Background: The rising burden of chronic illness represents major challenges for our current health-caresystems. Generally, our current health care system mainly focuses on an acute care management andrnshort-term goals; particularly our Primary Health Care System, which is uninformed, fragmented, andrnpoorly coordinated to meet the needs of chronically ill patients. This study proposes the use of ChronicrnCare Model (CCM) which is a systematic; an evidence-based framework for improving chronic illnessrncare in primary health care setting, but little is known and the potential benefits of doing so were missed.rnObjective: This study aims to describe the extent to which Addis Ababa City Administration primaryrnhealth care system supports for chronic illness care with the Wagner Chronic Care Model and identify anyrnstrengths, weaknesses, barriers, and opportunities in the health care management practice to improvernhealth outcomes.rnMethods: Institution based cross-section survey was conducted in selected Addis Ababa City publichealth centers tailored for prevention and control of chronic illness by the government model. Using thernCCM as a framework, face to face open-ended interview with health center staff were conducted torndescribe the extent to which itâ€Ÿs consistent& identify successes and barriers that influence a successfulrnuptake in the primary health care system. Data were collected qualitatively using semi structuredrninterview questioner in relation to version 3.5 of the ACIC scale, and organized with a SWOT analysismatrix. An analysis was by computer aided qualitative data analysis software open code.rnResults: Chronic care tailored health centers developed little to basic stage of support and had distinctrnareas of Strengths and weaknesses in each six component of the system: 1) organizational support -strengthened by working together with partner ( Psi-Ethiopia Healthy Heart Africa initiative), establishedrnperformance monitoring team and provides training in disease management, but weakened by lack ofrnexplicit chronic care goals, was not reflected in their business plan and there is also a lack of funding tornsupport activities related to chronic illness care; 2) community linkages- strengthened by establishedcommunity visiting team ( Family health team),but detracted by lack of participation of community-basedorganizations, less priorities chronic disease care in their care plan and poor sense of program ownershiprnby health managers; 3) self-management-promoted through one to one patient education and risk factorassessment for clients, but impeded by limited focus on family and community-based educationalactivities and seldom set goals with clients for assessed need; 4) decision support-facilitated bydistribution of clinical guidelines and their integration with daily care, but limited by inadequate access tornand support from specialists; 5) delivery system design-strengthened by appointment of designatedrnchronic disease coordinators, effective teamwork and provision of clinic rooms, but weakened by lack ofdefined roles and responsibilities to heath care workers in relation to chronic illness care and sufferedrnfrom a shortage of staffs especially doctors, behavioral health professional, case manager and counselors;rn6) clinical information systems-strengthened by easily accessible, organized patient records, recalls andrntimely feedback but, limited by lack of computerized systems adoption and capacity to supply populationbasedrninformationrnforrnqualityrnofrnchronicrnillnessrncare.rnrnrnConclusion:rnThisrnstudyrnrnidentified several strengths and weaknesses and determined the extent to whichrnwe handled a chronic illness care by using standard protocol, a CCM framework which might be useful inassessing and guiding development of system for improvement of chronic care in primary health centers.rnAn adaptation of the CCM model may serve as a template for future health care system redesigning &rnhelp to improve access to quality and effective health care services especially in primary healthcare.