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

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.

Provision of medications to treat opioid use disorder via a mobile health unit: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Mobile health units (MHUs) provide a variety of low-barrier services to populations that face systemic barriers to healthcare access. However, MHUs are not a common delivery method for medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD), and, of these, there is no consensus regarding MHU targeted objectives and outcomes. This scoping review seeks to summarize the state of the literature examining the delivery of MOUD by MHUs in the United States. METHODS: A search of PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL on February 21, 2023, found 223 articles. Two authors completed title and abstract and full text reviews and extracted data relevant to intervention and study design, program objectives, and study outcomes. Ten articles fit the study's inclusion criteria (nine total interventions). RESULTS: Of the 10 studies, six were cohort designs, three were cross-sectional (one with qualitative interviews), and one study conducted qualitative interviews only. Most studies were located in the Northeastern United States. MHU interventions primarily aimed to provide MOUD and to retain populations in treatment. Two interventions aimed to engage patients and then transfer them to fixed-site MOUD providers. Across four interventions that provided buprenorphine, 1- and 3-month retention rates varied from 31.6 % to 72.3 % and 26.2 % to 58.5 %, respectively. Qualitative interviews found that MOUD delivery from the MHU was characterized by less stigma/judgment and greater privacy compared to fixed-site, and it was flexible and low-barrier. MHUs were reportedly underutilized by the target populations, suggesting a lack of awareness from community members with opioid use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: MHUs that deliver MOUD are both under-provided and -utilized. Future research should continue to assess MOUD provision from MHUs with an emphasis on robust study design, application to other formulations of MOUD, and evaluation of outcomes such as participant satisfaction and key informant perceived challenges. REGISTRATION: Submitted to Open Science Framework (OSF) Repository on February 6, 2023.