Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Comparing Apples to Apples: Use of Common Tools to Rebalance Systems National HCBS Waiver Conference October 28, 2003 Val Bradley & Sarah Taub Human Services.

Published byNeil Gibbs Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Comparing Apples to Apples: Use of Common Tools to Rebalance Systems National HCBS Waiver Conference October 28, 2003 Val Bradley & Sarah Taub Human Services."— Presentation transcript:

1 Comparing Apples to Apples: Use of Common Tools to Rebalance Systems National HCBS Waiver Conference October 28, 2003 Val Bradley & Sarah Taub Human Services Research Institute

2 Changing Quality Landscape Exposure of fault-lines in the system (e.g., CMS and the press) Emergence of self-determination Olmstead decision and proposed closures Struggles with MIS applications Direct support staff shortages Expansion of supports to individuals on the waiting list

3 Signs of Change in Performance Management No longer just better than the institution Rooted in outcomes Emphasis on enhancement and CQI Changing role of the state Changes in experiences of families and people with mental retardation Changes in accreditation approaches

4 More Signs of Change Movement away from prescriptive standards to individualized risk management Collaborative development of standards Inclusion of consumer and family participation in oversight Satisfaction CQI Consensus

5 Emergence of Performance Indicators First appeared in behavioral and acute care Provide some “cues” for managing these complex systems Highlight impact of cost containment Illuminate what’s working Provide early warning signs

6 Characteristics of Performance Indicators Reflect major organizational or system goals. Address issues that can be influenced by the organization or system Have face validity Point a direction Reflect rates or major events Related to associated standards

7 NCI Beginnings NASDDDS and HSRI collaboration Launched in 1997 Seven field test states (plus steering committee) ~60 candidate performance indicators Development of data collection protocols

8 What has NCI Accomplished? Nationally recognized set of performance and outcome indicators for developmental disabilities service systems Reliable data collection methods & tools (consumer & family surveys, provider survey, system data) Baseline and trend data at the state & national level

9 Participating NCI States ND AK HI WA OR ID MT WY ND SD NE CA UT NV AZ CO NM KS OK TX MN IA WI IL IN MO AR MI OH KY TN MS LA AL GA FL SC NC VA WV PA NY ME VT NH MD DC DE NJ CT MA RI PR Orange County

10 NCI Structure Currently 20 states plus Orange County in Phase VI (FY2004) HSRI provides technical assistance under subcontract to NASDDDS Subcommittees address specific issues Meet with full steering committee annually

11 Where does NCI fit in? One component of state Quality Management systems In many participating states, main process for measuring consumer and family satisfaction Integration of information is the key (many QA systems are fragmented) Increasing interest in using NCI to measure provider performance

12 What are the data sources? Consumer Survey Face-to-face interview Minimum n=400 Standardized training provided High inter-rater reliability First section (subjective) allows consumer responses ONLY Provider Survey Staff Stability Board Representation Family Surveys Mail surveys (goal=40% return) Adult Family Survey (at home, 18+) Family Guardian Survey (out-of-home) Children Family Survey (at home, <18) System Data Incidents Mortality

13 How is NCI data used? Setting goals and strategic planning Setting priorities for quality improvement, Quality Management plans Budget requests to Governor and legislators Helps shape data reporting systems (e.g., incidents, mortality) Stakeholder advisory committees (Quality Councils)

14 More specific uses… Pennsylvania – part of Independent Monitoring and quality improvement South Carolina – Core component of external monitoring Wyoming – Annual reports, CMS review* Massachusetts – Strategic planning North Carolina – Health status indicators *See Wyoming presentation: “Using CORE INDICATORS in Federal HCBS Reviews”

15 How are results disseminated? Reports of state results vs. national results posted on websites Presentations to staff, providers, community Summaries shared with families who filled out surveys (AZ) Simplified version of Consumer Survey report for self-advocates (VT)

16 Trend Analysis Beginning to look at trends over past three years Five states collected Consumer Survey data annually for three years Connecticut Kentucky North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island

17 CM helps get what person needs… 90% 88% 83% 78% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5 state averageAll state average FY00FY01FY02

18 92.8% 93.6% 94.4% 92% 93% 94% 95% FY00FY01FY02 Person is satisfied with home…

19 0% 20% 40% 60% FY00FY01FY02 Housemate Home staff Case manager Person had input in choosing…

20 Staff Stability 35.2% 41.7% 52.9% 35.8% 45.1% 31.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 199920002001 residential day

21 Next steps… Expanding indicators on self-directed services and supports Adapting survey for people with different communication styles Adding health status indicators based on NC supplement Creating templates for displaying information Continuing trend analysis

22 For More Information Reports are available on HSRI’s website: www.hsri.org/nciwww.hsri.org/nci Contact: staub@hsri.orgstaub@hsri.org

Download ppt "Comparing Apples to Apples: Use of Common Tools to Rebalance Systems National HCBS Waiver Conference October 28, 2003 Val Bradley & Sarah Taub Human Services."

Similar presentations

DC Responses Received WA OR ID MT WY CA NV UT CO AZ NM AK HI TX ND SD NE KS OK MN IA MO AR LA WI IL MI IN OH KY TN MS AL GA FL SC NC VA WV PA NY VT NH.

DC Responses Received WA OR ID MT WY CA NV UT CO AZ NM AK HI TX ND SD NE KS OK MN IA MO AR LA WI IL MI IN OH KY TN MS AL GA FL SC NC VA WV PA NY VT NH.
National Core Indicators Overview for the State of Washington Lisa A. Weber, Ph.D. Division of Developmental Disabilities.

National Core Indicators Overview for the State of Washington Lisa A. Weber, Ph.D. Division of Developmental Disabilities.
Using State-Level Performance Data: an Update on the National CIP Val Bradley and Sarah Taub Human Services Research Institute.

Using State-Level Performance Data: an Update on the National CIP Val Bradley and Sarah Taub Human Services Research Institute.
What Do People Tell Us About the Quality of Their Supports? American Association on Mental Retardation Val Bradley and Sarah Taub Human Services Research.

What Do People Tell Us About the Quality of Their Supports? American Association on Mental Retardation Val Bradley and Sarah Taub Human Services Research.
NATIONAL CORE INDICATORS ADULT CONSUMER SURVEY 2013-14

NATIONAL CORE INDICATORS ADULT CONSUMER SURVEY
NCI: A Growing Commitment Five Years of Performance Measurement 127 th Annual AAMR Meeting, Chicago, IL Val Bradley  Human Services Research Institute.

NCI: A Growing Commitment Five Years of Performance Measurement 127 th Annual AAMR Meeting, Chicago, IL Val Bradley  Human Services Research Institute.
Project Management Update NCI Steering Committee Meeting July 30, 2003 Minneapolis, MN.

Project Management Update NCI Steering Committee Meeting July 30, 2003 Minneapolis, MN.
NICS Index State Participation As of 12/31/2007 DC NE NY WI IN NH MD CA NV IL OR TN PA CT ID MT WY ND SD NM KS TX AR OK MN OH WV MSAL KY SC MO ME MA DE.

NICS Index State Participation As of 12/31/2007 DC NE NY WI IN NH MD CA NV IL OR TN PA CT ID MT WY ND SD NM KS TX AR OK MN OH WV MSAL KY SC MO ME MA DE.
Agencies’ Participation in PBMS January 20, 2015 PA IL TX AZ CA Trained, Partial Data Entry (17) Required Characteristics & 75% of Key Indicators (8) OH.

Agencies’ Participation in PBMS January 20, 2015 PA IL TX AZ CA Trained, Partial Data Entry (17) Required Characteristics & 75% of Key Indicators (8) OH.
Medicaid Enrollment of New Eligibles in Expansion States, by Party Affiliation of Governor New Eligibles as a Percent of Total Medicaid Enrollment, FY.

Medicaid Enrollment of New Eligibles in Expansion States, by Party Affiliation of Governor New Eligibles as a Percent of Total Medicaid Enrollment, FY.
Medicaid Enrollment of New Eligibles in Expansion States, by Party Affiliation of Governor New Eligibles as a Percent of Total Medicaid Enrollment, as.

Medicaid Enrollment of New Eligibles in Expansion States, by Party Affiliation of Governor New Eligibles as a Percent of Total Medicaid Enrollment, as.
Medicaid Enrollment of New Eligibles in Expansion States, by Party Affiliation of Governor New Eligibles as a Percent of Total Medicaid Enrollment, as.

Medicaid Enrollment of New Eligibles in Expansion States, by Party Affiliation of Governor New Eligibles as a Percent of Total Medicaid Enrollment, as.
WY WI WV WA VA VT UT TX TN SD SC RI PA OR* OK OH ND NC NY NM* NJ NH

WY WI WV WA VA VT UT TX TN SD SC RI PA OR* OK OH ND NC NY NM* NJ NH
Medicaid Income Eligibility Levels for Other Adults, January 2017

Medicaid Income Eligibility Levels for Other Adults, January 2017
The State of the States Cindy Mann Center for Children and Families

The State of the States Cindy Mann Center for Children and Families
Current Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions

Current Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions
Current Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions

Current Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions
Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions

Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions
States with Section 1115 ACA Expansion Waivers, December 2015

States with Section 1115 ACA Expansion Waivers, December 2015
Expansion states with Republican governors outnumber expansion states with Democratic governors, May 2018 WY WI WV◊ WA VA^ VT UT TX TN SD SC RI PA OR OK.

Expansion states with Republican governors outnumber expansion states with Democratic governors, May 2018 WY WI WV◊ WA VA^ VT UT TX TN SD SC RI PA OR OK.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google