↓ Skip to main content

Financing for Collaborative Care—a Narrative Review

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 161)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Financing for Collaborative Care—a Narrative Review
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40501-018-0150-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew D. Carlo, Jürgen Unützer, Anna D. H. Ratzliff, Joseph M. Cerimele

Abstract

Collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based model for the treatment of common mental health conditions in the primary care setting. Its workflow encourages systematic communication among clinicians outside of face-to-face patient encounters, which has posed financial challenges in traditional fee-for-service reimbursement environments. Organizations have employed various financing strategies to promote CoCM sustainability, including external grants, alternate payment model contracts with specific payers and the use of billing codes for individual components of CoCM. In recent years, Medicare approved fee-for-service, time-based billing codes for CoCM that allow for the reimbursement of patient care performed outside of face-to-face encounters. A growing number of Medicaid and commercial payers have followed suit, either recognizing the fee-for-service codes or contracting to reimburse in alternate payment models. Although significant challenges remain, novel methods for payment and cooperative efforts among insurers have helped move CoCM closer to financial sustainability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 6 16%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,056,106
of 24,612,602 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry
#16
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,165
of 332,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,612,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.