What They Did: CBOs and the Community-based Care Transitions Program

 Posted by on August 21, 2019  1 Response »  Tagged with: , ,
Aug 212019
 
Picture of Anne Montgomery
Anne Montgomery

by Anne Montgomery

Now that the health care sector is focusing on social determinants of health (SDOH) in older adults and actively pursuing partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs) to meet a surging demand for supportive services, it’s an excellent time to ask: What do we already know from key demonstration programs in this space?

Some of the best evidence—both from the standpoint of challenges encountered and also of achievements realized—comes from a five-year demonstration enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): The Community-based Care Transitions Program (CCTP).

Administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the CCTP was bold and ambitious and was among the six original initiatives funded under the authority of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). Starting in 2012, 101 CBOs—mainly Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs)—began to receive funding to partner with hospitals to offer transitional care services. CBOs were reimbursed for each beneficiary receiving transition services; amounts were based on an agreed-upon, all-inclusive rate per eligible discharge.

The survey was developed by N3C members and was completed by a convenience sample of CCTP participants. The survey was disseminated to the National CCTP Coalition, which included successful CCTP sites that received continued funding from CMS and was convened by Aging & In-Home Services of Northeast Indiana, Inc. The survey was also disseminated broadly via the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging and the Aging and Disability Business Institute to capture input from other CCTP participants. The authors reviewed all responses, edited examples for clarity and grammar, and conferred on themes. All respondents have had the opportunity to review this report.

A first-of-its-kind program for CMS, the CCTP asked CBOs to target high-risk Medicare beneficiaries who were transitioning from the hospital back to their homes. Once they identified willing participants, CBOs worked to provide individually tailored supports in the community. For CBOs, the goals were twofold: 1) to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries at a highly vulnerable time; and 2) to reduce their risk of returning to the hospital. For hospitals, the primary goal was to reduce all-cause readmission rates, and thereby lower their risk of paying financial penalties that were also enacted as part of the ACA. For CMS, the measurement metrics for what counted as success for CCTP sites focused on whether they achieved a target of lowering 30-day all-cause readmission rates in participating hospitals by 20%, regardless of whether baseline admission rates were high or low and regardless of how many individuals the CCTP program touched.

This 20% reduction goal exceeded the ability of many community-based organizations that did not already have close working relationships with participating hospitals (many did not); that lacked compatible information technology (which greatly hampered data sharing); and that did not have staff already trained in transitions protocols (primarily the Coleman care transitions intervention), which for some proved more costly to implement than anticipated. These and other start-up structural difficulties caused many CBOs to lose momentum, and many were not continued after the initial period.

Nevertheless, 44 CBOs continued to be funded and to operate through 2015. Those that did devised strategies for delivering comprehensive services post-discharge in beneficiaries’ homes, including helping them obtain assistance with personal care and household tasks they could not manage. The official CMS evaluation conducted by Econometrica focused mainly on readmissions, rather than close analysis of the actual interventions and lessons learned by both participating CBOs and hospitals in collaborating to manage complex, high-risk beneficiaries. Information from beneficiaries on their experience with the program was not collected.

To gain additional insights from CBOs, the National Coalition on Care Coordination and the Center for Health and Social Care Integration surveyed the more successful CCTP sites in late 2018 and 2019. The focus of this survey was to elicit additional information from CBOs about the basic structure of their programs, the nature of the adaptations they made to partner with hospitals, and the challenges they struggled with most, along with observations about what they have been able to take forward. Many of these responses suggest that CCTP opened the door for CBOs to make key improvements to the way that health care and care transition services are coordinated and delivered. As a result, hospitals and CBOs gradually became more efficient at communicating critical information about patients; relationships between medical and CBO staff improved; and referral processes solidified over time.

These adaptations and quiet successes can be seen in the continuing work that CBOs are now pursuing. For example, several CBOs that participated in the CCTP are now involved in CMMI’s Accountable Health Communities demonstration. More broadly, there is a clear push to organize AAAs into larger networks, both within states and more recently across states, to better leverage contracts with large health care organizations. This work is one of the legacies of collaborative work that was launched by the CCTP program.

