180 SCAN: SYSTEM PERFORMANCE – DMC-ODS

Year 2

PRESENTED BY RESEARCH & OUTCOME MEASUREMENT (ROM), QUALIT Y IMPROVEMENT & DATA SUPPORT (QIDS)

SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES

SEPTEMBER 10 2019

1

Agenda

Theme of 180 Scan

2nd year – DMC-ODS

Presenter: Kakoli Banerjee

Key metrics Access to treatment & timely access- Presenter: Kakoli Banerjee

Authorization & LOC Placement- Presenter: Katherine Christian

Quality of services– Presenter: Patricia Rubio-Corona

Services utilization: Presenter: Kakoli Banerjee

Client outcomes: Presenter: Kimberly D’zatko

2

The 180 SCANA 180 scan is analogous to a wide angled view or perspective of a landscape in which the entire field is visible.

3

DMC –ODS Pilot Phases

Year 1 focused on:

Building the infrastructure to deliver DMC-ODS compliant services

Year 2 focused on:

Implementing remaining infrastructure components

Putting into place measures to improve the quality of the network of care

4

Year 2 Year End 180-Scan

The goals of the September 180 Scan are to:

Review developments in the Year 2 of DMC-ODS pilot

Present performance measures for the last 2 quarters of FY 2019 (Jan 1 – June 30 2019)

5

Review of DevelopmentsSCC DMC – ODS Pilot

SANTA CLARA COUNT Y SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES

6

3 Main Components of the DMC-ODS Pilot

Clinical: ASAM-based clinical framework of treatment delivery

Operational philosophy: Use of managed care principles (based on 42 CFR 438) to operate the business side of the delivery system

Application of Medi-Cal rules for reimbursement

Quality improvement: Monitoring service quality according to Managed Care Plan’s Quality Improvement Plan

7

Current DMC-ODS system of care

3 Levels of OP

(ASAM 1.0, 2.1, 2.5)Recovery services

Medication Assisted Tx with OP treatment

Standard NTP/OTPWithdrawal management

(ASAM 3.2)

Residential services (ASAM 3.1)

8

Additional treatment components – FY 2020

Additional required components

•Residential ASAM levels 3.3 and 3.5 need to be set up.

•Billing will begin in 2020

•Need to locate service providers for ASAM Levels 3.7 & 4.0 to refer clients

•Once ASAM levels from 3.3 to 4.0 are in place, Santa Clara County will have almost all ASAM levels of care

9

Expansion of treatment slots/beds & new providers

Additional capacity

• Residential slots – 30 new beds

• Withdrawal management – 6 new beds

• Outpatient treatment - 220 new slots

New Providers

• Telecare

• Momentum

10

MCP Communications

Communication is a key component of successful implementation. The MCP has updated its communication methodology.

The SUTS MCP website went live in early 2019.

Many key documents are posted to the website. However, we recognize the need to post materials more promptly.

• Many commonly used forms

• Commonly used manuals

• Clinician’s Guide to CalOMS (recently posted)

11

New provider trainings

New provider orientation

•A new provider orientation was piloted in May 2019 and was used to onboard Telecare & Momentum.

Annual DMC-ODS provider training

•A daylong training on DMC-ODS was provided at the beginning of FY 2020.

12

Other trainings

SUTS MCP offers annual, monthly, quarterly and one-time trainings on key DMC-ODS requirements. Examples are provided below

Annual trainings – DMC-ODS regulatory training

Trainings on an-as-needed basis –

Billing Training

UniCare training

Monthly trainings-

CalOMS

Biannual trainings – ALOC & Clinical Documentation

One-time trainings-

Referral disposition

Provider Monthly Report

13

Monitoring network adequacy

The MCP is required to maintain network adequacy.

• Network adequacy means that the contracted capacity (total number of beds and slots) must be made available to beneficiaries.

• Any reductions in capacity must be monitored and effects on beneficiary access mitigated.

SUTS MCP set up a procedure & the Clinician Credentialing form to :

• Track all licensed, certified and registered staff at provider sites to track network adequacy.

