1 / 14

Rebecca Cate, PhD Research Scientist Behavioral Health Sciences Department

Peer Program Evaluation Preliminary Results July 2013. Rebecca Cate, PhD Research Scientist Behavioral Health Sciences Department. Definitions . Enrollment: Which members are we able to reach to tell about the program? Which members agree to participate?

natala
Télécharger la présentation

Rebecca Cate, PhD Research Scientist Behavioral Health Sciences Department

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Peer Program Evaluation Preliminary Results July 2013 Rebecca Cate, PhD Research Scientist Behavioral Health Sciences Department

  2. Definitions Enrollment: Which members are we able to reach to tell about the program? Which members agree to participate? How many attempts and how long does it take to get a member to agree to participate in the program? Engagement (among those who agree to participate) What is the level of involvement in the program by the member/peer? # of contacts Average length of contacts Average # of months in the program

  3. Enrollment in New York Peer Program (NYAPRS) 3

  4. Engagement in New York Peer Program (NYAPRS) *Engagement defined as having at least one peer contact after their enrollment date **Note that for face-to-face contact, travel time is also included so actual hours with member may be less 4

  5. Demographics of Participants in New York Peer Program (NYAPRS) *Among subsample referred to NY Peer Program 09/01/09 - 07/31/12, agreed to participate, had a closed case at the time of analysis, had continuous eligibility 6 months pre and post referral, and at least one behavioral health claim during that period 5

  6. Impact on Behavioral Health Utilization – Participants in New York Peer Program (NYAPRS) *Among subsample referred to NY Peer Program 09/01/09 - 07/31/12, agreed to participate, had a closed case at the time of analysis, had continuous eligibility 6 months pre and post referral, and at least one behavioral health claim during that period 6

  7. Enrollment in Wisconsin Peer Program (GEP) 7

  8. Engagement in Wisconsin Peer Program (GEP) *Engagement defined as members who agreed to program, received an outreach attempt, and had at least one contact (phone or face-to-face) with the peer 8

  9. Demographics of Participants in Wisconsin Peer Program (GEP) *Among subsample referred to the WI program between 12/09/09 – 12/31/11, agreed to participate, had a closed case at the time of analysis, had continuous eligibility 6 months pre and post referral, and at least one behavioral health claim during that period 9

  10. Impact on Behavioral Health Utilization – Participants in Wisconsin Peer Program (GEP) *Among subsample referred to the WI program between 12/09/09 – 12/31/11, agreed to participate, had a closed case at the time of analysis, had continuous eligibility 6 months pre and post referral, and at least one behavioral health claim during that period 10

  11. Summary of Enrollment & Engagement Findings (NY & WI) This is a difficult population to reach and enroll despite strong efforts Reach rates: NY = 39.1%, WI = 45.8% Of the 60.9% not reached in NY, 45.6% were outreached to 6 times (maximum attempts) Enrollment rates: NY = 39.4% of reached; WI = 82.6% of reached Lesson learned: Outreach needs to occur as soon as possible, ideally while member still in the hospital (original model) Once enrolled, individuals are actively engaged in the program Engaged over substantial period of time NY = 7.3 months on average WI = 8.0 months on average High number of contacts with their peers NY = 14.9 contacts; 14.4 hours WI = 14.3 contacts; 6.7 hours 11

  12. Summary of Preliminary Utilization & Cost Findings 6 months pre-post, members who enroll in the program show: Significant Decreases in % who use inpatient services NY: 47.9% decrease (from 92.6% to 48.2%) WI: 38.6% decrease (from 71.5% to 43.9%) Significant Decreases in # of inpatient days NY: 62.5% decrease (from 11.2 days to 4.2) WI: 29.7% decrease (from 6.4 days to 4.5) Significant Increases in # of outpatient visits NY: 28.0% increase (from 8.5 visits to 11.8) WI: 22.9% increase (from 9.1 visits to 11.8) Significant Decreases in total BH costs NY:47.1% decrease (from $9,998.69 to $5,291.59) WI: 24.3% decrease (from $7,555.49 to $5,716.31) *Among subsample of enrollees in NY (N = ) and WI (N = 130) with continuous eligibility 6 months pre-referral and 6 months post-referral and at least one behavioral health claim during that period 12

  13. Pilot Study Results – Yale Study On average, enrollees in two peer programs showed positive outcomes, scoring above the midpoint on all survey measures* *At time of survey, majority of respondents ( 82%) had been in peer program at least 5 months

  14. Pilot Study Results – Yale Study Data gathered in focus groups shed light on the important subjective qualities of the peer relationship that might have contributed to the program’s positive outcomes: • appreciation for having someone to talk to who genuinely cared for them and was willing to listen • peer specialists’ skillful balancing of friendship and structured support • fostering the development of concrete personal goals in the wake of difficulties • practical support received from peers in advocating for various issues or locating services

More Related