Editorial Methodology

How we cover APCM: sources, review process, and content update cadence.

Primary-source discipline

Every substantive claim on this site is tied to a primary source.

Reimbursement claims — code definitions, RVUs, payment rates, eligibility requirements, billing rules — cite the relevant CMS Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule with the Performance Year stated (for example, “per CMS PFS 2026 Final Rule”). Where a rule has been proposed but not finalized, the proposed-rule status is named explicitly.

Regulatory claims that go beyond the PFS — interactions with the 1135 waivers, OIG advisory opinions, Stark and Anti-Kickback considerations, state-level scope-of-practice rules — cite the Federal Register or the issuing agency document directly.

Clinical practice claims cite AAFP, NAACOS, USPSTF, or PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed sources. We do not paraphrase clinical guidance into our own framing; we quote and link.

Implementation and operational claims — what it takes to staff care management, how long onboarding tends to run, what billing infrastructure adds up to — cite operating-experience sources by name where possible, or are explicitly framed as “based on our editorial assessment” when no published source is available. Editorial assessment is identified as such; it does not masquerade as primary-source fact.

What we publish and what we do not

We publish value framing, decision frameworks, eligibility and fit assessment at a strategic level, comparative analyses across program options, and explanations of why APCM matters in the broader context of primary care reimbursement reform.

We do not publish step-by-step billing walkthroughs, EHR-specific configuration instructions, ready-to-use care plan templates, or audit-defensible documentation language. That content lives in CMS source documents and in partner implementations for good reason: it requires real-time accuracy against current rule cycles, conformance with a specific practice’s EHR and workflow, and accountability when it is followed. Publishing it as static editorial content creates risk for readers and provides no real value over the authoritative sources.

This line is deliberate. Coverage on this site is meant to help practices decide; implementation work happens elsewhere.

Editorial review process

Every page is reviewed by an editorial lead before publishing. The review covers four dimensions:

1. Factual accuracy — every claim is traceable to a cited primary source, and the citation actually supports the claim being made.
2. Citation discipline — sources are current, linked where possible, and named with enough specificity that a reader could verify independently.
3. Compliance language — no language that implies revenue-sharing between PCP and behavioral health partners; same-TIN billing constraints stated accurately where they apply; audience held to PCP and practice operators throughout.
4. Voice and scope — editorial coverage stays on the editorial side of the line described above.

At v1, page bylines appear as “Editorial Team.” Within 60 to 90 days of public launch, we will add named author bylines and a named medical reviewer attribution to every page, and backfill earlier pages to the same standard. This commitment is documented here so it can be held against actual practice.

Update cadence

Annual major refresh is tied to the CMS PFS Final Rule cycle, which typically lands in early November of each year for the following Performance Year. Pages affected by rule changes are updated within four to six weeks of Final Rule publication.

High-traffic pages are reviewed quarterly between major refreshes for currency — broken links, superseded sub-regulatory guidance, new clarifications from CMS or specialty societies.

Every page carries a visible dateModified reflecting the most recent substantive edit. Trivial copy edits do not bump the date; substantive changes to claims, citations, or framing do.

Editorial independence

Editorial decisions on this site are made independently of any specific implementation partner’s commercial interests. Articles do not recommend specific partner services within editorial body content. Where it is useful for readers, cluster pages may carry a clearly framed footer link to the /find-a-provider/ directory — that link is services-side and is not an editorial recommendation of any particular listed partner.

Comparative content names alternatives by category, not by vendor. Where a specific vendor is named for illustrative purposes, the framing makes clear it is an example rather than an endorsement.

Corrections policy

Errors are corrected promptly. When a correction is made:

• The change is implemented in the page body.
• A visible correction note is appended at the bottom of the page describing what changed and when, for any correction that alters the meaning of the original claim.
• The dateModified is updated.
• For significant changes — those that substantively reverse or rewrite prior coverage — the previous version is archived and linked from the correction note.

Typo fixes, link repairs, and other non-substantive edits do not require a correction note.

Contact

Editorial inquiries, corrections, and source citations: editorial@advancedprimarycaremanagement.com.