Barriers associated with the delivery of Medicare-reimbursed diabetes self-management education

Comparing the effectiveness of Family Support for Health Action (FAM-ACT) with traditional community health worker-led interventions to improve adult diabetes management and outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) programs have struggled to deliver sustainable, effective support for adults with diabetes (AWDs) to improve self-management behaviors, achieve glycemic goals, and reduce risk for complications. One largely untapped resource for this support is AWDs' social networks. Fifty to 75% of AWDs have an unpaid family member or friend ("support person") who provides ongoing help with diabetes management. However, DSMES interventions to date lack structured and effective approaches to directly engage support persons in AWDs' diabetes management.

METHODS

This parallel arm randomized trial is designed to determine the effectiveness of Family Support for Health Action (FAM-ACT), a novel community health worker (CHW)-delivered program focused on educating and supporting patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and their support persons (SPs), relative to an established, CHW-delivered, individual patient-focused DSMES and care management (I-DSMES) intervention. Both interventions were developed using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach. The study will be conducted in partnership with an urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) serving a low-income, Latino/a community, with target enrollment of 268 dyads consisting of an FQHC patient with T2D with high HbA1c and an SP. Patient-SP dyads will be randomized to receive FAM-ACT or I-DSMES over 6 months. The primary outcome is change in patient HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes include 12-month change in HbA1c, changes in patient blood pressure, diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, patient activation, diabetes self-efficacy, and perceptions of and satisfaction with SP support for diabetes. Secondary SP outcomes include self-efficacy for helping the patient with diabetes management and SP distress about the patient's diabetes. We also will assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient's ability to manage diabetes.

DISCUSSION

This study will inform scalable, evidence-based approaches that leverage family support to help AWDs improve and sustain self-management strategies that underpin optimal management of multiple diabetes complication risk factors. The protocol is designed for and evaluated with a low-income and predominantly Latino/a community, which may increase applicability to other similar communities. The COVID-19 pandemic presented several challenges to study protocol and intervention delivery; modifications made to address these challenges are described.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03812614. Registered on 18 January 2019.

Geographic disparities and temporal changes of diabetes prevalence and diabetes self-management education program participation in Florida

BACKGROUND

Although Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) programs are recommended to help reduce the burden of diabetes and diabetes-related complications, Florida is one of the states with the lowest DSME participation rates. Moreover, there is evidence of geographic disparities of not only DSME participation rates but the burden of diabetes as well. Understanding these disparities is critical for guiding control programs geared at improving participation rates and diabetes outcomes. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (a) investigate geographic disparities of diabetes prevalence and DSME participation rates; and (b) identify predictors of the observed disparities in DSME participation rates.

METHODS

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data for 2007 and 2010 were obtained from the Florida Department of Health. Age-adjusted diabetes prevalence and DSME participation rates were computed at the county level and their geographic distributions visualized using choropleth maps. Significant changes in diabetes prevalence and DSME participation rates between 2007 and 2010 were assessed and counties showing significant changes were mapped. Clusters of high diabetes prevalence before and after adjusting for common risk factors and DSME participation rates were identified, using Tango's flexible spatial scan statistics, and their geographic distribution displayed in maps. Determinants of the geographic distribution of DSME participation rates and predictors of the identified high rate clusters were identified using ordinary least squares and logistic regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

County level age-adjusted diabetes prevalence varied from 4.7% to 17.8% while DSME participation rates varied from 26.6% to 81.2%. There were significant (p≤0.05) increases in both overall age-adjusted diabetes prevalence and DSME participation rates from 2007 to 2010 with diabetes prevalence increasing from 7.7% in 2007 to 8.6% in 2010 while DSME participation rates increased from 51.4% in 2007 to 55.1% in 2010. Generally, DSME participation rates decreased in rural areas while they increased in urban areas. High prevalence clusters of diabetes (both adjusted and unadjusted) were identified in northern and central Florida, while clusters of high DSME participation rates were identified in central Florida. Rural counties and those with high proportion of Hispanics tended to have low DSME participation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings confirm that geographic disparities in both diabetes prevalence and DSME participation rates exist. Specific attention is required to address these disparities especially in areas that have high diabetes prevalence but low DSME participation rates. Study findings are useful for guiding resource allocation geared at reducing disparities and improving diabetes outcomes.

Mandated Benefits for Diabetes Education and the Availability of Accredited Programs and Certified Diabetes Educators

States have the latitude to mandate coverage of diabetes self-management education (DSME) services for privately insured and Medicaid patients. The impact of these mandates on the supply of DSME resources is unknown. This study compared changes in the supply of DSME programs and program sites accredited by the American Association for Diabetes Educators (AADE) and certified diabetes educators (CDE) between states that did and did not mandate benefits for DSME. Using a unique combination of legal and programmatic data sources, the authors employed fixed effects regression models with clustered robust standard errors to compare changes in the supply of AADE-accredited DSME programs, program sites, and CDEs in states that mandated benefits with states that did not. Given the variation in state mandates, models also estimated the impact of "flexible" reimbursement provisions on the supply of resources among adopting states. The supply of DSME resources has increased over time, but results indicate that mandated benefits were not a significant driver of these changes in the supply. The impact of flexible reimbursement provisions varied. Interestingly, provisions of the Affordable Care Act were associated with an increased supply of resources. Results suggest that extending benefits to previously insured patients does not increase the supply of DSME resources, but a rapid increase in patients entering the health system does encourage growth.

Background and rationale for the Society of Behavioral Medicine's position statement: expand United States health plan coverage for diabetes self-management education and support

The Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) recognizes that diabetes self-management (DSM) education and support are fundamental to teaching people how to manage their diabetes and decrease disease-related complications. Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides an opportunity to expand DSM education and support to many people who are currently excluded from such services due to lack of insurance coverage, current policy barriers, or simple failure of healthcare systems to provide them. Extending the range and provision of such services could translate into reduced diabetic complications, a reduction in unnecessary healthcare utilization, and significant health-related cost savings on a national level. SBM recommends that public and private insurers be required to reimburse for 12 h of DSM education and support annually for anyone with diabetes. Further, SBM recognizes that a range of modes and providers of DSM education and support have been shown effective, and that patient preferences and resources may influence choice. To address this, SBM urges health organizations to increase and diversify approaches toward DSM education and support they offer.

Using multiple measures of glycemia to support individualized diabetes management: recommendations for clinicians, patients, and payers

By the year 2030, the diabetes pandemic will likely affect more than 10% of the world's population. The personal, public health, and economic crises implicit in this trend call for decisive action. Yet, escalating dilemmas thwart full realization of current therapies. First, controversial studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial, have amplified calls to individualize glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets in the absence of adequate infrastructures for supporting personalized care. Second, costlier medications and technologies addressing more nuanced aspects of metabolic dysfunction are expanding options for diabetes management amidst growing disparities between "affordable" and "best" care. Third, common clinical quandaries, such as discrepancies between A1C and self-monitoring of blood glucose data, as well as misconceptions about long-term glycemic assessment, compound entrenched cycles of inadequate self-care, delayed intervention, and suboptimal glycemic outcomes. Because individual, clinical, and public policy responses to these conflicting forces are based largely on methodologies for glucose measurement, a panel of clinical experts from Europe and North America was convened to reexamine our glucose measuring tools and determine ways in which they can be better applied toward more purposeful processes of glycemic management. Among the main issues addressed were the need for caution in interpreting A1C for individual patients, the role of alternative biomarkers in identifying aspects of glycemic dysregulation not captured by A1C, and the value of using patients' own glucose data to consolidate therapeutic, educational, and behavior-change objectives.

Coordinated primary and specialty care for type 2 diabetes mellitus, guidelines, and systems: an educational needs assessment

OBJECTIVE

To determine knowledge, competence, and attitudinal issues among primary care providers (PCPs) and diabetes specialists regarding the use and application of evidence-based clinical guidelines and the coordination of care between PCPs and diabetes specialists specifically related to referral practices for patients with diabetes.

METHODS

A survey tool was completed by 491 PCPs and 249 diabetes specialists. Data were collected from specialists online and from PCP attendees at live symposia across the United States. Results were analyzed for frequency of response and evaluation of significant relationships among the variables.

RESULTS

Suboptimal practice patterns and interprofessional communication as well as gaps in diabetes-related knowledge and processes were identified. PCPs reported a lack of clarity about who, PCP or specialist, should assume clinical responsibility for the management of diabetes after a specialty referral. PCPs were most likely to refer patients to diabetes specialists for management issues relating to insulin therapy and use of advanced treatment strategies, such as insulin pens and continuous glucose monitoring. A minority of PCPs and even fewer specialists reported the routine use of clinical guidelines in practice.

CONCLUSION

This research-based assessment identified critical educational needs and gaps related to coordinated care for patients with diabetes as well as the need for quality- and performance-based educational interventions.

Food insecurity and food choices in rural older adults with diabetes receiving nutrition education via telemedicine

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences between rural older adults with diabetes reporting the presence or absence of food insecurity with respect to meal planning, preparation, shopping, obesity, and glycemic control after receiving nutrition counseling through telemedicine.

METHODS

Food insecurity data were obtained by telephone survey (n=74). Group differences for continuous variables were measured by t tests; categorical variables by Pearson chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Participants reporting mild food insecurity (23%) had higher body mass index (35.5±7.1 kg/m2 vs 30.5±6.0 kg/m2, P=.01) and lower household incomes (P=.03) and were more likely to consider cost of ingredients in food preparation compared to food-secure participants (P=.03). Most purchased fresh produce (97%) and considered the dietitian's advice when purchasing food. Both groups report similar adherence to dietitians' advice and had similar glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Strategies to address higher levels of obesity associated with food insecurity are needed.

Diabetes care and outcomes: disparities across rural America

We examined differences in receipt of diabetes care and selected outcomes between rural and urban persons living with diabetes, using nationally representative data from the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). "Rural" was defined as living in a non-metropolitan county. Diabetes care variables were physician visit, HbA1c testing, foot examination, and dilated eye examination. Outcome variables were presence of foot sores and diabetic retinopathy. Analysis was limited to persons 18 and older self-reporting a diagnosis of diabetes (n = 29,501). A lower proportion of rural than urban persons with diabetes reported a dilated eye examination (69.1 vs. 72.4%; P = 0.005) or a foot examination in the past year (70.6 vs. 73.7%; P = 0.016). Conversely, a greater proportion of rural than urban persons reported diabetic retinopathy (25.8 vs. 22.0%; P = 0.007) and having a foot sore taking more than four weeks to heal (13.2 vs. 11.2%; P = 0.036). Rural residence was not associated with receipt of services after individual characteristics were taken into account in adjusted analysis, but remained associated with an increased risk for retinopathy (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.02-1.42). Participation in Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) was positively associated with all measures of diabetes care included in the study. Availability of specialty services and travel considerations could explain some of these differences.

Dietary fat reduction behaviors among African American, American Indian, and white older adults with diabetes

Dietary self-management of diabetes is often difficult for older adults to practice, particularly in rural communities. We describe patterns and correlates of dietary fat reduction among older rural adults with diabetes of any type. In-home interviews were conducted with a multiethnic random sample of 701 adults ≥ 65 with diabetes from two North Carolina counties. The Fat and Fiber Behavior Questionnaire was used to measure dietary behaviors. Separate multiple linear regressions assessed effects of gender, ethnicity, and diabetes education. In general, scores were more favorable for practices that involved modifying food preparation (e.g., avoiding frying) and less favorable for practices that involved changing foods consumed (e.g., substituting fruits and vegetables as desserts or snacks). American Indians and African Americans had less favorable scores than whites, and diabetes education was associated with greater fat restriction for women than men. Older men and ethnic minorities with diabetes should be targeted for dietary change education.

Diabetes self-management education and third-party reimbursement: what are the options?

Attaining reimbursement for diabetes self-management training can be daunting. To some it may be enough to frighten them off. But for the strong of heart you should consider the options that are available to you. Billing for services directly to the patient as a fee for service is one option. Others undertake meeting the requirements as mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Presently, there are only a total of 2921 education sites in the United States recognized by the American Diabetes Association's Education Recognition Program. Understanding the requirements is critical to developing programs for the unmet needs of the 19.2 million patients with diabetes.

Improving access to quality diabetes education in a rural state: the Montana Quality Diabetes Education Initiative

PURPOSE

Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is an integral component of diabetes care; however, skilled educators and recognized programs are not uniformly available in rural communities.

METHODS

To increase access to quality DSME, the Montana Diabetes Control Program and the Montana chapter of the American Association of Diabetes Educators developed a mentoring program with 3 levels: basic, intermediate, and advanced. All participants were assisted by a volunteer certified diabetes educator (CDE) mentor. In addition, the program provided technical support for recognition through the American Diabetes Association and the Indian Health Service.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2005, 90 individuals participated; 76% were nurses and 21% dietitians. Twenty-seven of the 90 enrollees (30%) completed their structured option, and 13 achieved CDE certification. Most provided services in frontier counties (66%). Statewide, the number of CDEs in Montana increased 46% from 52 in 2000 to 76 in 2005. Twenty-five of the 30 facilities that received technical assistance achieved recognition. Statewide, the number of recognized education programs increased from 2 in 2000 to 22 in 2005. Twelve (55%) of these programs were located in frontier counties.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentoring and technical support is an effective method to increase personnel skills for DSME and to increase access to quality education programs in rural areas.