Page 89

TEAMKY Demonstration

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

Page 88 of 155 Research Question Outcome measures used to address the research question Sample or population subgroups to be compared Data Sources Analytic Methods Hypothesis 1 Research question 1a -Measure 1 -Measure 2 -Measure 3 -Sample e.g. All attributed Medicaid beneficiaries -Beneficiaries with diabetes diagnosis -Medicaid fee-for- service and encounter claims records -Interrupted time series Research question 1b -Measure 1 -Measure 2 -Measure 3 -Measure 4 -sample, e.g., PPS patients who meet survey selection requirements (used services within the last 6 months) -Patient survey Descriptive statistics Hypothesis 2 Research question 2a -Measure 1 -Measure 2 -Sample, e.g., PPS administrators -Key informants Qualitative analysis of interview material

D. Methodological Limitations – This section provides detailed information on the limitations of the evaluation. This could include the design, the data sources or collection process, or analytic methods. The state should also identify any efforts to minimize the limitations. Additionally, this section should include any information about features of the demonstration that effectively present methodological constraints that the state would like CMS to take into consideration in its review.

E. Special Methodological Considerations – CMS recognizes that there may be certain instances where a state cannot meet the rigor of an evaluation as expected by CMS. In these instances, the state should document for CMS why it is not able to incorporate key components of a rigorous evaluation, including comparison groups and baseline data analyses. Examples of considerations include:

When the demonstration is considered successful without issues or concerns that would require more regular reporting, such as: a. Operating smoothly without administrative changes; and b. No or minimal appeals and grievances; and c. No state issues with CMS 64 reporting or budget neutrality; and d. No Corrective Action Plans (CAP) for the demonstration.

F. Attachments

1) Independent Evaluator. This includes a discussion of the state’s process for obtaining an independent entity to conduct the evaluation, including a description of the qualifications that the selected entity must possess, and how the state will assure no conflict of interest. Explain how the state will assure that the Independent Evaluator will conduct a fair and impartial evaluation, prepare an objective Evaluation Report, and that there would be no conflict of interest. The evaluation design should include a “No Conflict of Interest” statement signed by the independent evaluator.