Cited by 53Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Policy and Management

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

Open access
O’Malley, Ann S., Sarwar, Rumin, Keith, Rosalind, Balke, Patrick, Ma, Sai, McCall, Nancy·2017·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Support 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.Objective To explore the experiences, facilitators, and challenges of practices providing CCM services, and their implications going forward.Design Semi-structured telephone interviews from January to April 2016 with 71 respondents.Participants Sixty billing and non-billing providers and practice staff knowledgeable about their practices' CCM services, and 11 professional society representatives.Key results Practice 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.Conclusions Improving 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-017-4134-7

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 53

Authors
O’Malley, A. S., Sarwar, R., Keith, R., Balke, P., Ma, S., & McCall, N.
Affiliations
  • Mathematica Policy Research (US)
  • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (US)
Corresponding author
O’Malley, Ann S.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2017-07-28
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
1294-1300
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2742150032
Cited by
53
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
chronic care management, provider experiences, care coordination, multimorbidity, patient-centered medical home, care planning, health information exchange, electronic health records, implementation barriers, patient consent, medication adherence, continuity of care
MeSH terms
Multiple Chronic Conditions, Attitude of Health Personnel, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Medicare, Health Services Research, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Primary Health Care, United States, Fee-for-Service Plans, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Disease Management, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review