Andrew D Carlo1, Andrea Corage Baden2, Rachelle L McCarty3, Anna D H Ratzliff2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. adc42@uw.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare's CoCM codes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff. APPROACH: A semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team. KEY RESULTS: Successful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes. CONCLUSIONS: With deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.
BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare's CoCM codes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff. APPROACH: A semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team. KEY RESULTS: Successful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes. CONCLUSIONS: With deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.
Authors: Emily Woltmann; Andrew Grogan-Kaylor; Brian Perron; Hebert Georges; Amy M Kilbourne; Mark S Bauer Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Charles C Engel; Robert M Bray; Lisa H Jaycox; Michael C Freed; Doug Zatzick; Marian E Lane; Donald Brambilla; Kristine Rae Olmsted; Russ Vandermaas-Peeler; Brett Litz; Terri Tanielian; Bradley E Belsher; Daniel P Evatt; Laura A Novak; Jürgen Unützer; Wayne J Katon Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Matthew J Press; Ryan Howe; Michael Schoenbaum; Sean Cavanaugh; Ann Marshall; Lindsey Baldwin; Patrick H Conway Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Jeff C Huffman; Carol A Mastromauro; Gillian L Sowden; Curtis Wittmann; Rachel Rodman; James L Januzzi Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Sanjay Basu; Bruce E Landon; John W Williams; Asaf Bitton; Zirui Song; Russell S Phillips Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Joseph M Cerimele; Abigail C Halperin; Clarence Spigner; Anna Ratzliff; Wayne J Katon Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Kris Pui Kwan Ma; Brenda L Mollis; Jennifer Rolfes; Margaret Au; Abigail Crocker; Sarah H Scholle; Rodger Kessler; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Kari A Stephens Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Kira E Riehm; Calliope Holingue; Emily J Smail; Arie Kapteyn; Daniel Bennett; Johannes Thrul; Frauke Kreuter; Emma E McGinty; Luther G Kalb; Cindy B Veldhuis; Renee M Johnson; M Daniele Fallin; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16
Authors: Karen Chan Osilla; Alex R Dopp; Katherine E Watkins; Venice Ceballos; Brian Hurley; Lisa S Meredith; Isabel Leamon; Vanessa Jacobsohn; Miriam Komaromy Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Alex R Dopp; Suzanne E U Kerns; Laura Panattoni; Jeanne S Ringel; Daniel Eisenberg; Byron J Powell; Roger Low; Ramesh Raghavan Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 7.327