Page 69

TEAMKY Demonstration

Approval Period: January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029

Page 68 of 155 otherwise, in consultation with CMS, the state may include updates to the Evaluation Design in monitoring reports.

a. Evaluation Questions and Hypotheses. Consistent with Attachments A and B (Developing the Evaluation Design and Preparing the Interim and Summative Evaluation Reports) of these STCs, the evaluation deliverables must include a discussion of the evaluation questions and hypotheses that the state intends to test. In alignment with applicable CMS evaluation guidance and technical assistance, the evaluation must outline and address well-crafted hypotheses and research questions for all key demonstration policy components that support understanding the demonstration’s impact and its effectiveness in achieving the goals. The hypothesis testing should include, where possible, assessment of both process and outcome measures. The evaluation must study outcomes, such as likelihood of enrollment and enrollment continuity, and various measures of access, utilization, and health outcomes, as appropriate and in alignment with applicable CMS evaluation guidance and technical assistance, for the demonstration policy components. Proposed measures should be selected from nationally-recognized sources and national measures sets, where possible. Measures sets could include CMS’s Core Set of Children’s Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid and CHIP (Child Core Set) and the Core Set of Adult Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid (Adult Core Set), collectively referred to as the CMS Child and Adult Core Measure Sets for Medicaid and CHIP; Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (CAHPS); the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey; and/or measures endorsed by NQF.

CMS underscores the importance of the state undertaking a well-designed beneficiary survey and/or interviews to assess, for instance, beneficiary individual understanding of and experience with and experience the various demonstration policy components, including but not limited to, beneficiary experiences with access to and quality of care. In addition, the state is strongly encouraged to evaluate the implementation of the demonstration components in order to better understand whether implementation of certain key demonstration policies happened as envisioned during the demonstration design process and whether specific factors acted as facilitators of—or barriers to— successful implementation. Implementation research questions can also focus on beneficiary and provider experience with the demonstration. The implementation evaluation can inform the state’s crafting and selection of testable hypotheses and research questions for the demonstration’s outcome and impact evaluations and provide context for interpreting the findings.

b. Evaluation of the Reentry Demonstration Initiative must be designed to examine whether the initiative expands Medicaid coverage through increased enrollment of eligible individuals, and efficient high-quality pre-release services that promote continuity of care into the community post-release. In addition, in alignment with the goals of the Reentry Demonstration Initiative in the state, the evaluation hypotheses must focus on, but not be limited to: cross-system communication and coordination; connections between correctional and community services; access to and quality of care