Within the confines of the five year CCTP demonstration, CCTP sites made solid gains in driving down readmission rates and in lowering Medicare spending. For example, CMS’ final evaluation found that the average Medicare Part A and Part B expenditures over all sites was $634 or 8.23 percent lower in the 30 days after discharge for participants relative to matched comparisons. In the process of learning how to collaborate closely with hospitals on care transitions, CBOs developed better clinical protocols and increased their field capacity, thereby gaining experience in taking on contracts and acquiring valuable insights about how to market their services. The growing sophistication of the Aging Network is evident in the ongoing work of the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging’s Aging and Disability Business Institute. As more and more health care organizations look for ways to better control the costs of complex, aging Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, prospects for CBOs that can position themselves as nimble, flexible, business-savvy partners are excellent. As the Medicare population steadily increases in size and as the “longevity wave” takes hold, CBOs are in a prime position to expand their services footprint exponentially.

For a detailed overview of CBO experience with the CCTP as reported by participating sites, please click here to access the survey responses. Two of the interesting summaries from the overview are presented here:

The Four Overarching Themes from the Participant Surveys

CCTP Survey Responses Table

twitterrssyoutube

A Dangerous Malfunction in the Measure of Readmission Reduction

 Posted by on August 26, 2014  No Responses »  Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Aug 262014
 

By Joanne Lynn and Steve Jencks

Work to reduce readmissions has started to yield remarkable improvements in integration of care for frail elderly people – by prompting hospital personnel to talk with community-based service providers, by teaching patients and families how to manage conditions and navigate the health care system more easily, and by paying more attention to trying to fill gaps in the community’s services. But the measure being used to track improvement is seriously misfiring in some settings, and if CMS does not mitigate the adverse impacts, they may become destructive to the momentum and the good that has been done. This is much more than an issue of imperfect risk adjustment or inadequate identification of planned readmissions: it is a punitive error that undermines program goals.

Since CMS mostly aims to assign responsibility for readmissions to the discharging hospital, the key metric has been the risk of readmission for the average person discharged, which is the number of readmissions, divided by the number of live discharges. Any time outcomes are monitored with a ratio, one has to watch out for whether interventions that affect the numerator also affect the denominator. Here, that’s happening enough to completely obliterate the usefulness of the metric – at least in some circumstances.

Here’s a quick hypothetical example: At baseline, a hospital has 1,000 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) discharges per quarter, with 200 of them back within 30 days. Subsequently, the hospital team and various community-based providers work together and drop the readmissions to 160 per quarter. Does the readmission rate go down to 16% under the metric? No. First, they no longer have the 40 readmissions that are also admissions and in the denominator. But more important – the very things that are reducing the readmission rate also affect the likelihood of coming back in 45 days, or 6 months, or ever! Patients are supported in learning to take care of themselves and to advocate for themselves in the care system, they make good care plans (including advance care plans), and they encounter a more supportive care system in the community. These things are still affecting the patient many months after the hospitalization. Indeed, as the care system learns how to support fragile people in the community better, fewer patients will need to come to the hospital in the first place. The result for our hypothetical hospital is that it ends up with 800 discharges per quarter, and it has not budged its readmission rate! Officially, it has not improved, even though the work done by the hospital, by patients and families, and by community-based providers has improved care substantially, and has saved millions of dollars for Medicare. Yet, using the current flawed metric, the hospital is still likely to be penalized for having a high rate of readmissions!

This is not a new observation. The first sizable pilot project that CMS sponsored involved 14 communities, and the readmissions/discharges metric functioned so poorly that the outcome measure was changed during the project to a population-based measure: readmissions per 1,000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries in the geographic community [See: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1558278]. That measure works to track changes in the experience of those living in a community, but it does not help in assigning credit or blame to particular providers (unless there is only one provider in the area). It is intrinsically community-anchored. The rub is that while good care of frail, chronically ill persons is at heart a community endeavor, Medicare has few tools to incentivize or penalize communities.

Furthermore, it is not clear what the “right rate” of readmissions should be. Very little work has been published on how well the various metrics perform in various circumstances, though NQF has a score of new ones under consideration [See: http://www.qualityforum.org/ProjectDescription.aspx?projectID=73619]. The hospital penalty measure has a very complicated risk adjustment, but should the population-based measure also be risk-adjusted (perhaps at least for the population age structure and whether the person is in Medicare due to disability or age)?

