How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention-how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. METHODS: Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was "better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic" because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+'s effects. RESULTS: Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers). CONCLUSIONS: Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.

Hospital outpatient department billing is a poor indicator of primary care practice integration with hospital systems.

OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of Medicare claims in measuring vertical integration. We assess the accuracy of a commonly used measure of integration, primary care physician (PCP) practices billing Medicare as a hospital outpatient department (HOPD) in claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims, IQVIA, and CPC+ practice surveys for this study. STUDY DESIGN: We compare measures of integration from Medicare claims to self-reported indicators of integration from IQVIA and a survey of CPC+ participating practice sites. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We measure integration by using site-of-service billing in the 100% sample of Medicare Carrier claims from 2017-2020. In the IQVIA SK&A (2017-2018), OneKey (2019-2020), and practice survey data (2017-2019), we use self-reported responses to measure integration. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that currently most PCP practices sites that report themselves as being integrated with a health system do not bill as an HOPD. In 2017, 11% of CPC+ practices were identified as being vertically integrated in claims, while the equivalent numbers in SK&A and surveys were 52% and 54% integration, respectively. A t-test found that both datasets significantly differed from claims (Survey: 41.3%-45.1%; SK&A: 45.3%-51.1%); this gap persists in 2018-2019. CONCLUSION: Measuring physician-hospital vertical integration accurately is integral to determining consolidation. The overwhelming majority of PCP practice sites not billing as an HOPD may reflect Medicare regulatory changes that have reduced the financial incentives for doing so. These findings have implications for researchers that study the growth in PCP-hospital integration in health care markets.

Incorporating health IT into primary care transformation.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the role of health information technology (IT) vendors and health IT functionality in supporting advanced primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We synthesized multiple rounds of surveys and interviews (2017-2022) from a mixed-methods evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+), a multipayer model developed by CMS. CPC+ was the first federal advanced primary care reform effort that formalized health IT vendors' roles in supporting health IT implementation and specified detailed health IT requirements for practices. METHODS: We conducted content analysis to identify cross-cutting themes related to health IT for both practices and vendors, comparing similarities and differences across participants and (when possible) over time. RESULTS: Vendors and practices reported advances in registries and dashboards for improved information management within the practice as well as strengthened relationships between vendors and practices that supported health IT implementation. However, CPC+ practices noted several gaps or challenges using existing functionalities, and both vendors and practices reported broader challenges for more transformative health IT change, particularly the lack of interoperable health information exchange needed to support care management and care coordination. Key factors constraining vendors' investment in further advances included long product development schedules, making it difficult to respond to rapidly evolving model requirements. Vendors also shared that CPC+ practices represented a small fraction of their client base, so investing in developing new functionality was not strategic unless it was more broadly relevant outside CPC+. CONCLUSIONS: Continued collaboration among health IT vendors, practices, policy makers, and payers could support continued technological improvements, particularly related to information exchange and communication. Aligning requirements more closely with other federal and private models could also help mitigate the risk for vendors.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Model and Health Care Spending, Service Use, and Quality.

Importance: Implemented in 18 regions, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) was the largest US primary care delivery model ever tested. Understanding its association with health outcomes is critical in designing future transformation models. Objective: To test whether CPC+ was associated with lower health care spending and utilization and improved quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences regression models compared changes in outcomes between the year before CPC+ and 5 intervention years for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to CPC+ and comparison practices. Participants included 1373 track 1 (1 549 585 beneficiaries) and 1515 track 2 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) primary care practices that applied to start CPC+ in 2017 and met minimum care delivery and other eligibility requirements. Comparison groups included 5243 track 1 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) and 3783 track 2 (4 507 499 beneficiaries) practices, matched, and weighted to have similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as CPC+ practices. Interventions: Two-track design involving enhanced (higher for track 2) and alternative payments (track 2 only), care delivery requirements (greater for track 2), data feedback, learning, and health information technology support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was annualized Medicare Part A and B expenditures per beneficiary per month (PBPM). Secondary outcomes included expenditure categories, utilization (eg, hospitalizations), and claims-based quality-of-care process and outcome measures (eg, recommended tests for patients with diabetes and unplanned readmissions). Results: Among the CPC+ patients, 5% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 87% were White, and 5% were of other races (including Asian/Other Pacific Islander and American Indian); 85% of CPC+ patients were older than 65 years and 58% were female. CPC+ was associated with no discernible changes in the total expenditures (track 1: $1.1 PBPM [90% CI, -$4.3 to $6.6], P = .74; track 2: $1.3 [90% CI, -$5 to $7.7], P = .73), and with increases in expenditures including enhanced payments (track 1: $13 [90% CI, $7 to $18], P < .001; track 2: $24 [90% CI, $18 to $31], P < .001). Among secondary outcomes, CPC+ was associated with decreases in emergency department visits starting in year 1, and in acute hospitalizations and acute inpatient expenditures in later years. Associations were more favorable for practices also participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and independent practices. CPC+ was not associated with meaningful changes in claims-based quality-of-care measures. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the timing of the associations of CPC+ with reduced utilization and acute inpatient expenditures was consistent with the theory of change and early focus on episodic care management of CPC+, CPC+ was not associated with a reduction in total expenditures over 5 years. Positive interaction between CPC+ and the Shared Savings Program suggests transformation models might be more successful when provider cost-reduction incentives are aligned across specialties. Further adaptations and testing of primary care transformation models, as well as consideration of the larger context in which they operate, are needed.

