Impact of Reducing Glycated Hemoglobin on Healthcare Costs Among a Population with Uncontrolled Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) is considered a "gold standard" measure of glycemic control in patients with diabetes and is correlated with a lower risk of diabetes complications and cost savings. This retrospective claims-analysis assessed the impact of A1C reduction on healthcare costs in patients with uncontrolled Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Using a large repository of US health plan administrative data linked to A1C values, patients with a diabetes diagnosis and at least two A1C values between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2014 were selected to identify changes in A1C and associated changes in healthcare expenditure. We used all medical and pharmacy claims to calculate direct healthcare costs from 1 year prior to the index A1C to 2 years after the index A1C. A propensity score method was used to match patients with decreased A1C to patients whose A1C did not decrease, based on potentially confounding variables. Then, a generalized linear model regression was used to estimate the difference-in-difference (DD) effect on costs between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 3,197 patients who had a first A1C ≥ 9%, 2,273 patients (71%) had a decrease in A1C (Decreasers) and 924 patients (27%) had an increase in A1C (Non-decreasers). After matching, we compared 912 Decreasers to 912 Non-decreasers. Patients in the former group had average annual healthcare costs that were 24% lower during the first year of follow-up and 17% lower during the second year of follow-up, compared to patients whose A1C did not decrease. This reflected a savings of US$2503 and US$1690, respectively. For both time periods, the outpatient category was the largest contributor to cost savings. DISCUSSION: In our analysis, A1C reduction among patients with T1DM and T2DM was associated with slower growth in healthcare costs within 1-2 years. These findings suggest that programs aimed at reducing A1C over a short timeframe may lead to substantial savings and may be worth pursuing by health plans and other payers.

C-PEPTIDE AND BETA-CELL AUTOANTIBODY TESTING PRIOR TO INITIATING CONTINUOUS SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION PUMP THERAPY DID NOT IMPROVE UTILIZATION OR MEDICAL COSTS AMONG OLDER ADULTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the C-peptide and beta-cell autoantibody testing required by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on costs/utilization for patients with diabetes mellitus initiating continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used propensity score-matched patients. Analysis 1 compared patients 1-year pre- and 2-years post-CSII adoption who met or did not meet CMS criteria. Analysis 2 compared Medicare Advantage patients using CSII or multiple daily injections (MDI) who did not meet CMS criteria for 1-year pre- and 1-year post-CSII adoption. Analysis 3 extended analysis 2 to 2 years postindex and also included a subset of patients ≥55 years old but not yet in Medicare Advantage. RESULTS: Analysis 1 resulted in significantly slower growth in hospital admissions ( P = .0453) in CSII-treated patients who did not meet the criteria. Analyses 2 and 3 showed numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) costs for CSII versus MDI patients (both not meeting criteria). Analysis 3 showed significantly slower growth in ED costs and hospital admissions for CSII versus MDI Medicare Advantage patients before propensity matching (both P<.05). In patients ≥55 years old, ED costs grew more slowly for CSII than MDI therapy ( P = .0678). CONCLUSION: Numerically slower growth in hospital admissions was seen for pump adopters who did not meet CMS C-peptide criteria, while medical costs growth was similar. For CSII users who did not meet the CMS criteria, numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, ED costs, and hospital admissions occurred versus MDI. ABBREVIATIONS: CMS = Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DM = diabetes mellitus; DME = durable medical equipment; ED = emergency department; MDI = multiple daily injections (of insulin).

Health Care Costs, Hospital Admissions, and Glycemic Control Using a Standalone, Real-Time, Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Commercially Insured Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing standalone real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have found that rtCGM is associated with lower glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, yet does not increase the risk of severe hypoglycemia. However, little is known about the relationship between rtCGM and health care costs and utilization. The objective of this study was to compare health care spending, hospital admissions, and A1C levels of patients using rtCGM to that of patients not using rtCGM. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis used a large repository of health plan administrative data to compare average health care costs (excluding durable medical equipment), hospital admissions, and A1C levels of those using rtCGM (N = 1027) versus not using rtCGM (N = 32 583). To control for potentially confounding variables, a propensity score method was used to match patients using rtCGM to those not using rtCGM, based on characteristics such as age, gender, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Patients using rtCGM spent an average of approximately $4200 less in total health care costs, when compared to patients not using rtCGM ( P < .05). They also experienced fewer hospital admissions ( P < .05) and lower A1C ( P < .05) during the postindex year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of rtCGM by patients with T1DM is associated with lower health care costs, fewer hospital admissions, and better glycemic control.

Association between provider specialty and healthcare costs and glycemic control for patients with diabetes.

AIMS: To analyze the association between provider, healthcare costs, and glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study identified adults with type 1 or 2 DM (T1D, T2D) in the Optum database. The main independent variable was provider (endocrinologist or primary care). Regression analysis compared total medical and pharmacy costs, adjusting for health status and other patient differences, by provider. RESULTS: For all patients, HbA1C improvement was greater, and medical costs significantly lower with an endocrinologist rather than a primary care provider. The largest HbA1C improvement (4%) occurred for insulin-dependent patients seen by endocrinologists. Significant medical savings with endocrinologist management occurred within the Medicare Advantage population in every sub-group of patients, with 14% lower costs ($4,767) for patients with T1D, 11% lower costs ($3,160) for patients with macro- and microvascular complications, and 10% lower costs ($2,237) for insulin-dependent patients. Within the commercial insurance population, medical costs were reduced by ≥9% in every sub-group of patients, with a 20% reduction ($8,450) for patients with micro- and macrovascular complications. Overall total costs (medical and pharmacy) were 8% ($1,541) higher for patients receiving endocrinologist rather than primary care, although endocrinologist care resulted in a 9% reduction (-$3,710) in costs for Medicare Advantage patients with T1D. Total medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) may be a more accurate indicator of costs associated with patients in various stages of DM. LIMITATIONS: There was insufficient data to develop risk-adjustment payments for pharmacy costs based on disease severity. The cross-sectional design identifies associations and not cause-effect relationships. CONCLUSION: DM management by an endocrinologist was associated with greater HbA1C improvement and significantly lower medical costs. Total costs were higher with an endocrinologist, but for patients with T1D lower costs were seen, ranging from 2-9% regardless of insurance type.

Clinical and economic benefits of professional CGM among people with type 2 diabetes in the United States: analysis of claims and lab data.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that one in 10 people in the US have a diagnosis of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes accounts for 95% of all cases in the US, with annual costs estimated to be $246 billion per year. This study investigated the impact of a glucose-measuring intervention to the burden of type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This analysis seeks to understand how professional continuous glucose monitoring (professional CGM) impacts clinical and economic outcomes when compared to patients who are not prescribed professional CGM. METHODS: This study utilized a large healthcare claims and lab dataset from the US, and identified a cohort of patients who were prescribed professional CGM as identified by CPT codes 95250 and 95251. It calculated economic and clinical outcomes 1 year before and 1 year after the use of professional CGM, using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Patients who utilized professional CGM saw an improvement in hemoglobin A1C. The "difference-in-difference" calculation for A1C was shown to be -0.44%. There was no statistically significant difference in growth of total annual costs for people who used professional CGM compared to those who did not ($1,270, p = .08). Patients using professional CGM more than once per year had a -$3,376 difference in the growth of total costs (p = .05). Patients who used professional CGM while changing their diabetes treatment regimen also had a difference of -$3,327 in growth of total costs (p = .0023). CONCLUSION: Significant clinical benefits were observed for patients who used professional CGM. Economic benefits were observed for patients who utilized professional CGM more than once within a 1-year period or who used it during a change of diabetes therapy. This suggests that professional CGM may help decrease rising trends in healthcare costs for people with type 2 diabetes, while also improving clinical outcomes.

Economic impact of hypoglycemia among insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost of hypoglycemic events among insulin-treated patients with diabetes and the potential cost savings to a hypothetical US health plan and employer of reducing hypoglycemic events with a device intervention. METHODS: A cost-calculator model was developed to estimate the direct costs of hypoglycemic events, accounting for diabetes type, age, and event severity. Model inputs were derived from published incidence rates of hypoglycemic events and direct medical costs. Assumed intervention efficacy was based on published studies of an emerging technology which yielded 72.2% (LGS Trial; ACTRN12610000024044) and 31.8% (ASPIRE Trial; NCT01497938) reductions in severe and non-severe hypoglycemic events, respectively. Model outcomes-including the number of severe (requiring medical assistance) and non-severe events, and direct/indirect medical costs (excluding intervention costs)-were evaluated over a 1-year period for a hypothetical health plan and employer perspectives. RESULTS: In a health plan with 10 million enrollees, patients without the intervention would have experienced 0.09 and 14.60 severe and non-severe hypoglycemic events per patient per year (PPPY), respectively (vs 0.02 severe and 9.96 non-severe events with the intervention). This translated into total direct medical cost savings of $45 million ($177 PPPY) for the health plan. For an employer with 100,000 employees, the intervention would have yielded additional savings of $492 PPPY in indirect costs. CONCLUSION: Insulin-treated patients experience hypoglycemic events, which are associated with substantial direct and indirect medical costs. The cost savings of reducing hypoglycemic events need to be weighed against the costs of using diabetes device interventions.

Switching from multiple daily injections to CSII pump therapy: insulin expenditures in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To identify variations in expenditures and utilization of insulin and other antidiabetes medications by comparing patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pump therapy versus multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and Medicare Supplemental Database for 2006 to 2010 were used in a difference-in-differences approach that took advantage of variation in the timing of the switch from MDI therapy to CSII pump therapy. METHODS: Continuous users of MDI therapy throughout the study period were compared with those who switched to the CSII pump therapy during this period. Specifications included: coefficient estimates from cross-sectional ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with: 1) no additional controls, 2) controls for patient demographics and comorbidities, and 3) patient fixed effects. Propensity score matching at baseline mitigated concerns regarding patient selection bias. RESULTS: While insulin expenditures rose during the study period, switching to CSII pump therapy led to sizable reductions in insulin expenditures. This reduction in insulin expenditures due to switching varied between $657 (standard error [SE] $126; P<.01) and $1011 (SE $250.60; P<.01) per year. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a significant reduction in insulin expenditures among MDI patients who switched to CSII pump therapy at various times throughout the study period.