The problem here is more urgent than other controversies regarding the Medicare readmission measure such as higher readmission rates in disadvantaged populations and whether communities with low total hospital utilization should be expected to have higher readmission rates. In the case of measuring change, the measurement flaw directly punishes hospitals and communities for doing what the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Readmissions Reduction Program otherwise encourage them to do: reduce preventable hospitalizations.

What should a responsible system manager like Medicare do? Below are some suggestions.

In the short-term:

  1. Quickly sort out how to exclude certain contexts, perhaps as part of risk adjustment – e.g., whether CMS is authorized to limit application of the readmissions/discharges metric through regulation, or whether the issue has to go back to Congress.
    1. For safety net hospitals – don’t penalize hospitals primarily serving poor beneficiaries.
    2. For reducing admissions – see which of these approaches works best (or combine them)
      1. Hospitals with declining admissions (and the same bed size), when the decline is at roughly the same rate (or more) than declining readmissions
      2. Hospitals with >50% of their Medicare FFS utilization in counties with admission rates in the lowest quartile in the nation
  2. Allow hospitals in a particular geographic area to propose accountability for a population – jointly or singly – so long as they together supply more than, for example, 70% of the hospital use for that population. Then measure their success on a population basis (readmissions/1,000 relevant people living in the area/quarter, and admissions/1,000/quarter)

In the longer-term:

  1. Develop useful metrics for continuity and quality of care, especially for:
    1. Reliability, patient/family sense of trustworthiness/preparation; and
    2. Patient/family driven care plans, evaluated for quality with feedback
  2. Develop useful metrics for the global costs of care, including private and Medicaid costs, for longer terms of illness, not depending upon hospitalization as the trigger, and including long-term services and supports.

What Can You Do Now?

If you agree, let’s talk about how to make improvements to the metric with the National Quality Forum, CMS, hospitals, and other interested organizations and colleagues. Feel free to add comments and suggestions here, too. Let’s build a commitment to evolving toward measures that really reflect optimal care, rather than staying with the under-performing and often misleading ones we have.

Want to know more?

Jencks et al.’s New England Journal of Medicine article on readmission statistics:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0803563

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program:
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program.html

The Community-based Care Transitions Program:
http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/CCTP/

twitterrssyoutube

Readmissions Count: Should CMS Revise Its Calculations?

 Posted by on January 7, 2013  2 Responses »  Tagged with: , , ,
Jan 072013
 

by Dr.  Joanne Lynn

When community coalitions apply for funding from the Community-Based Care Transitions program of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), they have to show that they will reduce hospital readmissions by 20% and will save money for Medicare. Funding recipients will be held to those two outcomes in evaluating the contract.

In general, CMS intends to evaluate these programs by applying the 20% reduction to the rate of rehospitalization: that is, rehospitalizations/[live discharges]. If a community’s baseline rate in 2010 was 15%, then 20% of 15% is 3% and they’d have to reduce rehospitalizations to 12%.

If hospitalization itself remains stable, these are the same goal numerically.

However, much of what is done to reduce 30-day rehospitalization also reduces hospitalizations beyond 30 days, and sometimes even hospitalizations without antecedent hospitalizations. If patients learn more self-care, use more hospice, obtain more support in the community, and so forth, then the use of hospitalization outside of that 30-day window may decline as well. And it does not take a lot of decline in that rate to mimic the decline in 30-day rehospitalization, making it a challenge to change the rate of rehospitalization/hospitalization.

Suppose, for example, that a community had 10,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 30-day rehospitalizations in 2010. Suppose the CCTP work changed the rehospitalization number by a full 20% – cutting it to 1200 per year by 2014. But that good work also cut down on hospitalization by 10% — yielding 9000 for the denominator. Then 1200/9000 would be just a 13.3% rate, and the team would have missed the goal of 12% — even though it had actually done a terrific job.

It is always risky to use a rate where the denominator is presumed to be stable but actually can respond to some of the same interventions as the numerator.

