Relationships Between Socioeconomic Status, Insurance Coverage for Diabetes Technology and Adverse Health in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

A Real-World Prospective Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of Automated Insulin Delivery Compared With Other Modalities of Type 1 Diabetes Treatment During Ramadan Intermittent Fasting

OBJECTIVE

To compare the fasting experience and glycemic control during Ramadan among people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D) who use automated insulin delivery (AID) versus other modalities of treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 294 PWT1D who attempted fasting during Ramadan in 2022 were categorized on the basis of treatment modality into one of five groups: 1) AID (n = 62); 2) conventional pump + continuous glucose monitoring (CGM; n = 37); 3) pump + self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG; n = 8); 4) multiple daily injections (MDI) + CGM (n = 155); and 5) MDI + SMBG (n = 32). Predictors of fasting most days of Ramadan (i.e., breaking fast ≤2 days because of diabetes) were analyzed using uni- and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The median numbers of days when fasting was broken because of diabetes were 2, 5, 3, 3.5, and 2.5 for AID, conventional pump + CGM, MDI + CGM, pump + SMBG, and MDI + SMBG users, respectively (P = 0.047). Users of AID had a significantly greater time in range (TIR) and lower glycemia risk index, time below range, and time above range compared with users of conventional pumps and MDI (both P < 0.05). Likewise, 53% of AID users attained the double target of 1) breaking fast ≤2 days because of diabetes and 2) maintaining TIR ≥70% during Ramadan compared with only 3% of the conventional pump users and 44% of the MDI + CGM users (both P < 0.05). Compared with MDI + CGM users, AID users were twice as likely to complete fasting most days of Ramadan.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of AID is associated with the highest rates of fasting and best glycemic control during Ramadan fasting.

Socio-economic disparities in hospital care among Dutch patients with diabetes mellitus

AIM

Socio-economic status (SES) influences diabetes onset, progression and treatment. In this study, the associations between SES and use of hospital care were assessed, focusing on hospitalizations, technology and cardiovascular complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational cohort study comprising 196 695 patients with diabetes (all types and ages) treated in 65 hospitals across the Netherlands from 2019 to 2020 using reimbursement data. Patients were stratified in low, middle, or high SES based on residential areas derived from four-digit zip codes.

RESULTS

Children and adults with low SES were hospitalized more often than patients with middle or high SES (children: 22%, 19% and 15%, respectively; p < .001, adults: 28%, 25% and 23%; p < .001). Patients with low SES used the least technology: no technology in 48% of children with low SES versus 40% with middle SES and 38% with high SES. In children, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) use was higher in high SES {CSII: odds ratio (OR) 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-1.76]; p < .001; rtCGM OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.20-1.61]; p < .001} and middle SES [CSII: OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.24-1.62); p < .001; rtCGM: OR 1.27 (95% CI 1.09-1.47); p = .002] compared with low SES. Macrovascular (OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.80); p < .001) and microvascular complications [OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.98); p < .001] occurred less in high than in low SES.

CONCLUSIONS

Socio-economic disparities were observed in patients with diabetes treated in Dutch hospitals, where basic health care is covered. Patients with low SES were hospitalized more often, used less technology, and adults with high SES showed fewer cardiovascular complications. These inequities warrant attention to guarantee equal outcomes for all.

The impact of socioeconomic factors, social determinants, and ethnicity on the utilization of glucose sensor technology among persons with diabetes mellitus: a narrative review

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) usage has been shown to improve disease outcomes in people living with diabetes by facilitating better glycemic management. However, previous research has suggested that access to these devices can be influenced by nonmedical factors such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity. It is critical that equitable access to CGM devices is ensured as people from those groups experience poorer diabetes-related health outcomes. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the various healthcare systems worldwide and how socioeconomic status, social context, and ethnicity shape device usage and the associated health outcomes. In general, we found that having a lower socioeconomic status and belonging to an ethnic minority group negatively impact CGM usage. While financial means proved to be an important mediator in this process, it was not the sole driver as disparities persisted even after adjustment for factors such as income and insurance status. Recommendations to increase CGM usage for people of a lower socioeconomic status and ethnic minorities include increasing the availability of financial, administrative, and educational support, for both patients and healthcare providers. However, recommendations will vary due to local country-specific circumstances, such as reimbursement criteria and healthcare ecosystems.

Addressing disparities in technology use among patients with type 1 diabetes: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The benefits of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) are widely recognized. However, glaring disparities in access exist, particularly in marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that stand to benefit significantly from diabetes technology use. We will review recent data describing drivers of these disparities and approaches to address the disparities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several qualitative studies were published in recent years that have investigated the drivers of disparities reported over the past decades. These studies report that in addition to typical barriers seen in the diabetes technology, marginalized patients have unique challenges that make insulin pumps and CGMs less accessible.

