Evaluation of High-Deductible Health Plans and Acute Glycemic Complications Among Adults With Diabetes

Hyperglycemic Crises in Adults With Diabetes: A Consensus Report

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS), American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), and Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened a panel of internists and diabetologists to update the ADA consensus statement on hyperglycemic crises in adults with diabetes, published in 2001 and last updated in 2009. The objective of this consensus report is to provide up-to-date knowledge about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) in adults. A systematic examination of publications since 2009 informed new recommendations. The target audience is the full spectrum of diabetes health care professionals and individuals with diabetes.

Hyperglycaemic crises in adults with diabetes: a consensus report

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS), American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) and Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened a panel of internists and diabetologists to update the ADA consensus statement on hyperglycaemic crises in adults with diabetes, published in 2001 and last updated in 2009. The objective of this consensus report is to provide up-to-date knowledge about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) in adults. A systematic examination of publications since 2009 informed new recommendations. The target audience is the full spectrum of diabetes healthcare professionals and individuals with diabetes.

Colorado Insulin Copay Cap: Lower Out-Of-Pocket Payments, Increased Prescription Volume And Days' Supply

In 2020, Colorado became the first state to cap out-of-pocket spending for insulin prescriptions, requiring fully insured health plans to cap out-of-pocket spending at $100 for a thirty-day supply. We provide the first evidence on the association of Colorado's Insulin Affordability Program with patient out-of-pocket spending, the amounts paid by plans per insulin prescription, and prescription filling. Using statewide claims data from the period 2018-21, we focused on the first two years that the copay cap law was in effect. We found that Colorado's Insulin Affordability Program was associated with significant reductions in out-of-pocket spending for insulin prescriptions, with the mean out-of-pocket payment per thirty-day supply falling nearly in half (from $62.59 to $35.64). Average plan payments increased slightly more ($31.39) than the decrease in out-of-pocket spending, as the total amount paid per prescription increased by about 1 percent. The average insulin user realized annual savings of $184, while the mean number of fills and the mean days' supply per year increased by 4.2 percent and 11.4 percent, respectively.

Disparities in Acute and Chronic Complications of Diabetes Along the U.S. Rural-Urban Continuum

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative hazards of acute and chronic diabetes complications among people with diabetes across the U.S. rural-urban continuum.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a deidentified data set of U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, to follow 2,901,563 adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2021. We compared adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of diabetes complications in remote areas (population <2,500), small towns (population 2,500-50,000), and cities (population >50,000).

RESULTS

Compared with residents of cities, residents of remote areas had greater hazards of myocardial infarction (HR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02-1.10]) and revascularization (HR 1.04 [1.02-1.06]) but lower hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 0.90 [0.83-0.98]) and stroke (HR 0.91 [0.88-0.95]). Compared with cities, residents of small towns had greater hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 1.06 [1.02-1.10]), hypoglycemia (HR 1.15 [1.12-1.18]), end-stage kidney disease (HR 1.04 [1.03-1.06]), myocardial infarction (HR 1.10 [1.08-1.12]), heart failure (HR 1.05 [1.03-1.06]), amputation (HR 1.05 [1.02-1.09]), other lower-extremity complications (HR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]), and revascularization (HR 1.05 [1.04-1.06]) but a smaller hazard of stroke (HR 0.95 [0.94-0.97]). Compared with small towns, residents of remote areas had lower hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 0.85 [0.78-0.93]), hypoglycemia (HR 0.92 [0.87-0.97]), and heart failure (HR 0.94 [0.91-0.97]). Hazards of retinopathy and atrial fibrillation/flutter did not vary geographically.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults in small towns are disproportionately impacted by complications of diabetes. Future studies should probe for the reasons underlying these disparities.

Enrollment in High-Deductible Health Plans and Incident Diabetes Complications

Importance

Preventing diabetes complications requires monitoring and control of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors. Switching to high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has been shown to hinder aspects of diabetes care; however, the association of HDHP enrollment with microvascular and macrovascular diabetes complications is unknown.

Objective

To examine the association between an employer-required switch to an HDHP and incident complications of diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used deidentified administrative claims data for US adults with diabetes enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Data analysis was performed from May 26, 2022, to January 2, 2024.

Exposures

Adults with a baseline year of non-HDHP enrollment who had to switch to an HDHP because their employer offered no non-HDHP alternative in that year were compared with adults who were continuously enrolled in a non-HDHP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mixed-effects logistic regression models examined the association between switching to an HDHP and, individually, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, lower-extremity complication, end-stage kidney disease, proliferative retinopathy, treatment for retinopathy, and blindness. Models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and medications, with inverse propensity score weighting used to account for potential selection bias.

Results

The study included 42 326 adults who switched to an HDHP (mean [SD] age, 52 [10] years; 19 752 [46.7%] female) and 202 729 adults who did not switch (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 89 828 [44.3%] female). Those who switched to an HDHP had greater odds of experiencing all diabetes complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16 for myocardial infarction; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21 for stroke; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.41 for hospitalization for heart failure; OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 2.38-2.70 for end-stage kidney disease; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.17-2.29 for lower-extremity complication; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.21 for proliferative retinopathy; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.18-2.54 for blindness; and OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.15-2.41 for retinopathy treatment).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that an employer-driven switch to an HDHP was associated with increased odds of experiencing all diabetes complications. These findings reinforce the potential harm associated with HDHPs for people with diabetes and the importance of affordable and accessible chronic disease management, which is hindered by high out-of-pocket costs incurred by HDHPs.

6. Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.