Using the N of 30-day rehospitalizations has its risks also – a bad flu year or a decline in community-based support could push it up, as could an influx of patients that increases the denominator. It can also have spurious improvement if many patients are moved from FFS to managed care.

For now, it seems that the prudent thing to do is to convince CMS that they should keep the question open and make it legitimate for CCTP and providers to pursue the reduction in numbers only rather than the reduction in the rate.

 

key words: CCTP, readmissions rates, CMS, care transitions

twitterrssyoutube

Reaching Rural Residents: Improving Care Transitions in Western New York State

 Posted by on August 23, 2012  No Responses »  Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Aug 232012
 

The P2 Collaborative of Western New York [name was changed to Population Health Collaborative in 2017] represents a different spin on the Community-based Care Transitions Program (CCTP) model. It is unique in its focus on a very rural area of Western New York, and is unusual in that it is one of a few  community-based organizations in CCTP that is NOT an Area Agency on Aging. P2 is a non-profit regional health improvement collaborative, with origins as a Robert Wood Johnson-funded Aligning Forces for Quality community project. Through that work, it has engaged in various activities within eight counties in Western New York.

As Megan Havey, Manager of Care Transitions, explains, “P2 doesn’t provide direct services, but acts as a facilitator to members of the collaborative.” The scope of the project really called for coordination by a regionally based group, one that could work with and understand the diversity of partners, and that could offer the sort of infrastructure support that such a collaborative would require.

The collaborative is one of the largest in the CMS CCTP portfolio. It includes eight local community-based organizations (CBOs) and ten hospitals, and works with other community agencies, organizations, and foundations including the Health Foundation for Western & Central New York, IPRO (the QIO), the Alzheimer’s Association, local  hospice organizations, and county health departments.  The work sprawls across seven counties, with programs that aim to serve more than 2,600 patients annually. The diversity of participating organizations is remarkable, ranging from a 5-bed to a 150-plus-bed hospital.

Over the last six years, many of the participating organizations had participated in pilot programs to improve care transitions. Other groups had little experience, but, Havey says, “…were in a great position to be mentored by groups that had experience.” In building the application, IPRO helped with many tasks, such as creating templates to conduct the required root-cause analysis, analyzing admissions data, and convening partner organizations. Havey says that although IPRO has now “stepped back” from the project, P2 continues to solicit IPRO for technical assistance and support.

The application process was instructive, Havey says, in helping the partners to appreciate just how flexible the project would need to be. “Each county had a very different target population and model,” she says. “It was important  to be able to engage partners and obtain their buy in, but also to be realistic about what we could achieve in each county. We could not create a cookie cutter model.” All of the local CBOs and hospitals are using the Coleman model, the Care Transitions Intervention™, and are targeting Medicare Fee-For-Service patients.

Havey says that developing a web-based data platform that all partners could use has been an essential step. The platform had to accommodate the range of reporting capacity partners bring to the project. To that end, P2 worked with a software company to invest in and develop a platform all hospitals could use to enter data about eligible patients. The system operates within the context of the Care Transitions Intervention, and allows care managers to document data about home and hospital visits, as well as follow-up calls and evaluation information.

Havey notes special challenges in serving a rural population, particularly in terms of accessing care. There are not enough providers, she says, and transportation to get to them can be difficult. “Rural counties have very poor health outcomes, with many medically underserved areas and populations. Our goal is to reduce readmission rates with an intervention that leads to better health outcomes and improves quality of life.”

Key words: care transitions, CCTP, Section 3026, rural residents, readmissions

twitterrssyoutube

SAGE: Bridging the Divide between Acute Medical Care and Social Services in Northeast Ohio

 Posted by on July 23, 2012  No Responses »  Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Jul 232012
 

By Dr. Kyle Allen and Susan Hazelett

The Summa Health System/Area Agency on Aging, 10B/Geriatric Evaluation Project(SAGE) is a collaboration between an integrated health system and the local Area Agency on Aging which was begun in 1995. SAGE  provided the organizational structure to develop the resources and processes needed to effectively integrate geriatric medical services and community-based long-term care services. Such integration is essential to bridging gaps between acute medical care and community-based care, enabling medical and social services providers to reach frail older adults living in the community with multiple chronic conditions, and to improve their quality of life. The SAGE project, which operates in the Akron, Ohio, metropolitan area, has managed to do just that. Results of the 17-year collaborative indicate that consumers, health care systems, health care providers, and payers have all benefited from the focus on integrating service delivery.

