Disease Management & Health Outcomes

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 259–263 | Cite as

Disease Management and Its Implications for Outpatient Physician Practice

A Memo for Physicians
Current Opinion


While disease management may be viewed with skepticism, suspicion, or outright hostility, there are several reasons why this approach to care may warrant physician support. The care of patients with chronic illness in usual primary care practice is beset by significant quality gaps, and significant improvement due to other initiatives such as the electronic health record, pay for performance, or consumer-directed healthcare insurance has yet to be consistently demonstrated. In contrast, an emerging body of peer-reviewed literature is demonstrating that disease management does lead to improvements in clinical quality.

Disease management is also an intervention that is closely linked to primary care and, thanks to its willingness to assume many of the tasks of patient engagement, can offload and improve practice efficiency. If successful, it can lead to greater reimbursement from pay for performance, and future iterations of disease management may also reimburse physicians for work effort and quality achievements that support its programs. The electronic health record may introduce new challenges, such as a greater reliance on remote messaging, that can also be addressed by this approach to care. It is also possible that future versions of consumer-directed plans will accommodate disease management approaches in an attempt to protect the healthcare consumer with chronic disease from high out-of-pocket expenses. Last but not least, as disease management and the chronic care model evolve, physicians and the sponsors and suppliers of disease management services may find approaches to care that adopt the best elements of each.


Disease Management Electronic Health Record Disease Management Program Chronic Care Model Patient Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author is on the Board of Directors of the Disease Management Association of America, a non-compensated role in a not-for-profit entity. The author has no other potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of the review.


  1. 1.
    Mechanic D. Physician discontent: challenges and opportunities. JAMA 2003; 290: 941–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Disease Management Association of America. DMAA definition of disease management [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  3. 3.
    Harris J. Disease management: new wine in new bottles? Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 838–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sprague L. Disease management to population-based health: steps in the right direction?. National Health Policy Forum issue brief no. 791 [online]. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum, 2003. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matheson D, Wilkins A, Psacharopoulos D. Realizing the promise of disease management: payer trends and opportunities in the United States [online]. Boston (MA): Boston Consulting Group, 2006. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rothman AA, Wagner EH. Chronic illness management: what is the role of primary care? Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 254–61Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. To err is human: building a safer health system [online]. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2000. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McGlynn EA, Asch S, Adams MJ, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. New Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2635–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lenfant C. Clinical research to clinical practice — lost in translation? N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 868–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maguire P. Strategies to tackle outpatient errors [online]. ACP-ASIM Observer 2002 Jun. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  11. 11.
    Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model. Part 2. JAMA 2002; 288: 1909–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weingarten SR, Henning JM, Badamgarav E, et al. Interventions used in disease management programs for patients with chronic illness — which ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ 2002; 325: 925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linden, A, Butterworth SW, et al. Disease management interventions II: what else is in the black box? Disease Management 2006; 9: 73–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    US National Committee for Quality Assurance. NCQA’s disease management accreditation and certification programs: do you want to rise above the crowd? [online] Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2000. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  15. 15.
    URAC. Disease Management Accreditation Program Overview [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  16. 16.
    Maguire P. Boom times for disease management leave doctors wanting more control [online]. ACP-ASIM Observer 2000 Oct. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  17. 17.
    Sidorov J. It ain’t necessarily so: the electronic health record and the unlikely prospect of reducing health care costs. Health Affairs 2006; 25: 1079–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jantos LD, Holmes JL, ECG Management Consultants. IT tools for chronic disease management: how do they measure up? [online] Oakland (CA): California HealthCare Foundation, 2006. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  19. 19.
    Access Plus provider handbook [online]. Pittsburgh (PA): Access Plus, 2005. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]
  20. 20.
    Thorpe KE. Cost sharing, caps on benefits, and the chronically ill — a policy mismatch. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2385–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Von Korff M, Gruman J, Schaefer S, et al. Collaborative management of chronic illness. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 97–1102Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA 2002; 288: 1775–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barr M, Ginsburg J. The advanced medical home: a patient-centered, physician-guided model of health care [online]. Philadelphia (PA): American College of Physicians, 2006. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spann SJ, For the members of Task Force 6 and the Executive Editorial Team. Report on financing the new model of family medicine. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2 Suppl. 3: S1–S21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Babbott SF, Bigby JA, Day SC, et al. The Blue Ribbon Panel of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Redesigning the practice model for general internal medicine: a proposal for coordinated care [online]. Washington, DC: Society of General Internal Medicine, 2006. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Sep 21]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greisinger AJ, Balkrishnan R, Shenolikar RA, et al. Diabetes care management participation in a primary care setting and subsequent hospitalization risk. Dis Manag 2004 Winter; 7(4): 325–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes — 2006. Diabetes Care 2006; 20 Suppl. 1: S1–42Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McAlister FA, Lawson FM, Teo KK, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials of disease management programs in heart failure. Am J Med 2001; 110: 378–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geisinger Health PlanHughes Office NorthDanvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations