# Brief: Clinic services Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22. ## Measures funders require ### New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports, In-Community Clinic Services (RFA SETT-25006) #### Number of Participant Encounter forms submitted (encounters) - Requirement: required - Definition: An encounter is defined as an in person clinical, medical, or peer service delivered to a patient outside of the applicant’s traditional brick-and-mortar setting. Only one encounter form per individual per day counts toward the cost per encounter calculation. - Instrument: OASAS Participant Encounter form (Appendix C: Encounter Data Reporting Guide) - Reporting frequency: forms due within 24 hours of service delivery - Target rule: No target rule stated - Source: State agency funding notices, 7 (printed page 6 of 37), https://oasas.ny.gov/rfa-25006-community-clinic-services-document #### Gross cost per encounter - Requirement: required - Definition: NYS OASAS will calculate the cost per encounter for a given quarter by dividing the total cost submitted for the quarter by the number of Participant Encounter forms submitted during the time period reflected in the report (expenses/encounters for a per encounter cost). An encounter is defined as an in person clinical, medical, or peer service delivered to a patient outside of the applicant’s traditional brick-and-mortar setting. One encounter per individual per day counts toward the reimbursement calculation. - Instrument: OES Quarterly Expense Report and Participant Encounter forms - Reporting frequency: quarterly - Target rule: Funder sets the target - Source: State agency funding notices, 7 (printed page 6 of 37), https://oasas.ny.gov/rfa-25006-community-clinic-services-document ## What you can collect, and how Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier. ### Tier 1: Collect today from your own records #### Number of Participant Encounter forms submitted (encounters) - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. ### Tier not determined #### Gross cost per encounter ## What grantees achieved Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Expansion Grants: the source lists 4 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed. Source: HHS TAGGS award abstract targets, https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/AwardDetail?arg_AwardNum=H79SM086791&arg_ProgOfficeCode=80. Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative reported 14 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 98% to 103%), and 57% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative (2007): By 2010 increase the percentage of American Indian/Alaskan Native individuals surviving 3 years after a diagnosis of AIDS.; promised 77%, actual 75% (97% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10009018.2007.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Health Centers reported 11 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 99% of target (middle half 88% to 100%), and 18% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Health Centers (2004): Efficiency Measure: Percent increase in cost per patient served at health centers. (Health Center growth rate /Target: 20% below the National growth rate); promised 5.8%, actual 5.3% (91% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10000274.2007.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Free Clinics Medical Malpractice Coverage reported 9 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 114% of target (middle half 100% to 118%), and 89% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Free Clinics Medical Malpractice Coverage (2005): Percent of volunteer FTCA-deemed clinicians who meet certification and privileging requirements.; promised 100%, actual 100% (100% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003536.2006.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Family Planning reported 7 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 98% to 101%), and 57% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Family Planning (2006): Reduce invasive cervical cancer among women attending Title X family planning clinics by providing Pap tests.; promised 809, actual 799 (99% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003513.2005.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Medicaid reported 6 results against targets over 6 periods; the median result was 96% of target (middle half 84% to 99%), and 33% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Medicaid (2004): Prevalence of Restraints in Nursing Homes; promised 7.2%, actual 7.3% (101% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003545.2006.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Ryan White HIV/AIDS reported 5 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 120% of target (middle half 110% to 127%), and 80% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Ryan White HIV/AIDS (2006): The number of persons who learn their serostatus from Ryan White Programs.; promised 583,845, actual 641,866 (110% of target); unit: count. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10000296.2007.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Black Lung Clinics reported 4 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 106% of target (middle half 102% to 106%), and 75% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Black Lung Clinics (2006): The number of medical encounters for Black Lung each year.; promised 20,983, actual 19,165 (91% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003534.2006.html 8 of 9 matched precedent programs shown, largest first. ## Target-setting language with precedent Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule. No target-setting clause from New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports in the library yet; the items below are the nearest precedent. - CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm - SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf - HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf - NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html - Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf - HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3 ## What reviewers penalize These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment. - [ ] Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29 - [ ] Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6 - [ ] Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5 - [ ] Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14 - [ ] Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10 - [ ] Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19 - [ ] Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24 ## Protocol skeleton ### Draft text, edit before use Measures: Number of Participant Encounter forms submitted (encounters); Gross cost per encounter. Baseline: \_\_\_\_ months from award, using OASAS Participant Encounter form (Appendix C: Encounter Data Reporting Guide); OES Quarterly Expense Report and Participant Encounter forms. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month \_\_\_\_, or committed now as a change of \_\_\_\_ percentage points from baseline. Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): \_\_\_\_ Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): \_\_\_\_ Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: \_\_\_\_ Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): \_\_\_\_ Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: \_\_\_\_ Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): \_\_\_\_ Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): \_\_\_\_ Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): \_\_\_\_ Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): \_\_\_\_ Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): \_\_\_\_ The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.