In the early 1990s, Summa Health System (SHS), an integrated not-for-profit health delivery system, had launched several projects aimed at improving care for frail elders. Summa comprises six community teaching hospitals with more than 2000 beds, as well as its own health plan, skilled home care, hospice, and a foundation. Summa’s insurance plan has 150,000 covered lives, including a Medicare Advantage Plan of 23,000.One of the projects being tested at Summa was the ACE (Acute Care for Elders) model, a model of hospital care delivery aimed at improving the functional status and clinical outcomes for hospitalized older adults. Recognizing that this model did not have the necessary patient connection in the outpatient setting, Summa realized it would need to expand its reach to elderly patients across the continuum of care. To this end, it created the Center for Senior Health (CSH), an outpatient consultative service that supports primary care providers by offering an interdisciplinary, comprehensive geriatric assessment; high-risk assessment; a geriatrics resource center; a clinical teaching center; inpatient geriatric consultation and outpatient consultation followup. The CSH attempts to treat and reach the whole patient by addressing acute and chronic medical needs, psychosocial needs, and family concerns. Despite the range of services provided, the CSH continued to be limited in its scope because it did not have access to patients in their homes, nor could it provide long-term case management. As a result, it began to rely increasingly on community-based long-term care agencies for this kind of information and management.

At about the same time, the Area Agency on Aging 10B, Inc. (AAA) found itself managing a growing number of consumers with functional decline, geriatric syndromes, and multiple chronic illnesses. The AAA, which serves more than 20,000 elders in Northeast Ohio, recognized that it needed to be better integrated with the acute medical sector if it were to achieve its goal of delaying and preventing nursing home admissions.

Leaders from Summa Health and the AAA recognized the challenges and deficits each one faced in providing continuity of care to patients/consumers, and began meeting to discuss how they could build a new, integrated model of care. They realized that they shared a common goal and vision to improve care for frail elders, and launched SAGE, which provided the organizational structure needed to effectively integrate their services. SAGE had no grants or funding, just a spirit of collaboration and cooperation, and a common desire to do more than just business as usual.

A SAGE task force was created comprised of staff from both organizations, including physicians, nurses, and social workers, as well as senior leaders, to promote communication, provide feedback, and create initiatives that linked the two. The group met monthly for two years, and now meets quarterly. Among its early objectives were the development of protocols to screen and identify at-risk older adults, to establish mechanisms for information sharing and resources, to identify gaps and duplication in service delivery, to locate a AAA case manager at the CSH, to educate staff from both organizations, to collect data and information, and to identify and address barriers to implementation.

Eventually SAGE created an RN care manager assessor program, in which placed an AAA assessor in the acute care hospital. The assessor works closely with the ACE team to identify hospitalized patients who can benefit from community-based programs, as well as patients who are eligible for PASSPORT, the state’s Medicaid waiver program. This was a new initiative for the AAA, which had traditionally conducted these assessments post-discharge, in the patient’s home. That assessment now occurs before the patient is even discharged from the hospital, thus helping to determine needs for  community based services and facilitating the process for eligibility  and approval for Medicaid long term care benefits.  This is beneficial because patients will typically receive Medicare covered services for skilled needs but long term care needs are not addressed as well and the Medicare skilled benefits are provided for only a limited time usually < 30 days.   Without the other supports this vulnerable population is at risk for poor health care access, emergency department visits and  hospital readmission. The AAA then assumes case management for the consumer, and offers periodic geriatric follow-up.

