Chronic Care Management Services for Complex Diabetes Management: a Practical Overview
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).
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.
KeywordsDiabetes Chronic care management Chronic care model Type 1 diabetes Type 2 diabetes Complex diabetes Virtual care
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Kayla L. Del Valle and Marie E. McDonnell declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Mendola N, Chen T-C, Gu Q, Prevalence of total, diagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes among adults: United States, 2013–2016. In: U.D.o.H.a.H. Services. Data Brief; 2018.Google Scholar
- 4.• Huynh P, Toulouse A, Hirsch IB. One-year time analysis in an academic diabetes clinic: quantifying our burden. Endocr Pract. 2018;24(5):489–91. In this analysis the authors sought to document the nonreimbursable time clinicians spend in the care of patients with diabetes being managed in an academic medical center. The findings illuminated the problem of administrative burden on the clinical diabetes care team and made a case for how it is likely impairing quality of care as well as quality of life for the team members. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Chronic Care Management Services (2016, December). 2018. Available at https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/OMH/Downloads/CCM-Toolkit-Updated-Combined-508.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2018.
- 7.• Davy C, et al. Effectiveness of chronic care models: opportunities for improving healthcare practice and health outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:194. This is a systematic review of studies reporting outcomes of chronic care model in the care of diseases in Primary Care including diabetes. Approximately a third of the programs were diabetes-focused. All but two of the 77 studies reported improved healthcare practice or patient health outcomes, but as expected the heterogeneity across the studies did not allow a determination of the ideal program design. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Wan EYF, Fung CSC, Jiao FF, Yu EYT, Chin WY, Fong DYT, et al. Five-year effectiveness of the multidisciplinary risk assessment and management programme-diabetes mellitus (RAMP-DM) on diabetes-related complications and health service uses-a population-based and propensity-matched cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(1):49–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.•• Nuckols TK, et al. Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions designed to improve glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and weighted regression analysis. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):985–93. In this metanalysis and cost-analysis of studies of diabetes care redesign, among a heterogeneous group of 46 studies reviewed, the 19 RCTs demonstrated an overall mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 0.26% versus usual care. In the 8 RCTs lasting ≤ 3 years, cost-effectiveness analyses suggested that the improved glycemic control came with a relatively small incremental cost. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Rein R, Del Valle KL, McDonnell ME, Hudson M, Potler H. Self-reported health status in patients with poor glycemic control in endocrinology, 735-P. Presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions. 2017.Google Scholar
- 27.Fisher L, Hessler D, Polonsky WH, Masharani U, Guzman S, Bowyer V, et al. T1-REDEEM: a randomized controlled trial to reduce diabetes distress among adults with type 1 diabetes. In: Diabetes care, vol. 41; 2018. p. 1862–9.Google Scholar