Association of the Range of Outpatient Services Provided by Primary Care Physicians with Subsequent Health Care Costs and Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Broader primary care practice range of services (ROS), defined as the diversity of professional services delivered, is associated with lower utilization. ROS provided by individual primary care physicians (PCPs) varies considerably with unclear implications for patients. OBJECTIVES: Create a PCP-ROS measure covering six categories of outpatient services, including expanded codes for mental health counseling services and point of care ultrasound (POCUS) technology in physician offices. Determine whether PCP-ROS is associated with total Medicare expenditures, inpatient admissions, acute hospital utilization (AHU), and emergency department (ED) visits. Examine physician and practice characteristics associated with PCP-ROS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 4,569,711 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and 27,008 PCPs observed during the evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC +) initiative. MEASUREMENTS: PCP-ROS, hospitalizations, AHU (includes observation stays as well as inpatient admissions), ED visits, and total Medicare expenditures. RESULTS: Physicians varied substantially in the range of services provided. Broader PCP-ROS was significantly, independently associated with 1 - 3% lower Medicare expenditures (p ≤ 0.01), inpatient admissions (p ≤ 0.027), AHU (p ≤ 0.025), and ED visit rates (p ≤ 0.000). PCP-ROS score was associated with improved patient outcomes, independent of physician provision of procedures (such as laceration repair or skin excisions). Physicians in practice sites affiliated with a hospital or health system had narrower PCP-ROS than independent physicians by 0.3 to 0.4 (p < 0.001). Internal medicine specialty was associated with narrower PCP-ROS than family medicine by 0.3 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients cared for by primary care physicians who provide a broader range of services subsequently experience lower acute care utilization and expenditures than do those cared for by physicians with narrower ROS. Practice leaders and professional associations should consider how best to ensure that primary care physicians efficiently and effectively provide the office-based professional services most needed by their patients.

Reducing Acute Hospitalizations at High-Performing CPC+ Primary Care Practice Sites: Strategies, Activities, and Facilitators.

PURPOSE: Despite evidence suggesting that high-quality primary care can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations, many primary care practices face challenges in achieving this goal, and there is little guidance identifying effective strategies for reducing hospitalization rates. We aimed to understand how practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program substantially reduced their acute hospitalization rate (AHR) over 2 years. METHODS: We used Bayesian analyses to identify the CPC+ practice sites having the highest probability of achieving a substantial reduction in the adjusted Medicare AHR between 2016 and 2018 (referred to here as AHR high performers). We then conducted telephone interviews with 64 respondents at 14 AHR high-performer sites and undertook within- and cross-case comparative analysis. RESULTS: The 14 AHR high performers experienced a 6% average decrease (range, 4% to 11%) in their Medicare AHR over the 2-year period. They credited various care delivery activities aligned with 3 strategies for reducing AHR: (1) improving and promoting prompt access to primary care, (2) identifying patients at high risk for hospitalization and addressing their needs with enhanced care management, and (3) expanding the breadth and depth of services offered at the practice site. They also identified facilitators of these strategies: enhanced payments through CPC+, prior primary care practice transformation experience, use of data to identify high-value activities for patient subgroups, teamwork, and organizational support for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: The AHR high performers observed that strengthening the local primary care infrastructure through practice-driven, targeted changes in access, care management, and comprehensiveness of care can meaningfully reduce acute hospitalizations. Other primary care practices taking on the challenging work of reducing hospitalizations can learn from CPC+ practices and may consider similar strategies, selecting activities that fit their context, personnel, patient population, and available resources.

Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive primary care physicians report better primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care physician (PCP) comprehensiveness is associated with Medicare beneficiaries' overall rating of care from their PCP and staff. DATA SOURCES: We linked Medicare claims with survey data from Medicare beneficiaries attributed to Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) physicians and practices. STUDY DESIGN: We performed regression analyses of the associations between two claims-based measures of PCP comprehensiveness in 2017 and beneficiaries' rating of care from their PCP and practice staff in 2018. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The analytic sample included 6228 beneficiaries cared for by 3898 PCPs. Regressions controlled for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rated care from their PCP and practice staff higher than did those with less comprehensive PCPs. For each comprehensiveness measure, beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 75th percentile were more likely than beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 25th percentile to rate their care highly (2 percentage point difference, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rate overall care from their PCPs and staff higher than those with less comprehensive PCPs.

Communication Gaps Persist Between Primary Care and Specialist Physicians.

A survey conducted with data from 2008 found that physicians often do not communicate with each other at the time of referral or after consultation. Communication between physicians might have improved since then, with the dissemination of electronic health records (EHRs), but this is not known. We used 2019 survey data to measure primary care physicians' perceptions of communication at the time of referral and after consultation. We found that large gaps in communication persist. The similarity between these survey results suggests that despite the dissemination of EHRs, physicians still do not consistently communicate with each other about the patients they share.

Exploring and Overcoming the Challenges Primary Care Practices Face with Care Management of High-Risk Patients in CPC+: a Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal care management (LCM) for high-risk patients is a cornerstone of primary care models aiming to improve quality and reduce costs. OBJECTIVE: Describe the extent to which LCM was implemented in the second year of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+), and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN: Mixed-methods. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative: 2715 practices participating in CPC+ in 2018. Qualitative: Interviews with practitioners and staff in 23 representative CPC+ practices. MAIN MEASURES: Across all CPC+ practices, we report median percentages of empaneled patients placed in the highest-risk tiers and, of those, the median percentage receiving LCM. Across 23 CPC+ practices, we report qualitative findings on LCM implementation. KEY RESULTS: While practices reported benefits of LCM, a small proportion of patients received LCM. Practices placed 2.4% (median) of patients in the highest-risk tier; of these, 30% (median) received LCM. Practices placed 10% (median) of patients in the second-highest-risk tier; of these, 7% (median) received LCM. Interviews revealed LCM uptake across tiers was low because of insufficient care manager staffing. Other challenges included lack of practitioner buy-in to using risk stratification to identify high-risk patients, patients' reluctance to engage in LCM or change behaviors, and limited health information technology functionality for developing, maintaining, and accessing high-risk patients' care plans. Facilitators included embedding care managers within practices and electronic health record functionalities that support LCM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial financial and other supports, and practices' perceived benefits of LCM, insufficient care manager staffing and other barriers have limited its potential in CPC+ to date. To expand LCM's reach, practices need additional care managers, training to overcome barriers to patient engagement, better identification of patients who might benefit from LCM, improved information technology tools for risk stratification and care plans, and more practitioner buy-in to risk stratification.

Practice-site-level measures of primary care comprehensiveness and their associations with patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To develop two practice-site-level measures of comprehensiveness and examine their associations with patient outcomes, and how their performance differs from physician-level measures. DATA SOURCES: Medicare fee-for-service claims. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated practice-site-level comprehensiveness measures (new problem management and involvement in patient conditions) across 5286 primary care physicians (PCPs) at 1339 practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care initiative evaluation in 2013. We assessed their associations with practices' attributed beneficiaries' 2014 total Medicare expenditures, hospitalization rates, ED visit rates. We also examined variation in PCPs' comprehensiveness across PCPs within practices versus between primary care practices. Finally, we compared associations of practice-site and PCP-level measures with outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The measures had good variation across primary care practices, strong validity, and high reliability. Receiving primary care from a practice at the 75th versus 25th percentile on the involvement in patient conditions measure was associated with $21.93 (2.8%) lower total Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per month (P < .01). Receiving primary care from a practice at the 75th versus 25th percentile on the new problem management measure was associated with $14.77 (1.9%) lower total Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per month (P < .05); 8.84 (3.0%) fewer hospitalizations (P < .001), and 21.27 (3.1%) fewer ED visits per thousand beneficiaries per year (P < .01). PCP comprehensiveness varied more within than between practices. CONCLUSIONS: More comprehensive primary care practices had lower Medicare FFS expenditures, hospitalization, and ED visit rates. Both PCP and practice-site level comprehensiveness measures had strong construct and predictive validity; PCP-level measures were more precise.

