Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28755097›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017

Provider Experiences with Chronic Care Management (CCM) Services and Fees: A Qualitative Research Study.

Ann S O'Malley, Rumin Sarwar, Rosalind Keith, Patrick Balke, Sai Ma, Nancy McCall

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Efficient goal attainment and engagement in a care manager system using unstructured notes.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ann S O'MalleyMathematica Policy Research, 1100 First St., NE, 12th Floor, Washington, DC, 20002-4221, USA. aomalley@mathematica-mpr.com.
Rumin SarwarMathematica Policy Research, 1100 First St., NE, 12th Floor, Washington, DC, 20002-4221, USA.
Rosalind KeithMathematica Policy Research, 1100 First St., NE, 12th Floor, Washington, DC, 20002-4221, USA.
Patrick BalkeMathematica Policy Research, 1100 First St., NE, 12th Floor, Washington, DC, 20002-4221, USA.
Sai MaThe Innovation Center (CMMI), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Baltimore, MD, USA.
Nancy McCallMathematica Policy Research, 1100 First St., NE, 12th Floor, Washington, DC, 20002-4221, USA.
Mathematica Policy Research · USCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupport for ongoing care management and coordination between office visits for patients with multiple chronic conditions has been inadequate. In January 2015, Medicare introduced the Chronic Care Management (CCM) payment policy, which reimburses providers for CCM activities for Medicare beneficiaries occurring outside of office visits.

objectiveTo explore the experiences, facilitators, and challenges of practices providing CCM services, and their implications going forward.

designSemi-structured telephone interviews from January to April 2016 with 71 respondents.

participantsSixty billing and non-billing providers and practice staff knowledgeable about their practices' CCM services, and 11 professional society representatives. KEY

resultsPractice respondents noted that most patients expressed positive views of CCM services. Practice respondents also perceived several patient benefits, including improved adherence to treatment, access to care team members, satisfaction, care continuity, and care coordination. Facilitators of CCM provision included having an in-practice care manager, patient-centered medical home recognition, experience developing care plans, patient trust in their provider, and supplemental insurance to cover CCM copayments. Most billing practices reported few problems obtaining patients' consent for CCM, though providers felt that CMS could better facilitate consent by marketing CCM's goals to beneficiaries. Barriers reported by professional society representatives and by billing and non-billing providers included inadequacy of CCM payments to cover upfront investments for staffing, workflow modification, and time needed to manage complex patients. Other barriers included inadequate infrastructure for health information exchange with other providers and limited electronic health record capabilities for documenting and updating care plans. Practices owned by hospital systems and large medical groups faced greater bureaucracy in implementing CCM than did smaller, independent practices.

conclusionsImproving providers' experiences with and uptake of CCM will require addressing several challenges, including the upfront investment for CCM set-up and the time required to provide CCM to more complex patients.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelContinuity of Patient CareDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedDisease ManagementFee-for-Service PlansFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansLong-Term CareMaleMedicareMultiple Chronic ConditionsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchUnited Statescare managementchronic carecoordination of carehealth care delivery systempayment policyprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID28755097
PMCPMC5698215
OpenAlexW2742150032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.