Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

New: MCHbest strategies database for sample ESMs

Evidence Tools
MCHbest. NPM 15: Continuous and Adequate Insurance

MCHbest Logo child and father holding a paper cutout of a house

Strategy. Behavior Health Programs

Approach. Support state agencies to identify eligibility and connect children to appropriate behavioral health services.

Return to main MCHbest page >>

Overview. Title V agencies in several states have developed ties to other agencies (e.g., Administrative Service Organizations, Intensive Care Management programs) and strategies, such as Medicaid waivers to provide services and supports that address the mental, behavioral, emotional, and substance use needs of children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN).

Evidence. Expert Opinion/Field Generated. The Catalyst Center/National Center for Health Insurance and Financing for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN) has identified this strategy as an innovative strategy. Read more in their practice report.

Target Audience. State/Systems.

Outcome. Percent of children, ages 0 through 17, who are continuously and adequately insured. For detailed outcomes related to each study supporting this strategy, click on the peer-reviewed evidence link above and read the "Intervention Results" for each study.

Examples from the Field. Access descriptions of ESMs that use this strategy directly or intervention components that align with this strategy. You can use these ESMs to see how other Title V agencies are addressing the NPM.

Sample ESMs. Using the approach “Support state agencies to identify eligibility and connect children to appropriate behavioral health services,” here are sample ESMs you can use as a model for your own measures using the Results-Based Accountability framework (for suggestions on how to develop programs to support this strategy, see The Role of Title V in Adapting Strategies):

Quadrant 1:
Measuring Quantity of Effort ("What/how much did we do?")

  • Number of Administrative Service Organizations in the state that have been worked with to determine eligibility of CYSHCN.

Quadrant 2:
Measuring Quality of Effort ("How well did we do it?")

  • Percent of Administrative Service Organizations in the state that have been worked with to determine eligibility of CYSHCN.

Quadrant 3:
Measuring Quantity of Effect ("Is anyone better off?")

  • Number of CYSHCN connected to necessary behavioral health services through an agency that the state Title V team is working with.

Quadrant 4:
Measuring Quality of Effect ("How are they better off?")

  • Percent of CYSHCN connected to necessary behavioral health services through an agency that the state Title V team is working with.

Note. ESMs become stronger as they move from measuring quantity to measuring quality (moving from Quadrants 1 and 3, respectively, to Quadrants 2 and 4) and from measuring effort to measuring effect (moving from Quadrants 1 and 2, respectively, to Quadrants 3 and 4):

Learn More. Read how to create stronger ESMs and how to measure ESM impact more meaningfully through Results-Based Accountability.

 

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.