Racial Disparities in Diabetes Technology Adoption and Their Association with HbA1c and Diabetic Ketoacidosis.

Aim: Poorer glycemic control and higher diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) rates are seen in racial/ethnic minorities with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Use of diabetes technologies such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce DKA risk. We examined race/ethnicity differences in diabetes technology use and their relationship with HbA1c and DKA. Methods: Data from patients aged ≥12 years with T1D for ≥1 year, receiving care from a single diabetes center, were examined. Patients were classified as Non-Hispanic White (n=3945), Non-Hispanic Black (Black, n=161), Hispanic (n=719), and Multiracial/Other (n=714). General linear models and logistic regression were used. Results: Black (OR=0.22, 0.15-0.32) and Hispanic (OR=0.37, 0.30-0.45) patients were less likely to use diabetes technology. This disparity was greater in the pediatric population (p-interaction=0.06). Technology use associated with lower HbA1c in each race/ethnic group. Among technology users, AID use associated with lower HbA1c compared to CGM and/or CSII (HbA1c of 8.4% vs 9.2%, respectively), with the greatest difference observed for Black adult AID users. CSII use associated with a lower odds of DKA in the past year (OR=0.73, 0.54-0.99), a relationship that did not vary by race (p-interaction =0.69); this inverse association with DKA was not observed for CGM or AID. Conclusion: Disparities in diabetes technology use, DKA, and glycemic control were apparent among Black and Hispanic patients with T1D. Differences in technology use ameliorated but did not fully account for disparities in HbA1c or DKA.

Increase Access, Reduce Disparities: Recommendations for Modifying Medicaid CGM Coverage Eligibility Criteria.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore the conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. In an earlier article, we discussed the limitations and inconsistencies of the agency's CGM eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposed practice solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Although Medicaid is administered through CMS, there is no consistent Medicaid policy for CGM coverage in the United States. This article presents a rationale for modifying and standardizing Medicaid CGM coverage eligibility across the United States.

Real-World Evidence Supporting Tandem Control-IQ Hybrid Closed-Loop Success in the Medicare and Medicaid Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Populations.

Background: The Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) system has demonstrated significant glycemic improvements in large randomized controlled and real-world trials. Use of this system is lower in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) government-sponsored insurance and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of CIQ in these groups. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis of CIQ users was performed. Users age ≥6 years with a t:slim X2 Pump and >30 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre-CIQ and >30 days post-CIQ technology initiation were included. Results: A total of 4243 Medicare and 1332 Medicaid CIQ users were analyzed among whom 5075 had T1D and 500 had T2D. After starting CIQ, the Medicare beneficiaries group saw significant improvement in time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR; 64% vs. 74%; P < 0.0001), glucose management index (GMI; 7.3% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.0001), and the percentage of users meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) CGM Glucometrics Guidelines (12.8% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.0001). The Medicaid group also saw significant improvement in TIR (46% vs. 60%; P < 0.0001), GMI (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.0001), and percentage meeting ADA guidelines (5.7% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.0001). Patients with T2D and either insurance saw significant glycemic improvements. Conclusions: The CIQ system was effective in the Medicare and Medicaid groups in improving glycemic control. The T2D subgroup also demonstrated improved glycemic control with CIQ use. Glucometrics achieved in this analysis are comparable with those seen in previous randomized controlled clinical trials with the CIQ system.

Lost in Translation: A Disconnect Between the Science and Medicare Coverage Criteria for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value and safety of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes populations. However, the eligibility criteria for insulin pump coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) discount conclusive evidence that supports insulin pump use in diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. This article discusses the limitations and inconsistencies of the insulin pump eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposes workable solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of all individuals with diabetes.

Pediatric Medicaid Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Benefit From Continuous Glucose Monitor Technology.

BACKGROUND: We determined the uptake rate of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and examined associations of clinical and demographic characteristics with CGM use among patients with type 1 diabetes covered by Colorado Medicaid during the first two years of CGM coverage with no out-of-pocket cost. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed data from 892 patients with type 1 diabetes insured by Colorado Medicaid (Colorado Health Program [CHP] and CHP+, Colorado Medicaid expansion). Demographics, insulin pump usage, CGM usage, and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) were extracted from the medical record. Data downloaded into CGM software at clinic appointments were reviewed to determine 30-day use prior to appointments. Subjects with some exposure to CGM were compared to subjects never exposed to CGM, and we examined the effect of CGM use on glycemic control. RESULTS: Twenty percent of subjects had some exposure to CGM with a median of 22 [interquartile range 8, 29] days wear. Sixty one percent of CGM users had >85% sensor wear. Subjects using CGM were more likely to be younger (P < .001), have shorter diabetes duration (P < .001), and be non-Hispanic White (P < .001) than nonusers. After adjusting for age and diabetes duration, combined pump and CGM users had a lower A1c than those using neither technology (P = .006). Lower A1c was associated with greater CGM use (P = .002) and increased percent time in range (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Pediatric Medicaid patients successfully utilized CGM. Expansion of Medicaid coverage for CGM may help improve glycemic control and lessen disparities in clinical outcomes within this population.