Rebekah L Gardner1,2, Rouba Youssef3, Blake Morphis3, Alyssa DaCunha3, Kimberly Pelland3, Emily Cooper3. 1. Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. Rebekah_Gardner@Brown.edu. 2. Healthcentric Advisors, Providence, RI, USA. Rebekah_Gardner@Brown.edu. 3. Healthcentric Advisors, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians 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. OBJECTIVE: Characterize use of the Chronic Care Management (CCM) code in New England in 2015. DESIGN: Retrospective observational analysis. PARTICIPANTS: All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in New England continuously enrolled in Parts A and B in 2015. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN MEASURES: The 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 RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
BACKGROUND: Physicians 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. OBJECTIVE: Characterize use of the Chronic Care Management (CCM) code in New England in 2015. DESIGN: Retrospective observational analysis. PARTICIPANTS: All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in New England continuously enrolled in Parts A and B in 2015. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN MEASURES: The 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 RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medicare; care coordination; chronic care management; primary care
Authors: Diana E Schendel; Morten Overgaard; Jakob Christensen; Lene Hjort; Meta Jørgensen; Mogens Vestergaard; Erik T Parner Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Ann S O'Malley; Rumin Sarwar; Rosalind Keith; Patrick Balke; Sai Ma; Nancy McCall Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard A Goodman; Samuel F Posner; Elbert S Huang; Anand K Parekh; Howard K Koh Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Christine Sinsky; Lacey Colligan; Ling Li; Mirela Prgomet; Sam Reynolds; Lindsey Goeders; Johanna Westbrook; Michael Tutty; George Blike Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vicki Fung; Stephen McCarthy; Mary Price; Peter Hull; Benjamin Lê Cook; John Hsu; Joseph P Newhouse Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: William R Mills; Dimitri Poltavski; Mark Douglas; Lisa Owens; Andrea King; Jamie Roosa; Jacqueline Pridham; Daniel Dzina; David Weber Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.459