Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Does Meeting the HEDIS Substance Abuse Treatment Engagement Criterion Predict Patient Outcomes?

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the patient-level associations between the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) substance use disorder (SUD) treatment engagement quality indicator and improvements in clinical outcomes. Administrative and survey data from 2,789 US Department of Veterans Affairs SUD patients were used to estimate the effects of meeting the HEDIS engagement criterion on improvements in Addiction Severity Index Alcohol, Drug, and Legal composite scores. Patients meeting the engagement indicator improved significantly more in all domains than patients who did not engage, and the relationship was stronger for alcohol and legal outcomes for patients seen in outpatient settings. The benefit accrued by those who engaged was statistically significant but clinically modest. These results add to the literature documenting the clinical benefits of treatment entry and engagement. Although these findings only indirectly support the use of the HEDIS engagement measure for its intended purpose—discriminating quality at the facility or system level—they confirm that the processes of care captured by the measure are associated with important patient outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AcademyHealth. Glossary of terms commonly used in health care. http://www.academyhealth.org/publications/glossary.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2008.

  2. Garnick D, Horgan C, Chalk M. Performance Measures for Alcohol and Other Drug Services. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh291/19–26.htm. Accessed September 12, 2006.

  3. Donabedian A. The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Assessment. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Horn SD. Performance measures and clinical outcomes. JAMA. 2006;296(22):2731–2732. doi:10.1001/jama.296.22.2731.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Greenfield S, et al. The unreliability of individual physician “report cards” for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. JAMA. 1999;281(22):2098–2105. doi:10.1001/jama.281.22.2098.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Quality and Performance VA/DOD. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders: Guideline Summary. http://www.oqp.med.va.gov/cpg/SUD/G/SUD%20Specialty%20Summary.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2005.

  7. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS 2006 Volume 2: Technical Specifications. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2006.

  8. Harris A, Humpheys K, Bowe T, et al. Measuring the quality of substance use disorder treatment: Assessing the VA continuity of care quality measure. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. in press.

  9. Harris AH, Humphreys K, Finney JW. Veterans Affairs facility performance on Washington Circle indicators and case mix-adjusted effectiveness. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;33(4):333–339. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenberg A, Rosenheck R, Seibyl C. Continuity of care and clinical effectiveness: Outcomes following residential treatment for severe substance abuse. Medical Care. 2002;40(3):246–259. doi:10.1097/00005650-200203000-00008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenberg GA, Rosenheck RA. Continuity of care and clinical outcomes in a national health system. Psychiatric Services. 2005;56(4):427–433. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.56.4.427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rost K, Dickinson LM, Fortney J, et al. Clinical improvement associated with conformance to HEDIS-based depression care. Mental Health Services Research. 2005;7(2):103–112. doi:10.1007/s11020-005-3781-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCorry F, Garnick DW, Bartlett J, et al. Developing performance measures for alcohol and other drug services in managed care plans. Joint Commission on Quality Improvement. 2000;26:633–643.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Garnick DW, Horgan C, Lee M, et al. Are Washington Circle performance measures associated with decreased criminal activity following treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;33(4):341–352. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.03.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tiet QQ, Byrnes HF, Barnett P, et al. A practical system for monitoring the outcomes of substance use disorder patients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2006;30(4):337–347. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.03.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McLellan A, Kushner H, Metzger D, et al. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1992;9:199–213. doi:10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosen CS, Henson BR, Finney JW, et al. Consistency of self-administered and interview-based Addiction Severity Index composite scores. Addiction. 2000;95(3):419–425. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95341912.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hedeker D, Gibbons RD. Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods. 1997;2(1):64–78. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.1.64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Little RJA. Pattern-mixture models for multivariate incomplete data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1993;88:125–133. doi:10.2307/2290705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika. 1976;63:581–592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods. 2002;7(2):147–177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Daniels M, Hogan J. Missing Data in Longitudinal Studies: Strategies for Bayesian Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [computer program]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  25. van Buuren S, Oudshoorn CGM. Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. R package version 1.14 [computer program]. 2005.

  26. Glynn RJ, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Selection modeling versus mixture modeling with nonignorable nonresponse. In: Wainer H, ed. Drawing Inferences from Self-selected Samples. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1986:115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McCarty D. Performance measurement for systems treating alcohol and drug use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;33(4):353–354. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Robinson W. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review. 1950;15:351–357. doi:10.2307/2087176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1989;18(1):269–274. doi:10.1093/ije/18.1.269.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Werner RM, Bradlow ET. Relationship between Medicare’s hospital compare performance measures and mortality rates. JAMA. 2006;296(22):2694–2702. doi:10.1001/jama.296.22.2694.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McLellan A, Chalk M, Bartlett J. Outcomes, performance, and quality—what’s the difference. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;32:331–340. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Witbrodt J, Bond J, Kaskutas LA, et al. Day hospital and residential addiction treatment: randomized and nonrandomized managed care clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007;75(6):947–959. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (Contract 270-02-7120), and the VA Office of Research and Development Health Services Research and Development Service (grants no. SUS 99-015, MRP-05-168-1, IIR-07-092-1). Keith Humphreys is a member of the Washington Circle and Alex Harris is a member of the Washington Circle Public Sector Workgroup. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex HS Harris PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harris, A.H., Humphreys, K., Bowe, T. et al. Does Meeting the HEDIS Substance Abuse Treatment Engagement Criterion Predict Patient Outcomes?. J Behav Health Serv Res 37, 25–39 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9142-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-008-9142-2

Keywords

Navigation