1. Practical Solutions to Oral Health Data Challenges Kathryn K. Peppe, RN, MS Mark D. Siegal, DDS, MPH Ohio Department of Health

2. Challenges Needs Assessment Advocating for resources Educating decision-makers Annual reporting for Title V

3. MCH Block Grant Oral Health Performance Measures (Ohio) othird grade children with dental sealants on one or more permanent molar teeth (National Core)

4. MCH Block Grant Oral Health Performance Measures (Ohio) othird grade children with an obvious need for dental care (State Negotiated Measure)

5. MCH Block Grant Oral Health Performance Measures (Ohio) o6-9 y.o. EPSDT eligibles receiving a dental service (Health Status Indicator, developmental)

6. FFY 2001 Ohio MCH Block Grant Needs Assessment “ Oral health problems and access to dental care” was: – one of the Top 10 MCH health issues –the highest scoring health issue for children and adolescents

7. “Oral health problems and access to dental care” was: –mentioned among top health issues in surveys of local MCH programs, health commissioners, legislators and parents –the #1 unmet health care need of Ohioans (Family Health Survey)

8. Translating Data into Dollars Linkage between needs assessment and state negotiated performance measures ( SPM) Linkage between core/SPMs and FFY2001 budget

9. Ohio’s Oral Health Data Collection Approach 1998-99 (Full survey) 2000-2004 (Annual screening surveys of sentinel schools) 2004-05 (Full survey)

10. ASTDD Needs Assessment/Data Collection Tools 7-Step Model Basic Screening Surveys

11. Getting the Goods  NCEMCH (ASTDD 7-Step Model) 703-524-7802 703-524-9335 (fax) http://www.ncemch.org oASTDD (Basic Screening Surveys) http://www.astdd.org

12. 1999 Ohio Oral Health Needs Assessment Data Collection (for joint report on access to dental care) oOral health screening survey (336 schools) –grades 1-3, state and county levels oKey Informant surveys –Dentists –Safety Net Dental Care Programs –Low Income Consumers –School Nurses at high risk elementaries –Consumers (Ohio Family Health Survey, BRFSS) oMedicaid data collaboration

13. Sentinel Schools oPurposive sample of 25 cooperative schools, representative of 1998-99 sample of 336 schools. oPlan to screen 3rd graders annually, between large surveys.

14. Selection Criteria for Sentinel Schools Unweighted percentages “Cooperation” scores of 4 or 5 Schools with Blacks and Whites At least two within +/-1/2 s.d.: –FRM –Sealants –Obvious need for care

15. Comparison of Sentinel Schools with All Grade 3

16. Effort: Data Rich vs. Data Lite

17. 1998-99 Data “hooks” Sealants No disparity in sealants among 8 y.o. children Medicaid recipients who got sealants at school often had subsequent claims from other dentists

18. 1998-99 Data “hooks” Sealants Low income kids at schools with sealant programs were 3 times as likely to have sealants as those at schools without sealant programs

19. 1998-99 Data “hooks” Access FRM program children were twice as likely to have obvious need for dental care

20. 1998-99 Data “hooks” Access Parents of FRM program children were 4 times as likely to say they couldn’t get dental care that they wanted for their children –2/3 tried to get care

21. Time