Medicare's Care Management Codes Might Not Support Primary Care As Expected.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Agarwal SD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7490751 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Medicare's Care Management Codes Might Not Support Primary Care As Expected.
Agarwal Sumit D SD Barnett Michael L ML Souza Jeffrey J Landon Bruce E BE
Health affairs (Project Hope) 20200501 5
To enhance compensation for primary care activities that occur outside of face-to-face visits, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently introduced new billing codes for transitional care management (TCM) and chronic care management (CCM) services. Overall, rates of adoption of these codes have been low. To understand the patterns of adoption, we compared characteristics of the practices that billed for these services to those of the practices that did not and determined the extent ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEfforts to better support primary care include the addition of primary care-focused billing codes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS).ObjectiveTo examine potential and actual use by primary care physicians (PCPs) of the prevention and coordination codes that have been added to the MPFS.DesignCross-sectional and modeling study.SettingNationally representative claims and survey data.ParticipantsMedicare patients.MeasurementsFrequency of use and estimated Medicare revenue involving 34 billing codes representing prevention and coordination services for which PCPs could but do not necessarily bill.ResultsEligibility among Medicare patients for each service ranged from 8.8% to 100%. Among eligible patients, the median use of billing codes was 2.3%, even though PCPs provided code-appropriate services to more patients, for example, to 5.0% to 60.6% of patients eligible for prevention services. If a PCP provided and billed all prevention and coordination services to half of all eligible patients, the PCP could add to the practice's annual revenue $124 435 (interquartile range [IQR], $30 654 to $226 813) for prevention services and $86 082 (IQR, $18 011 to $154 152) for coordination services.LimitationService provision based on survey questions may not reflect all billing requirements; revenues do not incorporate the compliance, billing, and opportunity costs that may be incurred when using these codes.ConclusionPrimary care physicians forego considerable amounts of revenue because they infrequently use billing codes for prevention and coordination services despite having eligible patients and providing code-appropriate services to some of those patients. Therefore, creating additional billing codes for distinct activities in the MPFS may not be an effective strategy for supporting primary care.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Aging.
| S-EPMC9933078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We implemented a transitional care management service led by a nurse care manager. An interdisciplinary team developed a workflow using a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle for contacting patients. Of the 146 (97.9%) eligible patients, 143 (97.9%) had a phone call within 48 hours. There were 84 of 120 (70.0%) and 117 of 120 (97.5%) attendance rates of those attending visits within 7 and 14 days. A care manager-led workflow was successfully and easily implemented within a primary care practice.
| S-EPMC6013313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundManagement of allergic patients in the population is becoming more difficult because of increases in both complexity and prevalence. Although general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play an important role in the care of allergic patients, they often feel ill-equipped for this task. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an allergy management support system (AMSS) for primary care.MethodsThrough literature review, interviewing and testing in secondary and primary care patients, an allergy history questionnaire was constructed by allergists, dermatologists, GPs and researchers based on primary care and specialists' allergy guidelines and their clinical knowledge. Patterns of AMSS questionnaire responses and specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE)-test outcomes were used to identify diagnostic categories and develop corresponding management recommendations. Validity of the AMSS was investigated by comparing specialist (gold standard) and AMSS diagnostic categories.ResultsThe two-page patient-completed AMSS questionnaire consists of 12 (mainly) multiple choice questions on symptoms, triggers, severity and medication. Based on the AMSS questionnaires and sIgE-test outcome of 118 patients, approximately 150 diagnostic categories of allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, anaphylaxis, food allergy, hymenoptera allergy and other allergies were identified, and the corresponding management recommendations were formulated. The agreement between the allergy specialists' assessments and the AMSS was 69.2% (CI 67.2-71.2).ConclusionUsing a systematic approach, it was possible to develop an AMSS that allows for the formulation of diagnostic and management recommendations for GPs managing allergic patients. The AMSS thus holds promise for the improvement of the quality of primary care for this increasing group of patients.
| S-EPMC5359130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a new benefit called chronic care management (CCM). A recent CMS-commissioned study of the program showed that CCM is effective in increasing advance care planning and decreasing overall costs. Despite positive effects on care planning, utilization, and cost, the CCM program remains underutilized. The authors sought to develop a platform to enable scale of the CCM program, and to report outcomes associated with its use. A technology and integrated clinical staff platform was built to enable a scalable, evidence-based implementation of the Medicare CCM program. The model created care management data elements that were used to flag clinical and utilization risks such as falls, mortality, hospitalization and polypharmacy. In 2018, CCM support was provided for 26,500 patients. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with hospitalization. The cohort experienced 2679 hospitalizations (184 admissions per 1000 patient months per year). Among patients residing in non-nursing home settings, a higher Gagne mortality risk was associated with a 32 times greater chance of being hospitalized. Other positive predictors of hospitalization included being a nursing home resident and being ambulatory without assistance. Negative predictors of hospitalization included being flagged as having a high hospitalization risk, and scoring in the low-risk category for falls or polypharmacy. This CCM model is a scalable method of supporting care management for people with multiple chronic conditions, and can help identify risk factors for hospitalization.
| S-EPMC7074917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the dearth of COPD self-management interventions that specifically acknowledge multi-morbidity in primary care, we aimed to activate COPD patients through personalised self-management support that recognised the implications of co-morbidities. This single-group experimental study included patients aged 40-84 with a spirometry diagnosis of COPD and at least one co-morbidity. A self-management education programme for COPD in the context of multi-morbidity, based on the Health Belief Model, was tailored and delivered to participants by general practice nurses in face-to-face sessions. At 6 months' follow-up, there was significant improvement in patient activation (p < 0.001), COPD-related quality of life (p = 0.012), COPD knowledge (p < 0.001) and inhaler device technique (p = 0.001), with no significant change in perception of multi-morbidity (p = 0.822) or COPD-related multi-morbidity (0.084). The programme improved patients' self-efficacy for their COPD as well as overall health behaviour. The findings form an empirical basis for further testing the programme in a large-scale randomised controlled trial.
| S-EPMC7125179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo support self-management of chronically ill persons, innovative approaches of care practice are being developed. Unfortunately, many self-management supporting interventions struggle to achieve reliable and consistent improvements at various levels (patient, provider and healthcare system level). One possible strategy to facilitate translating theory into practice, is to consider the healthcare professionals' perspective prior to the development of new interventions. An exploration of their knowledge and opinion about barriers and facilitators is necessary before employing any self-management support (SMS) intervention. Therefore, our study aims to explore care professionals' perspectives about SMS within the Flemish primary care setting.MethodsThis study used a qualitative study design to examine SMS in primary care setting. Five focus groups were conducted, grouped into three waves. Participants were healthcare professionals in Flanders representing different disciplines and settings. A maximum variation purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. For the data analysis, the framework of thematic networks by Attride-Stirling was applied.ResultsA total of 34 healthcare professionals participated. Three global themes related to SMS were derived from the thematic analysis: (1) Characteristics, (2) Support strategies, (3) Barriers and facilitators. SMS was characterised as a collaboration-based and person-centred approach. A variety of supporting strategies were mentioned by the focus group participants. Most strategies consisted of informing and educating patients. Complementary to individual strategies, collaborative strategies were deemed necessary to support self-management. Regarding barriers and facilitators, different patient-related factors were identified. Additionally, competencies of healthcare providers and external factors seem to hinder the implementation of SMS in practice.ConclusionsThis focus group study highlights the importance of a collaborative, person-centred approach to SMS in the context of chronic diseases. Our findings point to the need for interventions that raise awareness and address barriers associated with SMS. Since generic SMS does not exist, the road to success is a growth process in which support must be adapted to the individual patient.
| S-EPMC10908026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale & objectiveMost adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the United States are cared for by primary care providers (PCPs). We evaluated the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) within the electronic health record with or without pharmacist follow-up to improve the management of CKD in primary care.Study designPragmatic cluster-randomized trial.Setting & participants524 adults with confirmed creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rates of 30 to 59mL/min/1.73m2 cared for by 80 PCPs at the University of California San Francisco. Electronic health record data were used for patient identification, intervention deployment, and outcomes ascertainment.InterventionsEach PCP's eligible patients were randomly assigned as a group into 1 of 3 treatment arms: (1) usual care; (2) eCDSS: testing of creatinine, cystatin C, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio with individually tailored guidance for PCPs on blood pressure, potassium, and proteinuria management, cardiovascular risk reduction, and patient education; or (3) eCDSS plus pharmacist counseling (eCDSS-PLUS).OutcomesThe primary clinical outcome was change in blood pressure over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were PCP awareness of CKD and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and statin therapy.ResultsAll 80 eligible PCPs participated. Mean patient age was 70 years, 47% were nonwhite, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 56±0.6mL/min/1.73m2. Among patients receiving eCDSS with or without pharmacist counseling (n=336), 178 (53%) completed laboratory measurements and 138 (41%) had laboratory measurements followed by a PCP visit with eCDSS deployment. eCDSS was opened by the PCP for 102 (74%) patients, with at least 1 suggested order signed for 83 of these 102 (81%). Changes in systolic blood pressure were-2.1±1.5mm Hg with usual care, -2.8±1.8mm Hg with eCDSS, and -1.1±1.1 with eCDSS-PLUS (P=0.7). PCP awareness of CKD was 16% with usual care, 26% with eCDSS, and 32% for eCDSS-PLUS (P=0.09). In as-treated analyses, PCP awareness of CKD was significantly greater with eCDSS and eCDSS-PLUS (73% and 69%) versus usual care (47%; P=0.002).LimitationsRecruitment of smaller than intended sample size and limited uptake of the testing component of the intervention.ConclusionsAlthough we were unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of eCDSS to lower blood pressure and uptake of the eCDSS was limited by low testing rates, eCDSS use was high when laboratory measurements were available and was associated with higher PCP awareness of CKD.FundingGrants from government (National Institutes of Health) and not-for-profit (American Heart Association) entities.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02925962.
