↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Provider Experiences with Chronic Care Management (CCM) Services and Fees: A Qualitative Research Study
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4134-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 21%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 29%
Unspecified 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Computer Science 3 8%
Other 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,890,605
of 11,727,438 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,642
of 4,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,048
of 267,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#33
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,727,438 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.