Current Diabetes Reports

, 18:135 | Cite as

Chronic Care Management Services for Complex Diabetes Management: a Practical Overview

  • Kayla L. Del Valle
  • Marie E. McDonnellEmail author
Health Care Delivery Systems and Implementation in Diabetes (ME McDonnell and AR Sadhu, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Health Care Delivery Systems and Implementation in Diabetes


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.


Diabetes 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. 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
  2. 2.
    American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):917–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dwyer-Lindgren L, Mackenbach JP, van Lenthe FJ, Flaxman AD, Mokdad AH. Diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes prevalence by county in the U.S., 1999-2012. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(9):1556–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA. 2002;288(14):1775–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Chronic Care Management Services (2016, December). 2018. Available at Accessed 8 Sept 2018.
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Gregg EW, Li Y, Wang J, Rios Burrows N, Ali MK, Rolka D, et al. Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1514–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM, Grimshaw JM, Sundaram V, Rushakoff RJ, et al. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2006;296(4):427–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beck J, Greenwood DA, Blanton L, Bollinger ST, Butcher MK, Condon JE, et al. 2017 National Standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(10):1409–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Diabetes Assocation. 10. Microvascular complications and foot care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Suppl 1):S105–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Diabetes Assocation. 9. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Suppl 1):S86–S104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Diabetes Assocation. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Suppl 1):S73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Diabetes Assocation. 4. Lifestyle management: standards of medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Suppl 1):S38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, part 2. JAMA. 2002;288(15):1909–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EB. A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manag Care. 2005;11(8):478–88.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stellefson M, Dipnarine K, Stopka C. The chronic care model and diabetes management in US primary care settings: a systematic review. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aikens JE. Prospective associations between emotional distress and poor outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(12):2472–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panagioti M, Geraghty K, Johnson J, Zhou A, Panagopoulou E, Chew-Graham C, et al. Association between physician burnout and patient safety, professionalism, and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1317–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Jiao FF, Fung CSC, Wan EYF, Chan AKC, McGhee SM, Kwok RLP, et al. Five-year cost-effectiveness of the multidisciplinary risk assessment and management programme-diabetes mellitus (RAMP-DM). Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):250–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Serrano V, Spencer-Bonilla G, Boehmer KR, Montori VM. Minimally disruptive medicine for patients with diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2017;17(11):104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nefs G, Speight J, Pouwer F, Pop V, Bot M, Denollet J. Type D personality, suboptimal health behaviors and emotional distress in adults with diabetes: results from diabetes MILES-The Netherlands. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015;108(1):94–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Sadhu AR, Healy AM, Patil SP, Cummings DM, Shubrook JH, Tanenberg RJ. The time is now: diabetes fellowships in the United States. Curr Diab Rep. 2017;17(11):108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fremont A, Kim AY, Bailey K, Hanley HR, Thorne C, Dudl RJ, et al. One in five fewer heart attacks: impact, savings, and sustainability in San Diego county collaborative. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(9):1457–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boehmer KR, Abu Dabrh AM, Gionfriddo MR, Erwin P, Montori VM. Does the chronic care model meet the emerging needs of people living with multimorbidity? A systematic review and thematic synthesis. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0190852.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of EndocrinologyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations