Comparing alternative risk-adjustment models

  • Michael S. Hendryx
  • Gregory B. Teague
Special Section


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.


Mental Health Health Service Health Promotion Mental Health Service Disease Prevention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Iezzoni LI. The risks of risk-adjustment.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997;278:1600–1607.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ellis RP, Ash A. Refinements to the use of diagnostic cost group (DCG) models.Inquiry. 1995–96;32:418–429.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newhouse JP, Beeuwkes M, Chapman JD.Risk Adjustment and Medicare. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. Evaluation of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation III predictors of hospital mortality in an independent database.Critical Care Medicine. 1998;26:1317–1326.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ettner SL, Frank RG, McGuire TG, et al. Risk adjustment of mental health and substance abuse payments.Inquiry. 1998;35:223–229.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newman FL, DeLiberty RN, Ward EO. Hoosier Assurance Plan IV: consumer progress/outcomes by risk adjustment group for those enrolled for more than 3 years. Presented at the 6th Annual Florida Conference on Behavioral Healthcare Evaluation; December 9, 1999; Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pandiani JA, Banks SM, Schacht LM. Using incarceration rates to measure mental health program performance.The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 1999;25:300–311.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer EP, Cuffel BJ, Owen RR.Schizophrenia Outcomes Module User's Manual. Little Rock, AR: Center for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness; 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith GR, Burnam A, Burns B, et al.Major Depression Outcomes Module User's Manual. Little Rock, AR: Center for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness; 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bickman L.Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bogaert-Martinez E, Caen E, Wilson W, et al. The SF-36 as a measure of functioning and health related quality of life in individuals with severe and persistent mental illness: psychometric properties and normative data. Presented at the Sixth Annual National Conference on State Mental Health Agency Services Research and Program Evaluation; February 13, 1996; Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McHorney C, Ware J, Raczek A. The MOS 36-item SF-36. II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.Medical Care. 1993;31:247–263.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGee J, Goldfield N, Riley K, et al.Collecting Information from Health Care Consumers: A Resource Manual of Tested Questionnaires and Practical Advice. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Comtois KD, Ries R, Armstrong HE. Case manager ratings of the clinical status of dually diagnosed outpatients.Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1994;45:568–573.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehman A.Quality of Life Interview: Core Version. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Center for Mental Health Services Research; 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendryx M, Dyck D, Srebnik D. Risk-adjusted outcome models for public mental health outpatient programs.Health Services Research. 1999;34:171–195.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Srebnik D, Hendryx MS, Stevenson J, et al. Development of outcome indicators for monitoring the quality of public mental health care.Psychiatric Services. 1997;48:903–909.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwartz M, Ash AS. Evaluating the performance of risk adjustment methods: continuous measures. In: Iezzoni LI, ed.Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1994:287–311.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruenberg L, Kaganova E, Hornbrook MC. Improving the AAPCC with health-status measures from the MCBS.Health Care Financing Review. 1996;17(3):59–75.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Center for Mental Health Services.Methodological Standards for Outcome Measures. Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and TrainingWashington State UniversitySpokane
  2. 2.Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health InstituteUniversity of South FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations