Clinical and economic benefits of professional CGM among people with type 2 diabetes in the United States: analysis of claims and lab data. (4th March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sierra, Joseph A.; Shah, Mona; Gill, Max S.; Flores, Zachery; Chawla, Hiten; Kaufman, Francine R.; Vigersky, Robert
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 21:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 225
• Page End: 230
• Publication Date: 2018-03-04
• Subjects: Claims data -- professional CGM -- type 2 diabetes -- health insurance -- population health -- healthcare expenditures; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1390474
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: 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.