The Changing Landscape Of Primary Care: Effects Of The ACA And Other Efforts Over The Past Decade.

Providing high-quality primary care is key to improving health care in the United States. The Affordable Care Act sharpened the emerging focus on primary care as a critical lever to use in improving health care delivery, lowering costs, and improving the quality of care. We describe primary care delivery system reform models that were developed and tested over the past decade by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-which was created by the Affordable Care Act-and reflect on key lessons and remaining challenges. Considerable progress has been made in understanding how to implement and support different approaches to improving primary care delivery in that decade, though evaluations showed little progress in spending or quality outcomes. This may be because none of the models was able to test substantial increases in primary care payment or strong incentives for other providers to coordinate with primary care to reduce costs and improve quality.

How Accountable Care Organizations Use Population Segmentation to Care for High-Need, High-Cost Patients.

Issue: New payment and care delivery models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) have prompted health care delivery systems to better meet the requirements of their high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients. Goal: To explore how a group of mature ACOs are seeking to match patients with appropriate interventions by segmenting HNHC populations with similar needs into smaller subgroups. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews with 34 leaders from 18 mature ACOs and 10 national experts knowledgeable about risk stratification and segmentation. Key Findings and Conclusions: ACOs use a range of approaches to segment their HNHC patients. Although there was no consistent set of subgroups for HNHC patients across ACOs, there were some common ones. Respondents noted that when primary care clinicians were engaged in refining segmentation approaches, there was an increase in both the clinical relevance of the results as well as the willingness of frontline providers to use them. Population segmentation results informed ACOs' understanding of program needs, for example, by helping them better understand what skill sets and staff were needed to deliver enhanced care management. Findings on how mature ACOs are segmenting their HNHC population can improve the future development of more systematic approaches.

New approaches to measuring the comprehensiveness of primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To develop claims-based measures of comprehensiveness of primary care physicians (PCPs) and summarize their associations with health care utilization and cost. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: A total of 5359 PCPs caring for over 1 million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 1404 practices. STUDY DESIGN: We developed Medicare claims-based measures of physician comprehensiveness (involvement in patient conditions and new problem management) and used a previously developed range of services measure. We analyzed the association of PCPs' comprehensiveness in 2013 with their beneficiaries' emergency department, hospitalizations rates, and ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) admissions (each per 1000 beneficiaries per year), and Medicare expenditures (per beneficiary per month) in 2014, adjusting for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics, and clustering. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Each measure varied across PCPs and had low correlation with the other measures-as intended, they capture different aspects of comprehensiveness. For patients whose PCPs' comprehensiveness score was at the 75th vs 25th percentile (more vs less comprehensive), patients had lower service use (P < 0.05) in one or more measures: involvement with patient conditions: total Medicare expenditures, -$17.4 (-2.2 percent); hospitalizations, -5.5 (-1.9 percent); emergency department (ED) visits, -16.3 (-2.4 percent); new problem management: total Medicare expenditures, -$13.3 (-1.7 percent); hospitalizations, -7.0 (-2.4 percent); ED visits, -19.7 (-2.9 percent); range of services: ED visits, -17.1 (-2.5 percent). There were no significant associations between the comprehensiveness measures and ACSC admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: These measures demonstrate strong content and predictive validity and reliability. Medicare beneficiaries of PCPs providing more comprehensive care had lower hospitalization rates, ED visits, and total Medicare expenditures.

Patient Experiences with Chronic Care Management Services and Fees: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: As of 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pays for chronic care management (CCM) services for Medicare beneficiaries with two or more chronic conditions. CMS requires eligible providers to first obtain patients' verbal (and, prior to 2017, written) consent, to ensure that patients who participate in CCM services understand their rights and agree to any applicable cost sharing. CCM providers must also enhance patients' access to continuous and coordinated care, including ongoing care management. OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' perceptions of the consent process, their reasons for choosing to participate, and their experiences receiving CCM services. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Medicare beneficiaries who had two or more CCM claims submitted by an eligible provider. Beneficiaries were selected from a sampling frame of Medicare claims submitted between January and September 2015. KEY RESULTS: Most patients reported no concerns about being asked to participate in CCM. The majority of patients had secondary insurance (or Medicaid) that covered any coinsurance for CCM and therefore could not say with certainty whether they would participate if they had to pay for CCM services out-of-pocket. Reasons for participating included having insurance that covered the copay and peace of mind about having access to the CCM team. Patients reported multiple benefits of participating in CCM services, including better access to their primary care team, improved continuity of care, and improved care coordination. Most patients reported no downside to participating in CCM services, although some felt they were relatively healthy and questioned whether they needed CCM services. CONCLUSIONS: These findings on patients' experiences participating in CCM services during the first 9 months of the policy's implementation can help providers and policymakers understand their perceived benefits and unintended consequences. Our findings also have implications for providers when approaching patients about CCM services.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Effects On Spending, Quality, Patients, And Physicians.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC), a health care delivery model developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), tested whether multipayer support of 502 primary care practices across the country would improve primary care delivery, improve care quality, or reduce spending. We evaluated the initiative's effects on care delivery and outcomes for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices, relative to those attributed to matched comparison practices. CPC practices reported improvements in primary care delivery, including care management for high-risk patients, enhanced access, and improved coordination of care transitions. The initiative slowed growth in emergency department visits by 2 percent in CPC practices, relative to comparison practices. However, it did not reduce Medicare spending enough to cover care management fees or appreciably improve physician or beneficiary experience or practice performance on a limited set of Medicare claims-based quality measures. As CMS and other payers increasingly use alternative payment models that reward quality and value, CPC provides important lessons about supporting practices in transforming care.

Patients' perspectives of care management: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Risk-stratified care management is a cornerstone of patient-centered medical home models, but studies on patients' perspectives of care management are scarce. We explored patients' experiences with care management, what they found useful, and what needs improvement. STUDY DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews. METHODS: We interviewed 43 high-risk patients or their caregivers who were receiving care management from 11 practices in CMS' Comprehensive Primary Care initiative, provided by nurse care managers (9 practices) or the physician (2 [solo] practices). RESULTS: Patients' perceptions of care management were mixed. Patients who had regular contact with, and a desire to work with, their care manager valued the care management services provided. These patients valued care managers who listened to them and explained their conditions and options in lay terms, helped them navigate the healthcare system and community resources, and followed up after hospitalizations. However, one-fifth of the patients in practices that used nurse care managers could not identify their care manager although we: 1) sampled patients who had recent contact with their care manager and 2) defined the care manager's roles and provided examples of typical care management activities. Patients' interactions with care managers from health plans and hospitals contributed to confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Practices can improve patient buy-in for care management through in-person introductions to care managers by their physicians, offering care management to patients who need and are interested in it, broader agreement about terminology and the role of care managers and care plans, and better coordination with care management from insurers and hospitals.

Provider Experiences with Chronic Care Management (CCM) Services and Fees: A Qualitative Research Study.

BACKGROUND: Support for ongoing care management and coordination between office visits for patients with multiple chronic conditions has been inadequate. In January 2015, Medicare introduced the Chronic Care Management (CCM) payment policy, which reimburses providers for CCM activities for Medicare beneficiaries occurring outside of office visits. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences, facilitators, and challenges of practices providing CCM services, and their implications going forward. DESIGN: Semi-structured telephone interviews from January to April 2016 with 71 respondents. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty billing and non-billing providers and practice staff knowledgeable about their practices' CCM services, and 11 professional society representatives. KEY RESULTS: Practice respondents noted that most patients expressed positive views of CCM services. Practice respondents also perceived several patient benefits, including improved adherence to treatment, access to care team members, satisfaction, care continuity, and care coordination. Facilitators of CCM provision included having an in-practice care manager, patient-centered medical home recognition, experience developing care plans, patient trust in their provider, and supplemental insurance to cover CCM copayments. Most billing practices reported few problems obtaining patients' consent for CCM, though providers felt that CMS could better facilitate consent by marketing CCM's goals to beneficiaries. Barriers reported by professional society representatives and by billing and non-billing providers included inadequacy of CCM payments to cover upfront investments for staffing, workflow modification, and time needed to manage complex patients. Other barriers included inadequate infrastructure for health information exchange with other providers and limited electronic health record capabilities for documenting and updating care plans. Practices owned by hospital systems and large medical groups faced greater bureaucracy in implementing CCM than did smaller, independent practices. CONCLUSIONS: Improving providers' experiences with and uptake of CCM will require addressing several challenges, including the upfront investment for CCM set-up and the time required to provide CCM to more complex patients.