This program has facilitated improved capacity management for complex patients in the acute care hospital. It improved AAA communication with primary care and hospital staff, reducing repeat hospitalizations, ED visits, and nursing home placements. It improved outcomes for complex patients, and decreased discharges from PASSPORT to nursing homes. During the pilot period,  referrals to and enrollments in the PASSPORT program doubled.   The AAA was also successful in replicating this model at other hospital systems in the Northeastern Ohio AAA service area.  A more recent positive outcome  related to this collaboration work was the awarding for AAA 10b Inc. one of the first seven  Community Based Care Transitions projects from CMS/CMMI as part of the The Community-based Care Transitions Program (CCTP), created by Section 3026 of the Patient Protection and  Affordable Care Act

In developing SAGE, several barriers had to be overcome, primarily those affecting leadership of the program, development of an effective multidisciplinary workgroup, and resources (in terms of staff time). The program can be adapted by other communities around the country, offering their acute medical system and community-based programs a way to align their services and collaborate in ways that better address the needs of frail older adults.

Key words: community collaboration, SAGE Project, ACE Units, CCTP, 3026, pilot programs

twitterrssyoutube

CMS Announced First Awards for CCTP Funding

 Posted by on November 18, 2011  No Responses »  Tagged with: , , ,
Nov 182011
 

CMS announced the first sites selected for the Community Based Care Transition Program. Please see the links below for the list of sites and an updated fact sheet. As noted above, we continue to accept applications and look forward to selecting additional sites in the near future.

The following overview of the selected sites offers a glimpse into where things will be happening as these programs launch. We at Medicaring.org hope to interview leaders from many of these sites, and to gain their ideas and insights about what made for a successful application, and where others might learn from their work.

The Atlanta Community-Based Care Transitions Program (Atlanta CCTP), a collaborative partnership serving ten counties in the Atlanta region, including the Atlanta Regional Commission (an Area Agency on Aging), and six urban area hospitals: Emory University Hospital Midtown, Gwinnett Medical Center, Piedmont Hospital, Southern Regional Hospital, WellStar Cobb Hospital and WellStar Kennestone Hospital.

The Akron/Canton Area Agency on Aging (A/C AAA), working in partnership with 10 acute care hospitals located within, or geographically contiguous to, the A/C AAA service area in Ohio: Affinity Hospital, Aultman Hospital, and Mercy Medical Center in Stark County; Akron General Medical Center, Summa Akron City Hospital, Summa Saint Thomas Hospital, Summa Barberton Hospital, and Summa Western Reserve Hospital in Summit County; Robinson Memorial Hospital in Portage County; and Summa Wadsworth Rittman Hospital in Medina. County.

The Southwest Ohio Care Transitions Collaborative, serving the Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area and surrounding counties in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio, including the Council on Aging of Southwestern Ohio, the Greater Cincinnati Health Council, HealthBridge, Health Care Access Now, Healthcare Improvement Collaborative, Hamilton County Mental Health and Recovery Services Board, Clinton Memorial Hospital, Jewish Hospital, Mercy Hospital Fairfield, The Christ Hospital, and UC Health University Hospital.

The Southern Maine Agency on Aging/Aging and Disability Resource Center (SMAA/ADRC), serving five counties in southern and mid-coast Maine in partnership with the Maine Medical Center Physician-Hospital Organization and five MaineHealth hospitals: Southern Maine Medical Center, Maine Medical Center, Mid-Coast Hospital, Miles Hospital, and PenBay Medical Center.

The Area Agency on Aging, Region One, serving Maricopa County in Arizona, in partnership with John C. Lincoln North Mountain Hospital, West Valley Hospital, Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn Medical Center, John C. Lincoln Deer Valley Hospital; APIPA, a Medicaid Acute Care Plan that serves dually-enrolled Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries; and Sunwest Pharmacy.

 Elder Services of the Merrimack Valley, Inc., in partnership with Anna Jacques Hospital, Saints Medical Center, Holy Family Hospital, Lawrence General Hospital, and Merrimack Valley Hospital, and serving 23 cities/towns in the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts and ten bordering cities/towns in southern New Hampshire where patients using these hospitals also reside.

Council for Jewish Elderly (“CJE SeniorLife”) in Chicago, IL, partnering with Northwestern Memorial, Saint Joseph Hospital, and Saint Francis Hospital and working closely with Area Agencies on Aging in Chicago and suburbs, local Care Coordination Units (CCUs), and Illinois’ Quality Improvement Organization, IFMC.

Key words:  3026 funding, CCTP sites, care transitions, CMS

twitterrssyoutube