| S-EPMC7606321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysicians spend significant time outside of regular office visits caring for complex patients, and this work is often uncompensated. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a billing code for care coordination between office visits for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.ObjectiveCharacterize use of the Chronic Care Management (CCM) code in New England in 2015.DesignRetrospective observational analysis.ParticipantsAll Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in New England continuously enrolled in Parts A and B in 2015.InterventionNone.Main measuresThe primary outcome was the number of beneficiaries with a CCM claim per 1000 eligible beneficiaries. Secondary outcomes included the total number of CCM claims, total reimbursement, mean number of claims per beneficiary, and beneficiary characteristics independently associated with receiving CCM services.Key resultsOf the more than two million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in New England, almost 1.7 million were potentially eligible for CCM services. Among eligible beneficiaries, 10,951 (0.65%) had a CCM claim in 2015. Massachusetts had the highest penetration of CCM use (9.40 claims per 1000 eligible beneficiaries); Vermont had the lowest (0.54 claims per 1000 eligible beneficiaries). Mean reimbursement per physician was $1745.98. Age, race/ethnicity, dual-eligible status, income, number of chronic conditions, and state of residence were associated with receiving CCM services in an adjusted model.ConclusionsThe CCM code is likely underutilized in New England; the program may therefore not be achieving its intended goal of encouraging consistent, team-based chronic care management for Medicare's most complex beneficiaries. Or practices may be foregoing reimbursement for care coordination that they are already providing. Recently implemented revisions may improve uptake of CCM services; it will be important to compare our results with future utilization.
| S-EPMC6206335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate primary care provider (PCP) experiences using a clinical decision support (CDS) tool over 16 months following a user-centered design process and implementation.Materials and methodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation of the Chronic Pain OneSheet (OneSheet), a chronic pain CDS tool. OneSheet provides pain- and opioid-related risks, benefits, and treatment information for patients with chronic pain to PCPs. Using the 5 Rights of CDS framework, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 19 PCPs across 2 academic health systems.ResultsPCPs stated that OneSheet mostly contained the right information required to treat patients with chronic pain and was correctly located in the electronic health record. PCPs used OneSheet for distinct subgroups of patients with chronic pain, including patients prescribed opioids, with poorly controlled pain, or new to a provider or clinic. PCPs reported variable workflow integration and selective use of certain OneSheet features driven by their preferences and patient population. PCPs recommended broadening OneSheet access to clinical staff and patients for data entry to address clinician time constraints.DiscussionDifferences in patient subpopulations and workflow preferences had an outsized effect on CDS tool use even when the CDS contained the right information identified in a user-centered design process.ConclusionsTo increase adoption and use, CDS design and implementation processes may benefit from increased tailoring that accommodates variation and dynamics among patients, visits, and providers.
| S-EPMC10412405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGiven time constraints, poorly organized information, and complex patients, primary care providers (PCPs) can benefit from clinical decision support (CDS) tools that aggregate and synthesize problem-specific patient information. First, this article describes the design and functionality of a CDS tool for chronic noncancer pain in primary care. Second, we report on the retrospective analysis of real-world usage of the tool in the context of a pragmatic trial.Materials and methodsThe tool known as OneSheet was developed using user-centered principles and built in the Epic electronic health record (EHR) of 2 health systems. For each relevant patient, OneSheet presents pertinent information in a single EHR view to assist PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk mitigation tasks, review previous and current patient treatments, view patient-reported pain, physical function, and pain-related goals.ResultsOverall, 69 PCPs accessed OneSheet 2411 times (since November 2020). PCP use of OneSheet varied significantly by provider and was highly skewed (site 1: median accesses per provider: 17 [interquartile range (IQR) 9-32]; site 2: median: 8 [IQR 5-16]). Seven "power users" accounted for 70% of the overall access instances across both sites. OneSheet has been accessed an average of 20 times weekly between the 2 sites.DiscussionModest OneSheet use was observed relative to the number of eligible patients seen with chronic pain.ConclusionsOrganizations implementing CDS tools are likely to see considerable provider-level variation in usage, suggesting that CDS tools may vary in their utility across PCPs, even for the same condition, because of differences in provider and care team workflows.
| S-EPMC9476612 | biostudies-literature