Hooker Odom's laughable, flimsy audit information

Where is the audit information? I asked Brad Deen, who is the guy who is supposed to get you DHHS public information. He was nice when I first contacted him but he seems to have become less fond of me. He got me the notes as associated with the early mysterious '20 Community Support providers' supposed to be helping DHHS w/ audit which determines whether the Endorsed Providers sink or swim. Here is what he told me:

"Attached, please find a spreadsheet with results of the initial round of field audits. This is all the information I have pertaining to the provider audits. A report based on these results is in the works. It is not yet completed. I do not know its future completion date. One more thing: Please remove my name and e-mail address from your mass e-mailings.

Brad DeenN.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services Public Affairs Brad Deen Brad.Deen@ncmail.net

Its the same information that we had over 10 days ago from the Raleigh News Observer reporter, Lynn Bonner: http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/566059.html
Here is the audit she posted at that time, in a pdf file: http://www.newsobserver.com/content/politics/
story_graphics/20070420_health_audit.pdf

The EXCEL file that Deen sent to me is the same as Bonner's, in terms of specific providers, and in terms of detail (I can only assume that Bonner translated it, somehow). However, the Deen EXCEL file, as associated with the pop-up descriptor boxes at the top (there is confounding cross-over between Grps 2 & 3, as per below: n = 168 (participants)

The 3 categories of providers assoc w/ EXCEL file (Deen)

Category 1: "Providers that scored 75% or higher on the overall Medicaid audit, and on the above critical measures" (there's 89 providers in that group)

Category 2: "Providers that scored less than 75% but greater than 50% on the overall Medicaid audit, and on the above critical measures ; (there's 17 providers in that group w. 1 no-show)

Category 3: ">Providers that scores less than 50% on critical measures and had 4 or more records which did not contain notes for the events audited." (there's 16 providcers in that group w/ 1 no-show).

To cut to the chase here : the problem with the providers in Category 3 is that 8 of the 15 providers had 4 or more missing notes. THAT'S IT....until Deen or Hooker Odom or someone in DMA identified what the critical measures were. There is no information on the other 7 providers in Category 3.

Just as I have said before : the Endorsed Providers are being gigged on the basis of a poorly conceived and implemented DMA 'audit' which any statistician (or psychologist) would Pied-piper down the pier. On the basis of 8% of the MOST heavily billing (n = 168, sample), of Endorsed Providers in NC----the entire notion of mental health reform hinges.
The purpose of the audit is to crash Community Support and thereby, mental health reform in NC.
I'd like to see these questions answered:

1. How many Endorsed Providers are there in NC? 2. What are the 'critical measures' associated with the audit? Without this information, no salient comments can be made

3. Why were the cut-offs of 50% and 75% chosen?

4. Why was the cut-off of4 or more 'missing notes' chosen?

5. What was the problem w/ the other 7 providers in Category 3 (as associated with missing data e.g., no information about 'missing notes and/ or what the criterion measures were)

A stats primer, of sorts, as associated with this kind of 'research': you cannot 'look' at the data and then set your criterion. This is called 'peeking' at the data and I'll eat my hat if these people didn't peak at the data. To suit, they said: 'what do we want to see and do here'; set the criteria (nothing too outlandish), and did the deed. In terms of statistics and their manipulation: Did I hear someone mention that the Republicans routed their information as per the OH vote down to a company in Chattanooga, TN, while we were all sitting on our hands waiting to hear if John Kerry had won or not?

"....These strange election results were routed by county election officials through Ohio's Secretary of State's office, through partisan IT providers and software, and the final results were hosted out of a computer based in Tennessee announcing the winner. ..."http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2553

Once you look at your data---a priori--and if you have not set your criterion (and what ARE the criterion)---then you can say anything you like : LIES...damned LIES...and Statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

******************************************************

Local Providers in Rutherford County have simply decided to continue to utilize the number of Community Support hours they did 'a priori' to DHHS's sloppy DMA analysis. If all the Endorsed Providers simply did this, then the LME's and 'The Department' would have to audit everyone.....Stay tuned........

http://www.mountainx.com/opinion/letters.php
From mental-health potholes to sinkholes
"There is no reason to think Odom’s behavior is going to change after six years. Gov. Easley: you appointed her. Please relieve us of Carmen Hooker Odom. "
— Marsha V. Hammond Asheville