners Report

Marie Danforth was not available to report.

4. Next Meeting

The next conference call is scheduled for January 6, 2000 at 1:00 PM, EST.

A meeting of 16 state project participants will be scheduled for mid-April.

5. Ron Manderscheid (CMHS) ended the meeting with three questions:

1. How many of the indicators that were scheduled for completion in Year Two will be completed by the end of Year Two?

2. How many of the indicators that were scheduled for testing in Year Two will be tested in Year Two?

3. How many of the indicators that were scheduled for development in Year Two will be developed in Year Two?

The meeting was adjourned.