• Comply with the requirements of a DHCS Information Notice (IN)

14

Monitoring changes in utilization of service levels

Since the beginning of the Medi-cal waiver, small changes in usage of different levels of care have been observed.

Slight decrease in adult OP admissions, offset by increasing admissions of IOP/PHP & Recovery Services

A larger decline in the number of adult residential admissions has been observed

Several factors account for these shifts, most notably stricter standards for admission to each level of care, and medical necessity

15

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES-Q3 & Q4 FY 2019

SANTA CLARA COUNT Y SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES

16

Data for the September 180 Scan

Data for this 180 Scan covers the period from –January 1 2019 and June 30 2019. Some slides in the Waiver Services section cover the entire FY 2019

Data analysis covers the SUTS network, except where system of care data are more relevant

Analyses based is on data entered into Profiler by individual agencies and county clinics.

Assumption is that agencies have reconciled individual EHR data with Profiler

EXCEPTION: Client Feedback Survey (not in Profiler)

Profiler data are pulled on a date emailed to the providers ahead of time.

Data are reconciled and cleaned to the extent possible before analysis.

17

What were the characteristics of recipients of Medi-Cal services in Santa Clara County?

ANALYST: PATRICIA -RUBIO CORONA

PRESENTER: KAKOLI BANERJEE

18

What were the characteristics of recipients of Medi-Cal services in Santa Clara County?

3%

9%

5%

5%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

8%

16%

10%

9%

6%

7%

4%

5%

3%

18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

17 and Under

18-24

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

Over 60

Percent of Client

Clie

nt

Age

Age and Gender Distribution at Admission to Medi-Cal Certified Agencies January 1, 2018- June 30,2018

(n=1970 admissions)

Male Female

What were the characteristics of recipients of Medi-Cal services in Santa Clara County?

African American 7%American Indian and

Alaskan Native 1%

Asian and Pacific Islander 6%

Mixed/Other 7%

White 29%

Hispanic 50%

Race & Ethnic Distribution at Admission: DMC Agencies onlyJanuary 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n=1970 admissions

What were the characteristics of recipients of Medi-Cal services in Santa Clara County?

Number and percent of OP clients who are VeteransJanuary 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n= 1970 admissions

Veteran Status Number of ClientsPercent of Clients

No 1946 98%Yes 22 2%

What were the characteristics of recipients of Medi-Cal services in Santa Clara County?

Number and percent of OP clients who are homelessJanuary 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n= 1970 admissions

Number of Clients Percent of Clients

Not Homeless 1517 77%

Homeless 519 23%

ACCESS & TIMELINESS OF ACCESS

DATA ANALYSTS: PATRICIA RUBIO -CORONA & LONG BUI

PRESENTER: PATRICIA RUBIO-CORONA

23

Access to treatment measures

Has the MCP met the time and distance criteria for service availability in Santa Clara County?

Were clients who needed treatment in the SUTS system of care admitted to treatment in a timely manner?

24

Medi-Cal Managed Care Time & Distance Measure

Timely access defined as the distance or travel time from a beneficiary’s residence.

Service must be available within:

30 minutes or 15 miles

25

Where are MCP providers located in Santa Clara County?

26

27

TIMELINESS OF ACCESS

What was the average duration of time between:the screen date and first outpatient appointment?

The screen date and first residential appointment?

What was the average duration of time between:the screen date and first outpatient admission?

the screen date and first residential admission?

28

Were adult clients who sought treatment in the SUTS system of care admitted to treatment in a timely manner?

56%

61%

54%

50%

36%

48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f O

P A

du

lt C

lien

ts

Percent of OP Adult Clients Admitted within 14 days of Screen DateJanuary 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n=1197 clients screened

Note: Average percent of clients admitted within 14 days was 51%, last 180 scan, average was 56%

Were youth clients who sought treatment in the SUTS system of care admitted to treatment in a timely manner?

NOTE: Average percent of clients admitted within 14 days was 39%, last 180 scan, average was 69%

52%

27%25%

50%

38%42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f Y

ou

th C

lien

ts

Percent of Youth Clients Admitted within 14 days of Screen DateJanuary 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n=133 clients screened

Were residential clients who sought treatment in the SUTS system of care admitted to treatment in a timely manner?

