Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subgroup weighs screening metrics and legislative incentive options after seeing low captured screening rates
Summary
The screening-and-detection subgroup reported uncertainty about which measures to track, how negative screens are captured, and whether to focus on Medicaid-only data; members discussed incentive models in other states (one example cited: an extra $150 payment tied to completed screenings).
Stephanie Adams, a family nurse practitioner working in pediatrics, said the screening-and-detection subgroup is grappling with metric definitions and how to collect consistent data across settings.
"One of the biggest issues we've been running into is kind of defining some of the metrics that we're after," Stephanie said, noting uncertainty about whether to limit measures to Medicaid or to include private payers and about inconsistent screening practices across providers.
She described looking at other states for successful models and cited North Carolina and California as examples. "So in North Carolina, it's an extra $150," she said, as an example of a financial incentive that boosts screening completion and report-card performance. The group discussed whether a legislated incentive tied to billing or pay-for-performance would be feasible in Connecticut.
Members also raised measurement challenges: some clinicians use EPDS rather than PHQ-based instruments, some screenings are not billed when negative, and multiple providers (OB/GYN, pediatrician, WIC worker) could screen the same person, complicating counts. The subgroup plans to compile a focused list of questions for DSS and DPH to clarify which codes and clinical data are captured and whether incentives or reporting changes could raise measured screening rates.
