A nurse driven care management program to engage older diabetes patients in personalized goal setting and disease management.

Background and Aims: Multiple diabetes care guidelines have called for the personalization of risk factor goals, medication management, and self-care plans among older patients. Study of the implementation of these recommendations is needed. This study aimed to test whether a patient survey embedded in the Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR), coupled with telephonic nurse care management, could engage patients in personalized goal setting and chronic disease management. Methods: We conducted a single-center equal-randomization delayed comparator trial at the primary care clinics of the University of Chicago Medicine from 2018.6 to 2019.12. Patients over the age of 65 years with type 2 diabetes with an active patient portal account were recruited and randomized to receive an EHR embedded goal setting and preference survey immediately in the intervention arm or after 6 months in the delayed intervention control arm. In the intervention arm, nurses reviewed American Diabetes Association recommendations for A1C goals based on health status class, established personalized goals, and provided monthly telephonic care management phone calls for a maximum of 6 months. Our primary outcome was the documentation of a personalized A1C goal in the EHR. Results: A total of 100 patients completed the trial (mean age, 72.51 [SD, 5.22] years; mean baseline A1C, 7.14% [SD, 1.06%]; 68% women). The majority were in the Healthy (59%) followed by Complex (30%) and Very Complex (11%) health status classes. Documentation of an A1C goal in the EHR increased from 42% to 90% (p < 0.001) at 6 months in the intervention group and from 54% to 56% in the control group. Across health status classes, patients set similar A1C goals. Conclusions: Older patients can be engaged in personalized goal setting and disease management through an embedded EHR intervention. The clinical impact of the intervention may differ if deployed among older patients with more complex health needs and higher glucose levels. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03692208.

Diabetes Life Expectancy Prediction Model Inputs and Results From Patient Surveys Compared With Electronic Health Record Abstraction: Survey Study.

Background: Prediction models are being increasingly used in clinical practice, with some requiring patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The optimal approach to collecting the needed inputs is unknown. Objective: Our objective was to compare mortality prediction model inputs and scores based on electronic health record (EHR) abstraction versus patient survey. Methods: Older patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes at an urban primary care practice in Chicago were recruited to participate in a care management trial. All participants completed a survey via an electronic portal that included items on the presence of comorbid conditions and functional status, which are needed to complete a mortality prediction model. We compared the individual data inputs and the overall model performance based on the data gathered from the survey compared to the chart review. Results: For individual data inputs, we found the largest differences in questions regarding functional status such as pushing/pulling, where 41.4% (31/75) of participants reported difficulties that were not captured in the chart with smaller differences for comorbid conditions. For the overall mortality score, we saw nonsignificant differences (P=.82) when comparing survey and chart-abstracted data. When allocating participants to life expectancy subgroups (<5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years), differences in survey and chart review data resulted in 20% having different subgroup assignments and, therefore, discordant glucose control recommendations. Conclusions: In this small exploratory study, we found that, despite differences in data inputs regarding functional status, the overall performance of a mortality prediction model was similar when using survey and chart-abstracted data. Larger studies comparing patient survey and chart data are needed to assess whether these findings are reproduceable and clinically important.

The Economic Evaluation of Team Clinic-Group Approach to a Care Model of Early Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Glycemic control is challenging for adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Team Clinic, a shared medical appointment model, has improved psychosocial outcomes in middle school patients with T1D. We aimed to evaluate the costs of delivering Team Clinic. METHOD: Participants were randomized into Team Clinic (n = 44) or usual care (n = 42) groups. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in 6-month total costs per subject ($3,204 [intervention] vs. $3,476 [control]. No significant differences were found in health care use, test strip use, or continuous glucose monitoring and/or pump. The intervention had more clinic visits (2.41 vs. 1.52 times) and a longer length of visit (2.34 vs. 0.74 hr, but no difference in provider time per patient per visit (median, 0.67 vs. 0.68 hr). DISCUSSION: The Team Clinic care model may help young adolescents with T1D improve psychosocial outcomes and increase completion of clinical visits without increasing costs.

Teaching Intersectionality of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Race/Ethnicity in a Health Disparities Course.

