Kayla L Del Valle1, Marie E McDonnell2. 1. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Division of Endocrinology, Harvard Medical School, 221 Longwood Avenue, Suite 381, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Division of Endocrinology, Harvard Medical School, 221 Longwood Avenue, Suite 381, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. MMCDONNELL@BWH.HARVARD.EDU.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Formalized chronic care management has the potential to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of complex diabetes management in adults, but has historically not been sustainably supported by health care systems. This review discusses the application of the chronic care model in the care of complex diabetes and its translation in the current reimbursement structure designed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). RECENT FINDINGS: Following the introduction of Wagner's Chronic Care Model (CCM) in the late 1990s, evidence gathered over the past 2 decades has supported the shift in focus of health care systems from acute to chronic disease management and proactive care. Acknowledging evidence and potential for improved cost-effectiveness, in 2015, Medicare began reimbursing for chronic care management services (CCMS) for patients with multiple chronic conditions. The CCMS billing codes allow a program to be reimbursed for up to 90 min per month spent by clinical staff performing interim care within a comprehensive care plan. Recent data from local and global programs support the application of formalized CCM in diabetes management. Although reimbursement models for CCM have been designed for use in primary care, the challenges of the reimbursement model has opened the door for specialty areas focused on multimorbidity care such as diabetes care to explore this approach. With the broader availability of remote glucose monitoring and telemedicine, a strategy that combines goal-oriented care and telehealth solutions appears to be most effective in diabetes CCM care. Despite widespread acceptance of the chronic care model of care, there remain significant barriers to its incorporation into standard practice.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Formalized chronic care management has the potential to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of complex diabetes management in adults, but has historically not been sustainably supported by health care systems. This review discusses the application of the chronic care model in the care of complex diabetes and its translation in the current reimbursement structure designed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). RECENT FINDINGS: Following the introduction of Wagner's Chronic Care Model (CCM) in the late 1990s, evidence gathered over the past 2 decades has supported the shift in focus of health care systems from acute to chronic disease management and proactive care. Acknowledging evidence and potential for improved cost-effectiveness, in 2015, Medicare began reimbursing for chronic care management services (CCMS) for patients with multiple chronic conditions. The CCMS billing codes allow a program to be reimbursed for up to 90 min per month spent by clinical staff performing interim care within a comprehensive care plan. Recent data from local and global programs support the application of formalized CCM in diabetes management. Although reimbursement models for CCM have been designed for use in primary care, the challenges of the reimbursement model has opened the door for specialty areas focused on multimorbidity care such as diabetes care to explore this approach. With the broader availability of remote glucose monitoring and telemedicine, a strategy that combines goal-oriented care and telehealth solutions appears to be most effective in diabetes CCM care. Despite widespread acceptance of the chronic care model of care, there remain significant barriers to its incorporation into standard practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic care management; Chronic care model; Complex diabetes; Diabetes; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes; Virtual care
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Sumant R Ranji; Kathryn M McDonald; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Vandana Sundaram; Robert J Rushakoff; Douglas K Owens Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lawrence Fisher; Danielle Hessler; William H Polonsky; Umesh Masharani; Susan Guzman; Vicky Bowyer; Lisa Strycker; Andrew Ahmann; Marina Basina; Ian Blumer; Charles Chloe; Sarah Kim; Anne L Peters; Martha Shumway; Karen Weihs; Patricia Wu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Emmett Keeler; Laura J Anderson; Jonas Green; Sally C Morton; Brian J Doyle; Kanaka Shetty; Aziza Arifkhanova; Marika Booth; Roberta Shanman; Paul Shekelle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Carol Davy; Jonathan Bleasel; Hueiming Liu; Maria Tchan; Sharon Ponniah; Alex Brown Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-05-10 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Rebekah J Walker; Emma Garacci; Jennifer A Campbell; Melissa Harris; Elise Mosley-Johnson; Leonard E Egede Journal: J Appl Gerontol Date: 2020-03-13
Authors: Christopher Park; Emamuzo Otobo; Jennifer Ullman; Jason Rogers; Farah Fasihuddin; Shashank Garg; Sarthak Kakkar; Marni Goldstein; Sai Vishudhi Chandrasekhar; Sean Pinney; Ashish Atreja Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2019-11-15
Authors: Roberta Lamptey; Maud P Robben; Mary Amoakoh-Coleman; Daniel Boateng; Diederick E Grobbee; Melanie J Davies; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.213