71%

85%

73%76%

60%57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f R

esid

enti

al C

lien

ts

Percent of Residential Clients Admitted within 14 days of Screen DateJanuary 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n=154 clients screened

NOTE: Average percent of clients admitted within 14 days was 70%, last 180 scan, average was 55%

Questions ?

32

USE OF ASAM – LOC PLACEMENT & RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION

ANALYSTS: KATHERINE CHRISTIAN & OLENA CHESNAKOVA

PRESENTER: KATHERINE CHRISTIAN

33

LOC PLACEMENT & AUTHORIZATION

What percent of clients admitted to treatment were placed in LOC based on ASAM criteria?

What percent of clients admitted to residential treatment were placed based on ASAM criteria?

What percent of clients were admitted to the indicated level of care?

What percent of residential clients required a higher level of care than was available?

Were authorizations for residential treatment provided consistently?

34

37

For Residential clients, how many require a higher LOC than is available?

"Other" Actual LOC includes: 1 OP; 3.5 RES; 3.2 WM; or None/Blank

38

Initial Assessment OnlyIndicated LOC vs Actual LOC for RES ALOCs

Percent of Total RES ALOCs

(Jan 2019 - Jun 2019) (n= 488)

8%

88%

0%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All to "Other"

3.1 to 3.1

3.3 to 3.1

3.5 to 3.1

Percent of Total RES Initial Assessment ALOCs

Ind

icat

ed L

OC

to

Act

ual

LO

C

Initial Assessments Only

Combined Indicated LOC for Outpatient, Intensive Outpatient & Partial Hospitalization ALOCs vs Actual LOCPercent of Total Indicated OP, IOP, PHP ALOCs (n=1752)

(Jan 2019 - Jun 2019)

39

94%

4% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Indicated LOC same as ActualLOC

Indicated LOC to "Other" ActualLOC

Indicated LOC to None/BlankActual LOC

% o

f To

tal I

nd

icat

ed O

P, IO

P &

PH

P A

LOC

s

Indicated LOC to Actual LOC for Initial Assessment OP, IOP & PHP

"Other" Actual LOC includes: OP/MAT/NTP; 2.1 IOP, 2.5 PHP, 3.2 WM or Recovery Services

Questions ?

43

PLEASE RETURN IN 5 MINUTES

44

QUALITY OF CARE

DATA ANALYSTS: PATRICIA RUBIO -CORONA & AHMET TOPRAK

PRESENTER: PATRICIA RUBIO-CORONA

45

QUALITY OF CARE -OUTPATIENT

Has the MCP met the minimum criteria for client engagement as measured by services attended by the client?

Did the majority of OP clients receive at least 4 services during the first month after admission?

What percent of OP clients completed treatment?

What was the drop out rate for Outpatient Adult clients?

46

Did the majority of Youth clients receive at least 4 services during the first month after admission?

18%

51%

38%41%

70%

84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts

January 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n=266 admissions

NOTE: Average percent of clients was 50%. Last 180 scan, average percent of clients was 44%.

Has the MCP met the minimum criteria for Youth client engagement as measured by services attended by the client?

30%

59%

42%

48%

82%84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts

2+ Services in 14 Days Post Admission January 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019

n=266 admissions

NOTE: Average percent of clients was 57%. Last 180 scan, average percent of clients was 77%.

What was the drop out rate for Adult outpatient clients?

NOTE: Average percent of drop out clients was 17%. Last 180 scan, average percent of drop out clients was 18%.

9%

18%15% 16%

20%22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f O

P A

du

lt C

lien

ts

January 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019n= 1260 OP admissions

What was the drop out rate for Youth outpatient clients?

NOTE: Average percent of drop out clients was 21%. Last 180 scan, average percent of drop out clients was 21%.

16%

7%9%

22%

36%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f O

P A

du

lt C

lien

ts

January 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019n= 245 OP Admissions

What percent of OP Adult clients completed treatment?

37%

32%28%

32% 31%28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts

January 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019n=1451 discharges

NOTE: Average percent of clients who completed treatment was 31%. Last 180 scan, average percent of clients who completed treatment was 26%.

What percent of OP Youth clients completed treatment?

13%

8%13%

18%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts

January 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019n=321 discharges

NOTE: Average percent of clients who completed treatment was 13%. Last 180 scan, average percent of clients who completed treatment was 9%.

QUALITY OF CARE -RESIDENTIAL

What percent of residential clients completed treatment?

What was the drop out rate for residential clients?

What percent of residential clients were transferred to another level of care following discharge?

What was the rate of readmissions to WM, residential and intensive outpatient within 30 days of discharge?

What percentage of the total days in residential did clients receive a clinical service?

55

What percent of Residential clients completed treatment?

69%

56% 57% 56%60%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Per

cen

t o

f C

lien

ts

January 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019n=314 discharges

NOTE: Average percent of clients who completed treatment was 59%. Last 180 scan, average percent of clients who completed treatment was 51%.

Questions ?

57

WAIVER SERVICES UTILIZATION

ANALYST & PRESENTER: KAKOLI BANERJEE

58

WAIVER SERVICES UTILIZATION The following measures of services utilization will be shown by modality:What were the changes in admissions to different levels of care due to the waiver?

What was the average length of stay?

What type of OP, IOP/PHP services were provided?

How many services or hours of services were provided?

What was the OP, IOP/PHP cancellation & no show rate for the FY?

What was the OP utilization rate?

What percent of the residential stay involve a service (a bed day)?

What percent residential services provided were attached to a Medi-Cal payor?

What was the residential utilization rate?

59

Changes in admissions by level of care

60

54

23

4 12 8 1

50

2 316

4 1 11 100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

OP IOP/PHP Rec Svcs Adult Res AMT Vititrol Detox Adol OP tx AdolescentRes

% o

f ad

mis

sio

ns

CHANGES IN LOC UTIL IZATION –FY 2017 (N=7810) VS.FY 2019 (N=6867)

2017 2019

Median length of stay by level of care – FY 2019 (n=6867)

61

64

37

78

41

61

29

23

29

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

OP

IOP/PHP

Rec Svcs

AMT

Youth OP

Adult Res

Peri Res

Youth Res

WM

NUMBER OF DAYS

Median LOS (days)

What was the length of stay in adult outpatient treatment?

62

.0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.0

0

5.0

0

9.0

0

13

.00

17

.00

21

.00

25

.00

29

.00

33

.00

37

.00

41

.00

45

.00

49

.00

53

.00

57

.00

61

.00

65

.00

69

.00

73

.00

77

.00

81

.00

85

.00

89

.00

93

.00

97

.00

10

1.0

0

10

5.0

0

10

9.0

0

11

3.0

0

11

7.0

0

12

1.0

0

12

5.0

0

12

9.0

0

13

3.0

0

13

7.0

0

14

1.0

0

14

5.0

0

14

9.0

0

15

3.0

0

15

7.0

0

16

1.0

0

16

5.0

0

16

9.0

0

17

3.0

0

17

7.0

0

18

1.0

0

18

5.0

0

18

9.0

0

19

3.0

0

19

7.0

0

20

1.0

0

20

5.0

0

21

1.0

0

21

6.0

0

22

4.0

0

23

2.0

0

23

7.0

0

24

6.0

0

25

8.0

0

26

9.0

0

27

5.0

0

31

1.0

0

35

9.0

0

% O

F C

ASE

S

Adult length of stay - OP - FY 2019 (n=2598)

Median Los – 64 days

What was the length of stay in youth outpatient treatment?

63

.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1

5.0

0

9.0

0

13

.00

17

.00

22

.00

26

.00

30

.00

34

.00

38

.00

42

.00

46

.00

50

.00

54

.00

59

.00

63

.00

69

.00

73

.00

78

.00

82

.00

86

.00

91

.00

96

.00

10

0.0

0

10

6.0

0

11

0.0

0

11

4.0

0

11

8.0

0

12

2.0

0

12

6.0

0

13

1.0

0

13

7.0

0

14

2.0

0

14

7.0

0

15

4.0

0

15

8.0

0

16

8.0

0

17

5.0

0

18

1.0

0

18

9.0

0

19

5.0

0

20

2.0

0

21

2.0

0

21

9.0

0

22

7.0

0

23

5.0

0

24

4.0

0

25

2.0

0

26

3.0

0

26

9.0

0

27

6.0

0

29

4.0

0

31

3.0

0

% O

F C

ASE

S

Length of stay - Youth OP - FY 2019 (n=586)

Median LOS –61 days

Type of OP Services- Adult System-FY 2019

64

20 20 20 17 16 17 15 14 14 13 13 13

8 8 97 10 10 11

8 9 8 9 10

33 34 33

3133 33 35

36 34 38 3537

38 39 3844 40 40 38 42 43 41 43 40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun

% o

f se

rvic

es p

er m

on

th

Type of OP Services- Adult- FY 2019 (n=31866)

CM Intake Ind tx Grp tx

Type of OP Services-Youth System-FY 2019

65

10 7 6 7 5 6 7 7 6 8 7 9

66 9 7

7 7 6 75

5 5

11

5153

53 5756

6459 58 60

61 61

75

33 34 32 29 3223

28 29 29 26 26

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun

% o

f se

rvic

es p

er m

on

thType of outpatient services -Youth system - FY 2019 (n=4944)

CM Intake Ind tx Grp tx

What type of IOP/PHP services were provided to adult DMC clients?

66

81%76%

87% 88%

44%

87% 88%

73%

60% 57%

43% 44%

19%24%

13% 12%

56%

13% 12%

27%

40% 43%

57% 56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun

% o

f se

rvic

es p

er m

on

th

IOP & PHP services - Adult System - FY 2019 (n= 2180 services)

IOP PHP

What was the no shows & cancellation rate for adult OP, IOP & PHP & youth OP services?

67

24 23

3026

19 18

1116 15

22 2118

2833

30

36

12 10

3

2123 24

1518

2219

47

3 46 6 7

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun

% C

AN

CEL

LATI

ON

S/N

O S

HO

WS

No Shows/cancellations - Adult & Youth OP & Adult IOP/PHP services - FY 2019 (n=31866 services)

Adult OP IOP/PHP Youth OP

No show/cancellation

data missing

What was the slot utilization rate in adult & youth OP programs?

68

69

83 83

8885 84

93

88 88

8379

77

31

38

47

5760

55

61

69

7478

72

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun

% o

f co

ntr

acte

d c

apac

ity

Utilization of OP slots - Adult & Youth - FY 2019 (Adult Capacity – 1321 , Youth capacity – 400)

Adult OP Youth OP

What was the length of stay in adult residential treatment in FY 2019?

69

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1

3.0

0

5.0

0

7.0

0

9.0

0

11

.00

13

.00

15

.00

17

.00

19

.00

21

.00

23

.00

25

.00

27

.00

29

.00

31

.00

33

.00

35

.00

37

.00

39

.00

41

.00

43

.00

45

.00

47

.00

49

.00

51

.00

53

.00

55

.00

57

.00

59

.00

61

.00

63

.00

65

.00

67

.00

69

.00

71

.00

73

.00

75

.00

77

.00

79

.00

81

.00

83

.00

85

.00

87

.00

89

.00

91

.00

97

.00

10

0.0

0

11

6.0

0

11

9.0

0

12

2.0

0

14

2.0

0

15

8.0

0

18

1.0

0

% o

f ca

ses

Length of stay - Adult RES-FY 2019 (n=1059 admissions)

Median LOS 29 daysLeft within 1

day

What percent of bed days in adult residential services were billed to Medi-Cal payor?

70

8078 79

7775

84

79

70 70

77 7874

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUN

% o

f b

ed

day

s p

er

mo

nth

Medi-Cal Payor - Residential Bed days FY 2019 (n=34041 bed days)

What percent of available beds were utilized in the adult residential system?

71

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUN

125% 123%118%

102%

115%

101%

74%

93%97%

106%109%

99%

% o

f co

ntr

acte

d c

ap

acit

y u

tilize

d b

y m

on

th

Utilization of contracted capacity-Adult Residential Svcs -FY 2019 (Contracted adult DMC non-perinatal capacity – 86 beds)

Questions ?

72

CLIENT OUTCOMES

ANALYST & PRESENTER: KIMBERLY D’ZATKO

73

CLIENT PERCEPTION OF CARE- CLIENT FEEDBACK SURVEY

Are we getting feedback from our beneficiaries?

How were treatment services perceived by beneficiaries across different modalities?

Do beneficiaries associate substance use treatment with improvements in other areas of their lives?

74

CLIENT PERCEPTION OF CARECLIENT FEEDBACK SURVEY SUBMISSION RATE SUMMARY

75

Client Feedback Survey Submissions Summary by Provider (N= 4,773 Survey Submissions)

Q3 2019 Q4 2019 Max. Min.

Outpatient contracted 47% 23% 100% 50%

Outpatient County 50% 45% 100% 19%

NTP/OTP 52% 50% 71% 5%

Residential 78% 71% 100%* 33%

Withdrawal mgt. 55% 47% 88% 63%

Youth OP 37% 22% 14% 52%

Youth Res. 100% 84% 100% 18%

Non-DMC OP 26% 62% NA NA

Non-DMC Residential 13% 0 NA NA

CLIENT PERCEPTION OF CARECLIENT FEEDBACK SURVEY RESPONSE RATE SUMMARY

76

Year-1 average

monthly

submissions: 126

Year -2 average

monthly

submissions: 181

Year-3 average

monthly

submissions: 210

17

109

734

126

156

107

176 179

136124

104

173

224

749

211193

70

236216

240

274

219

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

Nu

mb

er

of

Clie

nt

Fe

ed

ba

ck

Su

rveys

Su

bm

itte

d S

yste

m-w

ide

MONTHLY CLIENT FEEDBACK SURVEY SUBMISSIONS

How were treatment services perceived by beneficiaries across different modalities?

CLIENT PERCEPTION OF CARE – CLIENT FEEDBACK SURVEY (N=4,773)

Survey ItemOP/IOP(n=1,864)

Res.(n=477)

OTP/NTP(n=582)

WM(n=834)

I felt welcomed here 98% 98% 98% 98%

I like the services offered here 96% 92% 90% 98%

Services were available when I needed them 94% 81% 83% 98%

Staff treated me with respect 97% 91% 90% 98%

Staff spoke to me in a way I understood 99% 94% 95% 97%

I would recommend this agency 92% 92% 92% 96%

Staff gave me enough time in my treatment sessions 97% 91% 91% 91%

I chose the treatment goals with my provider's help 94% 93% 93% 91%

Staff were sensitive to my cultural background 94% 92% 94% 94%

I was able to get all the help/services that I needed 94% 87% 87% 92%

The location was convenient 94% 86% 84% 80%

As a direct result of the services I am receiving I am better able to do things that I want to do 98% 92% 92% 91%

Staff here communicate well with my medical care providers to coordinate my care 88% 87% 91% 91%

Staff here communicate well with my mental health care providers to coordinate my care 88% 88% 80% 87%

77

Do beneficiaries report changes in housing stability? (n=2,999)

78

At the time they entered treatment,65% (n=1,950)of OP/IOP and NTP/OTP clients who responded to this survey item(n=2,999) reported

HOUSING INSTABILITY (couch-surfing, homeless)

After having been in treatment,84% of those clients (n=1,638) reported having STABLE HOUSING

79

At the time they entered treatment,39% (1,170) of clients who responded to this survey item (n=2,999) reported DIFFICULTY WITH ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING

After having been in treatment,89% of those clients (n=1,041) reported NO LONGER HAVING DIFFICULTY MANAGING THEIR DAILY LIVING ACTIVITIES

Do beneficiaries report changes in activities of daily living? (n=2,999)

80

Treatment Perceptions

Thank you for attending this presentation!

81

Questions ?

82