Introduction: Intersectionality considers how different identities simultaneously affect an individual's experiences. Those of multiple minority statuses may experience effects of intersecting systems of oppression. Most health disparities curricula do not focus on intersectionality. We studied the impact of an innovative module teaching intersectionality of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity issues in the required Pritzker School of Medicine course Health Care Disparities: Equity and Advocacy. Methods: A short lecture reviewed sexual and gender minority (SGM) health disparities, intersectionality, minority stress, and shared decision making (SDM) to establish shared language among 83 first-year medical students. Students then viewed four videos of SGM patients of color (POC) describing their health care experiences, each followed by moderated discussion about how compounded minority stress affects lived experiences and health and how to improve SDM for SGM POC. One video interviewee attended the session and answered students' questions. Evaluation was performed using pre- and postsurveys. Results: Feeling somewhat/completely confident in defining intersectionality increased from 57% to 96%. Prior to the session, 62% of respondents reported feeling somewhat/completely confident in identifying barriers to care for SGM patients, and 92% after. Thirty-three percent felt somewhat/completely confident in asking SGM patients about their identities before the session, and 81% after. Eighty-four percent rated the session as very good or excellent. Discussion: The session was well received, improved student knowledge of intersectionality, and improved confidence in communicating with and caring for SGM patients. Future iterations could include condensing the lecture and including a patient panel and/or small-group discussion.

National physician survey on glycemic goals and medical decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes.

To describe how patient characteristics influence physician decision-making about glycemic goals for Type 2 diabetes.2016 survey of 357 US physicians. The survey included two vignettes, representing a healthy patient and an unhealthy patient, adapted from a past survey of international experts and a factorial design vignette that varied age, heart disease history, and hypoglycemia history. Survey results were weighted to provide national estimates.Over half (57.6%) of physicians recommended a goal HbA1c <7.0% for most of their patients. For the healthy patient vignette, physicians recommended a goal similar to that of international experts (<6.66% (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 6.61-6.71%) vs <6.5% (Interquartile range (IQR), 6.5-6.8%)). For the unhealthy patient, physicians recommended a lower goal than international experts (<7.38% (CI, 7.30-7.46) vs <8.0% (IQR, 7.5-8.0%)). In the factorial vignette, physicians varied HbA1c goals by 0.35%, 0.06%, and 0.28% based on age, heart disease history, and hypoglycemia risk, respectively. The goal HbA1c range between the 55-year-old with no heart disease or hypoglycemic events and the 75-year-old with heart disease and hypoglycemic events was 0.65%.Despite guidelines that recommend HbA1c goals ranging from <6.5% to <8.5%, US physicians seem to be anchored on HbA1c goals around <7.0%.

Healthcare Experiences of Transgender People of Color.

BACKGROUND: Transgender people and racial/ethnic minorities separately report poor healthcare experiences. However, little is known about the healthcare experiences of transgender people of color (TPOC), who are both transgender and racial/ethnic minorities. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how TPOC healthcare experiences are shaped by both race/ethnicity and gender identity. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews (n = 22) and focus groups (2; n = 17 total); all taken from a sample of TPOC from the Chicago area. All participants completed a quantitative survey (n = 39). APPROACH: Interviews and focus groups covered healthcare experiences, and how these were shaped by gender identity and/or race/ethnicity. The interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and imported into HyperRESEARCH software. At least two reviewers independently coded each transcript using a codebook of themes created following grounded theory methodology. The quantitative survey data captured participants' demographics and past healthcare experiences, and were analyzed with descriptive statistics. KEY RESULTS: All participants described healthcare experiences where providers responded negatively to their race/ethnicity and/or gender identity. A majority of participants believed they would be treated better if they were cisgender or white. Participants commonly cited providers' assumptions about TPOC as a pivotal factor in negative experiences. A majority of participants sought out healthcare locations designated as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)-friendly in an effort to avoid discrimination, but feared experiencing racism there. A minority of participants expressed a preference for providers of color; but a few reported reluctance to reveal their gender identity to providers of their own race due to fear of transphobia. When describing positive healthcare experiences, participants were most likely to highlight providers' respect for their gender identity. CONCLUSIONS: TPOC have different experiences compared with white transgender or cisgender racial/ethnic minorities. Providers must improve understanding of intersectional experiences of TPOC to improve quality of care.

Cost-effectiveness of Shared Telemedicine Appointments in Young Adults With T1D: CoYoT1 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) often struggle to achieve glycemic control and maintain routine clinic visits. We aimed to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of the Colorado young adults with T1D (CoYoT1) Clinic, an innovative care model of shared medical appointments through home telehealth. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients self-selected into the CoYoT1 (N = 42) or usual care (N = 39) groups. RESULTS: Within the trial, we found no significant differences in 9-month quality-adjusted life; however, the control group had a larger decline from baseline in utility than the CoYoT1 group, indicating a quality of life (QoL) benefit of the intervention (difference in difference mean ± SD: 0.04 ± 0.09; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in total costs. The CoYoT1 group had more study-related visits but fewer nonstudy office visits and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: The CoYoT1 care model may help young adults with T1D maintain a higher QoL with no increase in costs.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion on Type 2 Diabetes Diagnosis and Treatment: A National Survey of Physicians.

In 2014, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided funding for states to expand Medicaid coverage to include citizens who earned up to 138% of the federal poverty line. We sought to ascertain whether physicians practicing in Medicaid expansion states reported an increase in Medicaid or newly insured patients with type 2 diabetes in their panels, compared to physicians practicing in non-expansion states. We conducted a 55-question cross-sectional survey of 356 physicians providing outpatient care for adults with type 2 diabetes. We used adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare responses from physicians who practiced in expansion versus non-expansion states regarding whether they observed an increase since 2014 in (1) the number of Medicaid or newly insured patients with diabetes and (2) the number of additional newly or previously diagnosed patients who were newly receiving care, in their panels, adjusting for physician, practice, and patient-level characteristics, weighted for the U.S. physician population. 41% of eligible recipients responded. 64.2% of physicians who practice in an expansion state report an increase in Medicaid or newly insured patients with diabetes compared with 46.1% who practice in non-expansion states (p = 0.05; Table 2). Compared with physicians who practice in non-expansion states, physicians who practice in Medicaid expansion states are more likely to report an increase in the number of Medicaid or newly insured patients with diabetes in their practice since 2014. The increased access associated with the Medicaid expansion may improve long-term outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The economic impact of both continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) have been evaluated separately. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding CSII to existing CGM users has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of CSII versus continuing multiple daily injections (MDI) in adults with T1D already using CGM. METHODS: In the second phase of the DIAMOND trial, 75 adults using CGM were randomized to either CGM+CSII or CGM+MDI (control) and surveyed at baseline and 28 weeks. We performed within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) via a modified Sheffield T1D model. RESULTS: Within the trial, the CGM+CSII group had a significant reduction in quality of life from baseline (-0.02 ± 0.05 difference in difference [DiD]) compared with controls. Total per-person 28-week costs were $8,272 (CGM+CSII) versus $5,623 (CGM+MDI); the difference in costs was primarily attributable to pump use ($2,644). Pump users reduced insulin intake (-12.8 units DiD) but increased the use of daily number of test strips (+1.2 DiD). Pump users also increased time with glucose in range of 70 to 180 mg/dL but had a higher HbA1c (+0.13 DiD) and more nonsevere hypoglycemic events. In the lifetime CEA, CGM+CSII would increase total costs by $112,045 DiD, decrease QALYs by 0.71, and decrease life expectancy by 0.48 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this single trial, initiating an insulin pump in adults with T1D already using CGM was associated with higher costs and reduced quality of life. Additional evidence regarding the clinical effects of adopting combinations of new technologies from trials and real-world populations is needed to confirm these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the societal cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple insulin injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the Multiple Daily Injections and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes (DIAMOND) trial, 158 patients with T1D and HbA1c ≥7.5% were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to CGM or control. Participants were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. Within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. A modified Sheffield T1D policy model was used to simulate T1D complications. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Within the 6-month trial, the CGM group had similar QALYs to the control group (0.462 ± 0.05 vs. 0.455 ± 0.06 years, P = 0.61). The total 6-month costs were $11,032 (CGM) vs. $7,236 (control). The CGM group experienced reductions in HbA1c (0.60 ± 0.74% difference in difference [DiD]), P < 0.01), the daily rate of nonsevere hypoglycemia events (0.07 DiD, P = 0.013), and daily test strip use (0.55 ± 1.5 DiD, P = 0.04) compared with the control group. In the lifetime analysis, CGM was projected to reduce the risk of T1D complications and increase QALYs by 0.54. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $98,108 per QALY for the overall population. By extending sensor use from 7 to 10 days in a real-world scenario, the ICER was reduced to $33,459 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with T1D using multiple insulin injections and still experiencing suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia.

Patient expectations of hypertension and diabetes medication: Excessive focus on short-term benefits.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to assess patient perspectives on their perceived benefits of hypertension and diabetes medications and determine associations between perceived benefits and demographics, adherence, and disease control. METHODS: We interviewed 60 adults with type 2 diabetes and hypertension on oral medications. Participants were asked what benefits they expected from taking their medications. Transcripts were analyzed using a modified template approach. Benefits were categorized into short-term, long-term, or misconceptions (e.g. "medications cure diabetes"). Associations between perceived benefits and demographics, adherence, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure were analyzed. RESULTS: In general, participants had relatively high self-reported medication adherence and well-controlled disease. All participants identified benefits of their hypertension medications; however, only 85% identified benefits of their diabetes medications. Half described only short-term benefits (e.g. lower blood sugar) (48%); almost one-third described both short- and long-term benefits (e.g. prevent complications) (30% and 28%, respectively). In multivariate analysis, participants with higher comorbidity were more likely to name long-term benefits of hypertension medications (odds ratio 13.3 (1.8-97.8), p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Participants perceived short-term benefits of hypertension and diabetes medications more often than long-term benefits; participants with higher comorbidity identified more long-term benefits. Further studies are warranted to determine whether additional education on long-term benefits may improve adherence.

Impact and Feasibility of Personalized Decision Support for Older Patients with Diabetes: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes guidelines recommend individualizing glycemic goals (A1C) for older patients. The aim of this study was to assess a personalized Web-based decision support tool. METHODS: We randomized physicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes (≥65 years of age) to a support tool or educational pamphlet (75:25 patients). Prior to a visit, intervention patients interacted with the tool, which provided personalized risk predictions and elicited treatment preferences. Main outcomes included 1) patient-doctor communication, 2) decisional conflict, 3) changes in goals, and 4) intervention acceptability. RESULTS: We did not find significant differences in proportions of patients who had an A1C discussion (91% intervention v. 76% control; P = 0.19). Intervention patients had larger declines in the informed subscale of decisional conflict (-20 v. 0, respectively; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in proportions of patients with changes in goals (49% v. 28%, respectively; P = 0.08). Most intervention patients reported that the tool was easy to use (91%) and helped them to communicate (84%). A limitation was that this was a pilot trial at one academic institution. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based decision support tools may be a practical approach to facilitating the personalization of goals for chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02169999 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02169999 ).

Patients' Future Expectations for Diabetes and Hypertension Treatments: "Through the Diet I Think This is Going to Go Away."

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and hypertension are chronic conditions for which over 90 % of patients require medication regimens that must be intensified over time. However, delays in intensification are common, and may be partially due to unrealistic patient expectations. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether patient expectations regarding their diabetes and hypertension are congruent with the natural history of these conditions. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty adults from an urban academic primary care clinic taking oral medications for both diabetes (duration <10 years) and hypertension (any duration) MAIN MEASURES: (1) Expectations for their a) current diabetes and hypertension medications, b) need for additional medications, c) likelihood of cure (not requiring medications); (2) preferences for receiving information on expected duration of treatments KEY RESULTS: The average patient age was 60 years, and 65 % were women. Nearly half (48 %) of participants expected to discontinue current diabetes medications in 6 years or less, whereas only one-fifth (22 %) expected to take medications for life. For blood pressure medications, one-third (37 %) expected to stop medicines in 6 years or less, and one-third expected to take medicines for life. The vast majority did not expect that they would need additional medications in the future (oral diabetes medications: 85 %; insulin: 87 %; hypertension medications: 93 %). A majority expected that their diabetes (65 %) and hypertension (58 %) would be cured. Most participants believed that intensifying lifestyle changes would allow them to discontinue medications, avoid additional medications, or cure their diabetes and hypertension. Nearly all participants (97 %) wanted to hear information on the expected duration of their diabetes and hypertension treatments from their healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: Providers should educate patients on the natural history of diabetes and hypertension in order to manage patient expectations for current and future medications. Future research should assess whether education can increase the adoption of and adherence to medications, without diminishing enthusiasm for lifestyle changes.

Physician perspectives on de-intensifying diabetes medications.

Guidelines for diabetes care recommend that physicians select individualized glycemic goals based on life expectancy, diabetes duration, comorbidity, and resources/support. When patients have stable hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels, guidelines lack recommendations on when diabetes medications should be de-intensified.To understand physicians' perspectives on de-intensifying diabetes medications in patients with type 2 diabetes.Cross-sectional survey, (February-June, 2015).Academic medical center and suburban integrated health system.Primary care and endocrinology physicians.Physicians' self-reported: awareness, agreement, and frequency of individualizing HbA1C goals; practice of de-intensifying diabetes medications; HbA1C values at which physicians de-intensify diabetes medications; and other patient factors physicians consider when de-intensifying diabetes medications.Response rate was 73% (156/213). Most physicians (78%) responded they were familiar with recommendations to individualize HbA1C goals. For patients with stable HbA1C levels, 80% of physicians reported they had initiated conversations about stopping medications; however, physicians differed in predefined HbA1C levels used to initiate conversations (HbA1C < 5.7%: 14%; HbA1C < 6.0%: 31%; HbA1C < 6.5%: 22%; individualized level: 21%). In multiple logistic regression, women physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0; confidence interval [CI] 1.1-8.2; P = 0.03) and physicians practicing fewer than 20 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.01-7.7; P = 0.048) were more likely to report de-intensifying diabetes medications.Individualizing glycemic goals and de-intensifying treatments are concepts well accepted by physicians in our sample. However, physicians vary considerably in reporting how they carry out recommendations to individualize and may be missing opportunities to stop or taper diabetes medications based on patients' individualized glycemic goals.

How information about the time requirements and legacy effects of treatments influence decision-making in patients with diabetes and hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: When deciding about diabetes treatments, patients are typically uninformed about how much time is required before (time requirements), or for how long treatments change outcomes (legacy effects). However, patients may be motivated to adopt treatments with time-related treatment information. We explored whether this information alters a patients' likelihood of starting medications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 60 adults with type 2 diabetes for <10 years and hypertension on oral medications. We measured change in likelihood of starting medications after receiving time requirement (diabetes, 10 years; hypertension, 3 years) and legacy effect (diabetes, 10 additional years; hypertension, none) information. Responses were analyzed for themes about time-related treatment information. RESULTS: At baseline, 70% of participants reported being very likely to start a recommended medication. Nearly half (40%) were less likely to start a diabetes medication after being informed of time requirements; but after being informed of legacy effects, 32% reported being more likely. Fewer participants changed likelihoods of starting antihypertensives with time-related information. Many participants expressed that medications' benefits were important to them regardless of time-related information. Participants considered time requirements for diabetes medications too long and compared them to their life expectancy. Many participants were interested in legacy effects of diabetes medications because they looked forward to discontinuing medications, although some expressed doubt that benefits could persist after stopping medications. CONCLUSIONS: While prolonged time requirements may dissuade patients from adopting treatments, the promise of legacy effects may motivate patients to commit to diabetes treatments.

Use of Decision Aids with Minority Patients: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: One potential approach to reducing health disparities among minorities is through the promotion of shared decision making (SDM). The most commonly studied SDM intervention is the decision aid (DA). While DAs have been extensively studied, we know relatively little about their use in minority populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the application and effectiveness of DAs in racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities. METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAs between 2004 and 2013. We included trials that enrolled adults (> 18 years of age) with > 50 % representation by minority patients. Four reviewers independently assessed 597 initially identified articles, and those with inconclusive results were discussed to consensus. We abstracted decision quality, patient-doctor communication, and clinical treatment decision outcomes. Results were considered significantly modified by the DA if the study reported p < 0.05. RESULTS: We reviewed 18 RCTs of DA interventions in minority populations. The majority of interventions (78 %) addressed cancer screening. The most common mode of delivery for the DAs was personal counseling (46 %), followed by multi-media (29 %), and print materials (25 %). Most of the trials studied racial (78 %) or ethnic (17 %) minorities with only one trial focused on sexual minorities and none on gender minorities. Ten studies tailored their interventions for their minority populations. Comparing intervention vs. control, decision quality outcomes improved in six out of eight studies and patient-doctor communication improved in six out of seven studies. Of the 15 studies that reported on clinical decisions, eight demonstrated significant changes in decisions with DAs. DISCUSSION: DAs have been effective in improving patient-doctor communication and decision quality outcomes in minority populations and could help address health disparities. However, the existing literature is almost non-existent for sexual and gender minorities and has not included the full breadth of clinical decisions that affect minority populations.

Health care utilization and receipt of preventive care for patients seen at federally funded health centers compared to other sites of primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization and preventive care receipt among patients of federal Section 330 health centers (HCs) versus patients of other settings. DATA SOURCES: A nationally representative sample of adults from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2004-2008). STUDY DESIGN: HC patients were defined as those with ≥50 percent of outpatient visits at HCs in the first panel year. Outcomes included utilization and preventive care receipt from the second panel year. We used negative binomial and logistic regression models with propensity score adjustment for confounding differences between HC and non-HC patients. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to non-HC patients, HC patients had fewer office visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.63) and hospitalizations (aIRR, 0.43) (both p < .001). HC patients were more likely to receive breast cancer screening than non-HC patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, p < .01). In subgroup analyses, uninsured HC patients had fewer outpatient and emergency room visits and were more likely to receive dietary advice and breast cancer screening compared to non-HC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Health centers add value to the health care system by providing socially and medically disadvantaged patients with care that results in lower utilization and maintained or improved preventive care.

Public health implications of recommendations to individualize glycemic targets in adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate how many U.S. adults with diabetes would be eligible for individualized A1C targets based on 1) the 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline and 2) a published approach for individualized target ranges. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied adults with diabetes ≥20 years of age from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2008 (n = 757). We assigned A1C targets based on duration, age, diabetes-related complications, and comorbid conditions according to 1) the ADA guideline and 2) a strategy by Ismail-Beigi focused on setting target ranges. We estimated the number and proportion of adults with each A1C target and compared individualized targets to measured levels. RESULTS: Using ADA guideline recommendations, 31% (95% CI 27-34%) of the U.S. adult diabetes population would have recommended A1C targets of <7.0%, and 69% (95% CI 66-73%) would have A1C targets less stringent than <7.0%. Using the Ismail-Beigi strategy, 56% (51-61%) would have an A1C target of ≤7.0%, and 44% (39-49%) would have A1C targets less stringent than <7.0%. If a universal A1C <7.0% target were applied, 47% (41-54%) of adults with diabetes would have inadequate glycemic control; this proportion declined to 30% (26-36%) with the ADA guideline and 31% (27-36%) with the Ismail-Beigi strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Using individualized glycemic targets, about half of U.S. adults with diabetes would have recommended A1C targets of ≥7.0% but one-third would still be considered inadequately controlled. Diabetes research and performance measurement goals will need to be revised in order to encourage the individualization of glycemic targets.

Personalized decision support in type 2 diabetes mellitus: current evidence and future directions.

The management of type 2 diabetes comprises a complex series of medical decisions regarding goals of care, self-care behaviors, and medical treatments. The quality of these medical decisions is critical to determining whether an individual diabetes patient is treated appropriately, overtreated, or undertreated. It is hypothesized that the quality of these medical decisions can be enhanced by personalized decision support tools that summarize patient clinical characteristics, treatment preferences, and ancillary data at the point of care. We describe the current state of personalized diabetes decision support on the basis of 13 recently described tools. Three tools provided support for personalized decisions based on preferences, while the remaining 10 provided support for treatment decisions designed to achieve standard diabetes goals. For the tools that supported personalized decisions, patient participation in medical decisions improved. Future decision support tools must be designed to account for both clinical characteristics and patient preferences.