Comparing alternative risk-adjustment models

The use of mental health indicators to compare provider performance require s that comparisons be fair Fair provider comparisons mean that scores are r isk adjusted for client characteristics that influence scores and that are beyond provider control. Data for the study are collected from 336 outpatie nts receiving publicly funded mental health services in Washington State. T he study compares alternative specifications of multiple regression-based r isk-adjustment models to argue that the particular form of the model will l ead to different conclusions about comparative treatment agency performance . It? order to evaluate performance fairly it is necessary to not only inco rporate risk adjustment, but also identify the most correct form that the r isk-adjustment model should take. Future research is needed to specify,, te st, and validate the mental health risk-adjustment models best suited to pa rticular treatment populations and performance indicators.