Dataset Information

Use of Chronic Care Management Codes for Medicare Beneficiaries: a Missed Opportunity?

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.

SUBMITTER: Gardner RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6206335 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of Chronic Care Management Codes for Medicare Beneficiaries: a Missed Opportunity?

Gardner Rebekah L RL Youssef Rouba R Morphis Blake B DaCunha Alyssa A Pelland Kimberly K Cooper Emily E

Journal of general internal medicine 20180720 11

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>Characterize use of the Chronic Care Management (CCM) code in New England in 2015.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective observational analysis.<h4>Participan ...[more]

PMID: 30030734

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBetter evidence is needed on whether Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can control the use of postacute care services while achieving excellent outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare self-reported use of postacute care services and outcomes among traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare enrollment data from 2015 to 2017. Participants were community-dwelling MA or TM beneficiaries 70 years and older; those with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility were also identified. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to February 2023 and were weighted to account for the complex survey design.ExposuresEnrollment in MA and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresPostacute care service use including site of use, duration, primary indication, and whether participants met their goals or experienced improved functional status during or after services.ResultsIncluded in the analysis were 2357 Medicare beneficiaries who used postacute care. Of these beneficiaries, 815 (32.6%; 62.0% were females [weighted percentages]) had MA and 1542 (67.4%; 59.5% were females [weighted percentages]) had TM. Enrollees in MA reported using postacute care services across all NHATS survey rounds: between 16.2% (95% CI, 14.3%-18.4%) and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.4%-20.4%) of MA enrollees reported using postacute care services each round, vs 22.4% (95% CI, 20.9%-24.1%) to 24.1% (95% CI, 21.8%-26.6%) of TM beneficiaries (P for all rounds <.002). Enrollees in MA reported less functional improvement during postacute care use (63.1% [95% CI, 59.2%-66.8%] vs 71.7% [95% CI, 68.9%-74.3%], P < .001). Among beneficiaries who ended postacute service use, fewer MA enrollees than TM enrollees reported that they met their goals (70.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-75.3%] vs 76.2% [95% CI, 73.1%-79.1%]; P = .053) or had improved functional status (43.9% [95% CI, 38.9%-49.1%] vs 46.0% [95% CI, 42.5%-49.5%]; P = .42), but differences were not statistically significant. Differences in postacute care use and functional improvement were not statistically significant between MA and TM enrollees with dual eligibility.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that MA enrollees overall used less postacute care services than their TM counterparts. Among users of postacute care services, MA enrollees reported less favorable outcomes compared with TM enrollees. These findings highlight the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes, especially as MA and other payment models seek to reduce inefficient use of postacute care services.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 28% of adults have ≥3 chronic conditions (CCs), accounting for two-thirds of U.S. healthcare costs, and often having suboptimal outcomes. Despite Institute of Medicine recommendations in 2001 to integrate guidelines for multiple CCs, progress is minimal. The vast number of unique combinations of CCs may limit progress.Methods and findingsTo determine whether major CCs segregate differentially in limited groups, electronic health record and Medicare paid claims data were examined in one accountable care organization with 44,645 Medicare beneficiaries continuously enrolled throughout 2015. CCs predicting clinical outcomes were obtained from diagnostic codes. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering defined 13 groups having similar within group patterns of CCs and named for the most common CC. Two groups, congestive heart failure (CHF) and kidney disease (CKD), included 23% of beneficiaries with a very high CC burden (10.5 and 8.1 CCs/beneficiary, respectively). Five groups with 54% of beneficiaries had a high CC burden ranging from 7.1 to 5.9 (descending order: neurological, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, chronic pulmonary). Six groups with 23% of beneficiaries had an intermediate-low CC burden ranging from 4.7 to 0.4 (behavioral health, obesity, osteoarthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, 'other'). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia were common across groups, whereas 80% of CHF segregated to the CHF group, 85% of CKD to CKD and CHF groups, 82% of cancer to Cancer, CHF, and CKD groups, and 85% of neurological disorders to Neuro, CHF, and CKD groups. Behavioral health diagnoses were common only in groups with a high CC burden. The number of CCs/beneficiary explained 36% of the variance (R2 = 0.36) in claims paid/beneficiary.ConclusionsIdentifying a limited number of groups with high burdens of CCs that disproportionately drive costs may help inform a practical number of integrated guidelines and resources required for comprehensive management. Cluster informed guideline integration may improve care quality and outcomes, while reducing costs.

Dataset Information

Use of Chronic Care Management Codes for Medicare Beneficiaries: a Missed Opportunity?

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Intervention

Main measures

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Use of Chronic Care Management Codes for Medicare Beneficiaries: a Missed Opportunity?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets