Cost-Effectiveness of a Community-Based Diabetes Prevention Program with Participation Incentives for Medicaid Beneficiaries

3. Prevention or Delay of Diabetes and Associated Comorbidities: 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.

Prediction of complications in health economic models of type 2 diabetes: a review of methods used

AIM

Diabetes health economic (HE) models play important roles in decision making. For most HE models of diabetes 2 diabetes (T2D), the core model concerns the prediction of complications. However, reviews of HE models pay little attention to the incorporation of prediction models. The objective of the current review is to investigate how prediction models have been incorporated into HE models of T2D and to identify challenges and possible solutions.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from January 1, 1997, to November 15, 2022, to identify published HE models for T2D. All models that participated in The Mount Hood Diabetes Simulation Modeling Database or previous challenges were manually searched. Data extraction was performed by two independent authors. Characteristics of HE models, their underlying prediction models, and methods of incorporating prediction models were investigated.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified 34 HE models, including a continuous-time object-oriented model (n = 1), discrete-time state transition models (n = 18), and discrete-time discrete event simulation models (n = 15). Published prediction models were often applied to simulate complication risks, such as the UKPDS (n = 20), Framingham (n = 7), BRAVO (n = 2), NDR (n = 2), and RECODe (n = 2). Four methods were identified to combine interdependent prediction models for different complications, including random order evaluation (n = 12), simultaneous evaluation (n = 4), the 'sunflower method' (n = 3), and pre-defined order (n = 1). The remaining studies did not consider interdependency or reported unclearly.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of integrating prediction models in HE models requires further attention, especially regarding how prediction models are selected, adjusted, and ordered.

3. Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated Comorbidities: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

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, a multidisciplinary 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.

Change in cardiometabolic risk factors in a pilot safety-net plant-based lifestyle medicine program

Introduction

Interventions emphasizing healthful lifestyle behaviors are proliferating in traditional health care settings, yet there is a paucity of published clinical outcomes, outside of pay-out-of-pocket or employee health programs.

Methods

We assessed weight, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, and cholesterol for 173 patients of the Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine Program piloted in a New York City safety-net hospital. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to assess changes in means, from baseline to six-months, for the full sample and within baseline diagnoses (i.e., overweight or obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia). We calculated the percentage of patients with clinically meaningful changes in outcomes for the full sample and within diagnoses.

Findings

The full sample had statistically significant improvements in weight, HbA1c, and diastolic blood pressure. Patients with prediabetes or overweight or obesity experienced significant improvements in weight and those with type 2 diabetes had significant improvements in weight and HbA1c. Patients with hypertension had significant reductions in diastolic blood pressure and weight. Data did not show differences in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), but differences in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were approaching significance for the full sample and those with hyperlipidemia. The majority of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements on all outcomes besides systolic blood pressure.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that a lifestyle medicine intervention within a traditional, safety-net clinical setting improved biomarkers of cardiometabolic disease. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes. Additional large-scale, rigorous studies are needed to further establish the effectiveness of lifestyle medicine interventions in similar settings.

Facilitators and Barriers to Uptake of Community-Based Diabetes Prevention Program Among Multi-Ethnic Asian Patients With Prediabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers to the uptake of a community-based diabetes prevention program (DPP) from the perspectives of decliners with prediabetes in a multi-ethnic Asian community.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 individuals with prediabetes who declined participation in a large community-based diabetes prevention program in Singapore. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which were subsequently mapped onto the Capacity-Opportunity-Motivation and Behavior model (COM-B).

RESULTS

We identified 16 key themes under three COM-B domains. Health status at the time of invitation, perceived ability of self-management, understanding of prediabetes condition and/or the program intention (Capability) were important determinants. Family commitment had the strong potential to enable or hinder physical and social Opportunity related to participation. Many participants desired involvement of physician as part of program invitation and component. Fear of exacerbation coupled with an automatic aversion for suffering influenced Motivation for participation.

CONCLUSION

Identifying facilitators and barriers embedded in the COM-B will assist systematic program modifications to increase participation of individuals with prediabetes. How information about modifiable risk factors is communicated by physicians at the point of diagnosis and program introduction is key to participation. Co-locating programs with family activity, development of mHealth, readiness assessment, and tailored explanation of program purpose may increase participation. These findings will be used to guide future national interventions in the community to ensure successful implementation.

3. Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated Comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical 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, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Toward the economic evaluation of participatory approaches in health promotion: lessons from four German physical activity promotion projects

Health promotion increasingly employs participatory approaches, but the question arises whether the likely higher costs of participation also translate into greater benefits. This article takes a first step toward a full health economic evaluation by comprehensively reporting the costs of a specific participatory approach, Cooperative Planning, in a German research consortium to promote physical activity. We conducted a costing analysis of Cooperative Planning at 22 sites across six settings. Project teams used a custom template to record resource use. We calculated average costs per meeting, site and setting using the opportunity costs approach, and obtained feedback from participating researchers. A total of 144 planning meetings with an average of nine participants were conducted. Costs per meeting varied significantly across settings. Differences were mostly attributable to varying meeting duration, preparation time and numbers of participants. Across settings, human resources accounted for roughly 95% of the costs. Implementing researchers reported challenges regarding the logic and methods of the health economic analysis. A participatory approach to physical activity promotion may cause substantially varying costs in different settings despite similar cost structures. However, their value for money could turn out comparably favorable if (and only if) the expected benefits is indeed forthcoming. Despite some challenges implementing the costing exercise into the logistics of ongoing participatory projects, this analysis may pave the way toward a full health economic evaluation, and the template may be useful to future participatory health promotion projects.

Comprehensive cost-effectiveness of diabetes management for the underserved in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus affects almost 10% of U.S. adults, leading to human and financial burden. Underserved populations experience a higher risk of diabetes and related complications resulting from a combination of limited disposable income, inadequate diet, and lack of insurance coverage. Without the requisite resources, underserved populations lack the ability to access healthcare and afford prescription drugs to manage their condition. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings from cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in underserved populations.

METHODS

Original, English, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in U.S. underserved populations were obtained from 8 databases, and PRISMA 2009 reporting guidelines were followed. Evidence was categorized as strong or weak based on a combination of GRADE and American Diabetes Association guidelines. Internal validity was assessed by the Cochrane methodology. Studies were classified by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as very cost-effective (ICER≤US$25,000), cost-effective (US$25,000<ICER≤US$50,000), marginally cost-effective (US$50,000<ICER≤US$100,000) or cost-ineffective (ICER>US$100,000). Reporting and quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the CHEERS guidelines and Recommendations of Second Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, respectively.

FINDINGS

Fourteen studies were included. All interventions were found to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. None of the studies reported all 24 points of the CHEERS guidelines. Given the considered cost categories vary significantly between studies, assessing cost-effectiveness across studies has many limitations. Program costs were consistently analyzed, and a third of the included studies (n = 5) only examined these costs, without considering other costs of diabetes care.

INTERPRETATION

Cost-effectiveness studies are not based on a standardized methodology and present incomplete or limited analyses. More accurate assessment of all direct and indirect costs could widen the gap between intervention and usual care. This demonstrates the urgent need for a more standardized and comprehensive cost-effectiveness framework for future studies.

A Digital Health Intervention (SweetGoals) for Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Factorial Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Many young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) struggle with the complex daily demands of adherence to their medical regimen and fail to achieve target range glycemic control. Few interventions, however, have been developed specifically for this age group.

OBJECTIVE

In this randomized trial, we will provide a mobile app (SweetGoals) to all participants as a "core" intervention. The app prompts participants to upload data from their diabetes devices weekly to a device-agnostic uploader (Glooko), automatically retrieves uploaded data, assesses daily and weekly self-management goals, and generates feedback messages about goal attainment. Further, the trial will test two unique intervention components: (1) incentives to promote consistent daily adherence to goals, and (2) web health coaching to teach effective problem solving focused on personalized barriers to self-management. We will use a novel digital direct-to-patient recruitment method and intervention delivery model that transcends the clinic.

METHODS

A 2x2 factorial randomized trial will be conducted with 300 young adults ages 19-25 with type 1 diabetes and (Hb)A_1c ≥ 8.0%. All participants will receive the SweetGoals app that tracks and provides feedback about two adherence targets: (a) daily glucose monitoring; and (b) mealtime behaviors. Participants will be randomized to the factorial combination of incentives and health coaching. The intervention will last 6 months. The primary outcome will be reduction in A_1c. Secondary outcomes include self-regulation mechanisms in longitudinal mediation models and engagement metrics as a predictor of outcomes. Participants will complete 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments. We hypothesize greater sustained A_1c improvements in participants who receive coaching and who receive incentives compared to those who do not receive those components.

RESULTS

Data collection is expected to be complete by February 2025. Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes are expected by December 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful completion of these aims will support dissemination and effectiveness studies of this intervention that seeks to improve glycemic control in this high-risk and understudied population of young adults with T1D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04646473; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04646473.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/27109.

3. Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical 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, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

The effects of financial incentives on diabetes prevention program attendance and weight loss among low-income patients: the We Can Prevent Diabetes cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Penetration and participation of real life implementation of lifestyle change programs to prevent type 2 diabetes has been challenging. This is particularly so among low income individuals in the United States. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of financial incentives on attendance and weight loss among Medicaid beneficiaries participating in the 12-month Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).

METHODS

This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with two financial incentive study arms and an attention control study arm. Medicaid beneficiaries with prediabetes from 13 primary care clinics were randomly assigned to individually earned incentives (IND; 33 groups; n = 309), a hybrid of individual- and group-earned incentives (GRP; 30 groups; n = 259), and an attention control (AC; 30 groups; n = 279). Up to $520 in incentives could be earned for attaining attendance and weight loss goals over 12 months. Outcomes are percent weight loss from baseline, achieving 5% weight loss from baseline, and attending 75% of core and 75% of maintenance DPP sessions. Linear mixed models were used to examine weight change and attendance rates over the 16 weeks and 12 months.

RESULTS

The percent weight change at 16 weeks for the IND, GRP, and AC participants were similar, at - 2.6, - 3.1%, and - 3.4%, respectively. However, participants achieving 5% weight loss in the IND, GRP, and AC groups was 21.5, 24.0% (GRP vs AC, P < 0.05), and 15.2%. Attendance at 75% of the DPP core sessions was significantly higher among IND (60.8%, P < 0.001) and GRP (64.0%, P < 0.001) participants than among AC (38.6%) participants. Despite substantial attrition over time, attendance at 75% of the DPP maintenance sessions was also significantly higher among IND (23.0%, P < 0.001) and GRP (26.1%, P < 0.001) participants than among AC (11.0%) participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentives can improve the proportion of Medicaid beneficiaries attending the 12-month DPP and achieving at least 5% weight loss.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422420 ; retrospectively registered April 21, 2015.

Implementing Lifestyle Change Interventions to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes in US Medicaid Programs: Cost Effectiveness, and Cost, Health, and Health Equity Impact

BACKGROUND

Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs.

METHODS

We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI ≥25 kg/m² and HbA1c ≥ 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ≥ 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective.

RESULTS

In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.

New model of integrated care for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a retrospective, underserved adult population in the USA: a study protocol for an effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes prevalence is increasing in the USA, especially in underserved populations. Patient outcomes can be improved by providing access to specialty care within Federally Qualified Health Centers, possibly improving the cost-effectiveness of diabetes care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A new model of diabetes care based on multidisciplinary teams of clinical fellows, supported by an endocrinologist for underserved adult populations, is presented. The study uses a retrospective, non-randomised cohort of patients with diabetes who visited the community clinic between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018. A quasi-experimental method to analyse the causal evidence of the effect of the new model is presented. Discontinuity regression is used to compare two interventions, the intervention by a Clinical Fellow Endocrinology Programme and usual care by a primary care physician. Patients are referred to the Clinical Fellow Endocrinology Programme in case of uncontrolled diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)≥9%). The regression discontinuity design allows the construction of a treatment group for patients with an HbA1c equal or above the threshold in comparison with a control group for patients with an HbA1c below the threshold. The patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the new model are analysed. Regression models will be used to assess the differences between treatment and control groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Quantitative patient data are received by the study team in a de-identified format for analysis via an institutional review board-approved protocol. The quantitative study has been approved by the Houston Methodist Research Institute Institutional Review Board, Houston, Texas, USA. Anticipated results will not only provide evidence about the impact of patient outcomes in underserved diabetic populations, but also give an idea of the cost-effectiveness of the new model and whether or not cost savings can be attained for patients, third-party payers and society. The results will help set up evidence-based policy guidelines in diabetes care. Results will be disseminated through papers, conferences and public health/policy fora.

3. Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical 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, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Current Perspectives on the Impact of the National Diabetes Prevention Program: Building on Successes and Overcoming Challenges

To address the public health and economic burden of type 2 diabetes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began dissemination of the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) in the United States in 2010. Based on the intensive lifestyle intervention from a large efficacy trial, the NDPP aims to reduce incidence through lifestyle change and weight loss. This narrative review summarizes evidence on reach, effectiveness, and sustainability of the NDPP, while highlighting opportunities to overcome challenges in these areas. Major successes include reaching hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals across the nation, with notable effectiveness upon full participation and widespread insurance coverage. Yet, more work is needed to ensure greater public health impact, particularly among priority populations at heightened risk who also experience disparities in program outcomes. Preliminary evidence suggests a number of strategies may improve reach and effectiveness of the NDPP, often with more rigorous study needed prior to widespread uptake. Updating the NDPP to better match the current evidence-base may also be important, such as directly targeting glycemia with a patient-centered approach and promoting metformin as an adjunct or second-line treatment. Finally, revisiting pay-for-performance reimbursement models may be critical to sustainability by ensuring adequate availability of suppliers and ultimately reducing diabetes prevalence.