The Burden of Diabetes Mellitus for Medicare Beneficiaries

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.

Trends in Medicare Payments for Beneficiaries With Aortic Stenosis

Background

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease with an increasing prevalence. Management of AS has changed dramatically with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR). The shift in management of AS, combined with an aging population, may increase the cost of patients with AS in the US health care system.

Methods and Results

We performed a retrospective cohort study, using inpatient, carrier, and outpatient data from a 20% Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries' sample from 2008 to 2019 and included beneficiaries, aged ≥65 years. We identified beneficiaries with a diagnosis of AS and stratified the sample into 3 age groups: 66 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years. We evaluated the crude and adjusted changes in annual Medicare payments (total and component) per beneficiary. We identified 1 887 340 (1.6%) Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with AS. The average annual spending for Medicare beneficiaries with AS was $19 241 in 2010 and increased annually by $301 to $23 174 in 2019 ( P <0.0001). Annual Medicare payments on patients with AS increased from $2 894 995 131 in 2010 to $4 619 077 182 in 2019, a difference of >1.7 billion dollars. Inpatient spending increased 1.1% per year, with the highest increase in patients aged ≥85 years (1.9%). The percentage of beneficiaries undergoing surgical AVR decreased from 3.7% to 1.6%, and annual spending on surgical AVR decreased an average of 7.2% per year. The percentage of beneficiaries undergoing transcatheter AVR increased from 0% in 2010 to 3.8% in 2019, and annual spending for transcatheter AVR increased by 458.7% per year.

Conclusions

Although average annual Medicare spending per beneficiary modestly increased over the study period, the increase in the prevalence of AS and the proportion of beneficiaries undergoing (transcatheter) interventions for AS led to a substantial increase in overall Medicare spending among patients with AS.

Burden of Illness in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

An estimated 30.2 million Americans have diabetes, and this number is expected to increase based on trends over recent decades and compounded by an aging U.S.

POPULATION

As reviewed in this article, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and with a substantial socioeconomic burden. Compared with individuals without T2DM, those with T2DM have worse HRQoL, greater decrements in HRQoL over time, and possibly greater depressive symptomology. Diabetes-related complications and comorbidities (e.g., obesity and cardiovascular disease) are associated with worse HRQoL. Hypoglycemic episodes are associated with reduced HRQoL and greater levels of depression; they can also interfere with social and occupational activities. In turn, low HRQoL can be a driver for poor glycemic control. In 2012, the total estimated cost associated with diagnosed diabetes in the United States was $245 billion. Factors contributing to increased health care resource utilization and costs in patients with T2DM include medical comorbidities, diabetes-related complications, inadequate glycemic control, and hypoglycemic episodes. Readmission is a key driver of hospital-related costs and is more common among elderly patients with T2DM. Elderly patients with T2DM represent a particularly vulnerable population given that these patients may have varying degrees of physical and mental comorbidities that can increase their risk of hypoglycemia, falls, and depression. This review demonstrates that T2DM imposes a considerable burden on both the individual and society. Treatment strategies should consider the effects of treatment on HRQoL and on outcomes (e.g., complications and hypoglycemia) that affect both HRQoL and costs. Management strategies that maximize HRQoL while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia and other treatment-related complications are particularly critical in the elderly.

DISCLOSURES

This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. Cannon reports speaker fees and owns stock in Novo Nordisk. Handelsman reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and has served in advisory capacity to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Heile reports speaker fees from and has served as advisor to Novo Nordisk. Shannon reports consultant and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly Alliance.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With a Collaborative Pharmacist-Endocrinologist Diabetes Intense Medical Management "Tune Up" Clinic in Complex Patients

BACKGROUND

No previous studies exist examining the impact of a short-term pharmacist-endocrinologist collaborative practice model on glycemic control in complex patients.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate outcomes associated with a PharmD-Endocrinologist Diabetes Intense Medical Management (DIMM) "tune up" clinic for complex patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 99 patients referred to DIMM clinic versus a comparator group of 56 primary care provider (PCP) patients meeting the same criteria (adult type 2 diabetes patients, glycosylated hemoglobin [A1C] ≥ 8%, follow-up visit within 6 months) in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. DIMM clinic used a short-term model that coupled personalized clinical care with real-time, patient-specific diabetes education during two to four 60-minute visits over 6 months. PCP patients received usual care. Primary outcome was mean A1C change after 6 months. Secondary measures included fasting blood glucose, lipids, blood pressure, weight, body mass index, and percentage of patients meeting goals.

RESULTS

Patients in each group had an average of 8 and were taking 12 to 14 medications daily. Mean A1C (%) improvement in DIMM group was significantly greater at 6 months (-2.4 [SD = 2.1] vs -0.8 [SD = 1.7]; P < 0.001), than PCP group. Percentage meeting A1C goal levels (<7%, <8%, and <9%) was significantly greater at 3 and 6 months compared with baseline in the DIMM group (P < 0.001) versus (only <8%) at 3 and 6 months compared with baseline in PCP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The DIMM clinic "tune up" model demonstrates a successful collaborative practice which helped complex diabetes patients achieve glycemic control in a 6-month period.