The hidden impact of Depression Screening and Follow-Up

By Kori Haddix, Director of Health Plan Strategy, Press Ganey

Behavioral health is quickly becoming recognized as one of the clearest indicators of Medicare Advantage (MA) performance—not just clinically, but across member experience, outcomes, usage, and cost.

That’s why the new Depression Screening and Follow-Up (DSF) measure matters more than its single weight may suggest. While the measure is currently in its display period, forward-looking plans are already treating it as a strategic opportunity to strengthen behavioral health integration, improve access, and prepare for broader downstream impacts across Star Ratings performance.

Press Ganey’s “State of Health Plan Member Experience” Signature Report reinforces this approach. Behavioral health remains one of the biggest performance gaps in healthcare today: Only 56% of members can access behavioral healthcare within 10 days, yet satisfaction exceeds 90% once care is delivered. This gap between access and experience doesn’t just affect member trust—it shapes outcomes, utilization patterns, and total cost of care.

Why DSF is a performance multiplier

The broader message is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: Behavioral health is no longer peripheral to performance.—it is a core driver of whole‑person outcomes. Plans that continue to manage behavioral health in operational or organizational silos are unintentionally limiting future performance across quality, experience, and cost.

From a Medicare Stars perspective, this shift has real implications for Medicare Advantage plans. While Depression Screening and Follow‑Up is a single‑weighted measure, its performance is likely to directly influence:

• Triple‑weighted Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) measures, particularly Improving or Maintaining Mental Health, which is also closely correlated to Improving or Maintaining Physical Health
• Double‑weighted Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) member experience measures that remain in Star Ratings

Most of this screening happens in primary care, so driving members to annual wellness visits positions your network providers to influence a host of other preventive care and chronic condition management measures, in addition to coding for risk adjustment.

In practice, this makes DSF much more than just a new clinical measure—it strengthens performance across multiple dimensions, making it a powerful driver of organizational success. Improvements here can ripple across patient‑reported outcomes, experience, and downstream usage, extending the impact far beyond the measure itself.

This is why it’s so important to start now, while the measure is on display. This is your opportunity to prepare before the measure directly influences your ratings. Knowing what to expect and what interventions are needed, can effectively help in resource allocation when the measure moves into Star Ratings.

The early-mover advantage

By the time a new measure formally enters Star Ratings, high‑performing plans already have a competitive advantage because they’ve been working on the measure while it was on display. Leading plans use that display window to:

• Understand how the measure actually trends over time in their population
• Dig deeply into specifications: eligibility, exclusions, coding nuances, timing
• Consider what changes need to be made to benefits and formulary to enable performance
• Test and refine interventions so they know what to spread and how to budget

Lower-performing plans often wait until a measure is officially incorporated into the Star Ratings. By then, they’re trying to catch up to peers who already know where the challenges are, what works operationally, which providers they need to partner with, and which strategies fail quietly.

With DSF now on display and slated to be included starting in Measurement Year 2027 Star Ratings, this is precisely that window.

Where high-performing plans are focusing now

Across Medicare Advantage organizations that are moving early on DSF, several common areas of focus are emerging.

Measuring fluency is foundational. Leading teams are reviewing Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) technical specifications, MA Display Measure guidance, and the Final Rule itself, paying close attention to eligible populations, measure timing, exclusions, and coding requirements. Understanding these details informs how performance is implemented.

Understanding the current state is critical. Plans are scrutinizing DSF average performance, as well as sub-measures and stratifications to understand current-state performance and where opportunity truly lies. Is improvement opportunity primarily in screening, follow‑up, or both? What proportion of the opportunity is a data gap vs. a clinical gap? Are there disparities in performance based on member demographics like age, race, ethnicity, language, geography, and social risk factors? How does performance differ between attributed providers? And, just as importantly, plans are evaluating whether benefit design, network adequacy (including telehealth), or formulary structure may inadvertently be creating challenges for screening and/or follow-up.

Data reality checks are essential. Plans are asking practical questions about where data actually comes from today. Are depression screenings captured during Annual Wellness Visits, through a health risk assessment performed by the health plan, or other primary care touchpoints? How are the clinical aspects of this data (e.g., use of validated instrument for screening, screening result) captured through electronic medical records (EMR) integration? Is follow‑up documented through PCP activity, medication management, or behavioral health specialist visits? Where do data gaps exist, and which providers or settings have the most potential impact?

High‑performing plans are engaging medical and behavioral care management, quality and Stars teams, provider engagement and value‑based care leadership, data teams, and vendor partners early. DSF sits at the intersection of these functions, and misalignment here almost always shows up later as lower performance.

Learning from proven experience accelerates progress. Many plans are looking to their Medicaid colleagues who have been working on Depression Screening and Follow‑Up for years through the Behavioral Health Core Set. Others are engaging primary care and behavioral health providers directly to understand real‑world workflow constraints, access challenges, and documentation realities.

Turning the display period into a strategic advantage

The display period for Depression Screening and Follow-Up is more than a transition phase; it’s an opportunity to build stronger behavioral health strategies before the measure directly impacts Star Ratings.

Plans that move now can use this window to strengthen provider alignment, improve access, close data gaps, and better connect behavioral health with quality and member experience strategies.

And because behavioral health increasingly influences outcomes far beyond a single measure, the organizations that learn fastest during the display period may be the ones best positioned for long-term performance gains across Stars, HOS, CAHPS, and whole-person care.

Download Press Ganey’s “State of Health Plan Member Experience 2026” to learn more.