Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

Behavior-based diabetes management: impact on care, hospitalizations, and costs.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) examine the impact of the Diabetes Care Rewards (DCR) program on adherence to care standards and (2) evaluate the economic impact of adherence to care standards. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational cohort study design with propensity matching. Additional covariates adjustment was used to minimize residual imbalance. METHODS: Utilization and cost data were compared between individuals enrolled vs individuals eligible for but not enrolled in the DCR program using a standard mean difference. Individuals were employees or their dependents from self-insured companies throughout the United States. Outcomes included adherence to the care standards, service utilization, and costs. RESULTS: A total of 3318 propensity-matched participants were included. Primary analysis revealed that enrolled members increased adherence to semiannual glycated hemoglobin, annual lipid, and annual urine albumin-creatinine ratio testing. Additionally, enrolled members experienced less utilization of high-acuity services and increased rates of physician visits. In a secondary analysis, the enrolled group was associated with greater pharmaceutical costs but lower medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: A behavioral science- and incentive-based diabetes management program was associated with greater rates of adherence to recommended diabetes monitoring care standards, increased routine clinic visits, decreased hospital admissions, and decreased inpatient days. Anticipated increases in pharmaceutical expenditures were offset by overall lower medical expenditures. Results indicate the economic benefits of adherence to evidence-based standards for diabetes care.

Quality of Care of the Initial Patient Cohort of the Diabetes Collaborative Registry®.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines and performance measures exist for patients with diabetes mellitus, achievement of these metrics is not well known. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® (DCR) was formed to understand the quality of diabetes mellitus care across the primary and specialty care continuum in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the frequency of achievement of 7 diabetes mellitus-related quality metrics and variability across the Diabetes Collaborative Registry® sites. Among 574 972 patients with diabetes mellitus from 259 US practices, median (interquartile range) achievement of the quality metrics across the practices was the following: (1) glycemic control: 19% (5-47); (2) blood pressure control: 80% (67-88); (3) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with coronary artery disease: 62% (51-69); (4) nephropathy screening: 62% (53-71); (5) eye examination: 0.7% (0.0-79); (6) foot examination: 0.0% (0.0-2.3); and (7) tobacco screening/cessation counseling: 86% (80-94). In hierarchical, modified Poisson regression models, there was substantial variability in meeting these metrics across sites, particularly with documentation of glycemic control and eye and foot examinations. There was also notable variation across specialties, with endocrinology practices performing better on glycemic control and diabetes mellitus foot examinations and cardiology practices succeeding more in blood pressure control and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® was established to document and improve the quality of outpatient diabetes mellitus care. While target achievement of some metrics of cardiovascular risk modification was high, achievement of others was suboptimal and highly variable. This may be attributable to fragmentation of care, lack of ownership among various specialists concerning certain domains of care, incomplete documentation, true gaps in care, or a combination of these factors.

Predictive Model for Estimating the Cost of Incident Diabetes Complications.

BACKGROUND: The cost of diabetes care accounts for a significant proportion of healthcare expenditures. Cost models based on updated incident complication rates and associated costs are needed to improve financial planning and quality assessment across the U.S. healthcare system. We developed a cost model using published data to estimate the direct medical costs of incident diabetes-related complications in a U.S. population of adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TRIP databases was conducted on studies reporting the incidence and/or cost of diabetes-related complications (cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, ophthalmological disease, and acute metabolic events). A total of 54 studies met eligibility criteria. A baseline model was constructed for a U.S. population with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus and used to determine the expected costs of managing such a population over 1-, 3-, and 5-year time horizons. RESULTS: The most costly incident complications in a population of 10,000 adults with diabetes were (1) congestive heart failure (CHF): annual expected cost of $7,320,287, 5-year expected cost of $50,697,865; (2) end-stage renal disease (ESRD): annual expected cost of $4,225,384, 5-year expected cost of $13,211,204; and (3) gangrene: annual expected cost of $2,844,381, 5-year expected cost of $17,200,417. CONCLUSIONS: This cost model estimates the direct healthcare costs of incident diabetes-related complications in a U.S. adult population with diabetes and provides a benchmark for evaluating the cost-effectiveness and potential leakage within a care delivery network.

Can Families Eat Better Without Spending More? Improving Diet Quality Does Not Increase Diet Cost in a Randomized Clinical Trial among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Parents.

BACKGROUND: Although cost is a frequently cited barrier to healthful eating, limited prospective data exist. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of diet cost with diet quality change. DESIGN: An 18-month randomized clinical trial evaluated a dietary intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Youth with type 1 diabetes duration ≥1 year, age 8.0 to 16.9 years, receiving care at an outpatient tertiary diabetes center in Boston, MA, participated along with a parent from 2010 to 2013 (N=136). Eighty-two percent of participants were from middle- to upper-income households. INTERVENTION: The family-based behavioral intervention targeted intake of whole plant foods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diet quality as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index 2005 (HEI-2005) (which measures conformance to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans) and whole plant food density (cup or ounce equivalents per 1,000 kcal target food groups) were calculated from 3-day food records of youth and parent dietary intake at six and four time points, respectively. Food prices were obtained from two online supermarkets common to the study location. Daily diet cost was calculated by summing prices of reported foods. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Random effects models estimated treatment group differences in time-varying diet cost. Separate models for youth and parent adjusted for covariates examined associations of time-varying change in diet quality with change in diet cost. RESULTS: There was no treatment effect on time-varying diet cost for either youth (ß -.49, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.08; P=0.10) or parents (ß .24, 95% CI -1.61 to 2.08; P=0.80). In addition, time-varying change in diet quality indicators was not associated with time-varying change in diet cost for youth. Among parents, a 1-cup or 1-oz equivalent increase in whole plant food density was associated with a $0.63/day lower diet cost (ß -.63, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.05; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Improved diet quality was not accompanied by greater cost for youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents participating in a randomized clinical trial. Findings challenge the prevailing assumption that improving diet quality necessitates greater cost.