Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367872›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2019

Early Health System Experiences with Collaborative Care (CoCM) Billing Codes: a Qualitative Study of Leadership and Support Staff.

Andrew D Carlo, Andrea Corage Baden, Rachelle L McCarty, Anna D H Ratzliff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Trajectories of Mental Distress Among U.S. Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew D CarloDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. adc42@uw.edu.
Andrea Corage BadenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rachelle L McCartyDepartment of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, USA.
Anna D H RatzliffDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

Training Geriatric Mental Health Services ResearchersT32MH073553 · NIMH · DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC · PI BRUCE, MARTHA L · 2005 to 2019
$6.4M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH073553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability.

objectiveTo investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare's CoCM codes. DESIGN AND

participantsFifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff. APPROACH: A semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team. KEY

resultsSuccessful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes.

conclusionsWith deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.

Indexed as

Clinical CodingDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEvidence-Based PracticeFee-for-Service PlansHumansLeadershipMedicareMental Health ServicesPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchUnited Statescollaborative careintegrated caremental healthpayment policyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31367872
PMCPMC6816741

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.