↓ 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 Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Provider Experiences with Chronic Care Management (CCM) Services and Fees: A Qualitative Research Study
Published in
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 5 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 37 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 44 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 23 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,270,489
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,040
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,495
of 319,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#13
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 319,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.