SUMMARY

Barriers to technology use in these groups include stigmatization, lack of support, financial constraints, provider biases, stringent insurance policies, and clinic infrastructure. To address inequities, multifaceted strategies across community, healthcare, and provider sectors are essential. Key initiatives include enhancing public awareness, refining health policies, ensuring access to high-quality care, and emphasizing patient-centered approaches. The equitable use of technology can narrow the gap in T1D outcomes. The social and economic implications of suboptimal T1D management further underscore the urgency of these efforts for both improved health outcomes and cost-efficient care.

Impact of socioeconomic status on chronic control and complications of type 1 diabetes mellitus in users of glucose flash systems: a follow-up study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using flash glucose monitoring (FGM) devices within a public health system where these technologies are freely available and utilized according to recommended guidelines.

METHODS

A follow-up study of 1060 adults (mean age 47.4 ± 15.0 years, 49.0% women) with T1D, receiving care at three Spanish university hospitals that regularly employ the FGM system. SES was assessed using the Spanish Deprivation Index and the average annual net income per person. Glycemic data were collected over a 14-day follow-up period, including baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels prior to sensor placement, the last available HbA1c levels, and FGM-derived glucose metrics. Individuals with sensor usage time < 70% were excluded. Chronic micro and macrovascular complications related to diabetes were documented. Regression models, adjusted for clinical variables, were employed to determine the impact of SES on optimal sensor control (defined as time in range (TIR) ≥ 70% with time below range < 4%) and disease complications.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was of 2 years. The mean TIR and the percentage of individuals with optimal control were higher in individuals in the highest SES quartile (64.9% ± 17.8% and 27.9%, respectively) compared to those in the lowest SES quartile (57.8 ± 17.4% and 12.1%) (p < 0.001). Regression models showed a higher risk of suboptimal control (OR 2.27, p < 0.001) and ischemic heart disease and/or stroke (OR 3.59, p = 0.005) in the lowest SES quartile. No association was observed between SES and the risk of diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy. FGM system improved HbA1c levels across all SES quartiles. Although individuals in the highest SES quartile still achieved a significantly lower value at the end of the follow-up 55 mmol/mol (7.2%) compared to those in the lowest SES quartile 60 mmol/mol (7.6%) (p < 0.001), the significant disparities in this parameter between the various SES groups were significantly reduced after FGM technology use.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in glycemic control and complications in individuals with T1D, extending beyond access to technology and its proper utilization. The free utilization of FGM technology helps alleviate the impact of social inequalities on glycemic control.

Increasing Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use for Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic People With Type 1 Diabetes: Results From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative Equity Study

Despite the benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), there is lower use of this technology among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people with type 1 diabetes compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative recruited five endocrinology centers to pilot an equity-focused quality improvement (QI) study to reduce racial inequities in CGM use. The centers used rapid QI cycles to test and expand interventions such as provider bias training, translation of CGM materials, provision of CGM education in multiple languages, screening for social determinants of health, and shared decision-making. After implementation of these interventions, median CGM use increased by 7% in non-Hispanic White, 12% in non-Hispanic Black, and 15% in Hispanic people with type 1 diabetes. The gap between non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients decreased by 5%, and the gap between non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients decreased by 8%.

Insulin Pump Utilization in 2017-2021 for More Than 22,000 Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter Observational Study

This large type 1 diabetes cohort study showed that insulin pump utilization has increased over time and that use differs by sex, insurance type, and race/ethnicity. Insulin pump use was associated with more optimal A1C, increased use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and lower rates of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia. People who used an insulin pump with CGM had lower rates of acute events than their counterparts who used an insulin pump without CGM. These findings highlight the need to improve access of diabetes technology through provider engagement, multidisciplinary approaches, and efforts to address health inequities.

Association Between Health Insurance Type and Adverse Outcomes for Children and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Coronavirus Disease 2019

Background

Health insurance coverage type differs significantly by socioeconomic status and racial group in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine whether publicly insured children and young adults with type 1 diabetes were more likely to experience adverse outcomes compared with privately insured patients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections.

Methods

Data from 619 patients with previously established type 1 diabetes who were <24 years of age with acute COVID-19 infections were analyzed from the T1D Exchange COVID-19 surveillance registry. Data for the registry was collected from 52 endocrinology clinics across the United States using an online survey tool. Each site completed the survey using electronic health record data between April 2020 and December 2021.

Results

Of the 619 patients included in this study, 257 had public insurance and 362 had private insurance. Of the 257 publicly insured patients with COVID-19, 57 reported severe adverse outcomes (22%), defined as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or severe hypoglycemia. In comparison, there were 25 reported adverse outcomes (7%) among the 362 privately insured patients.

Conclusion

Our data reveal high rates of hospitalization and DKA among publicly insured racial/ethnic minority children and young adults with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19.

Area deprivation and demographic factors associated with diabetes technology use in adults with type 1 diabetes in Germany

Introduction

Diabetes technology improves glycemic control and quality of life for many people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, inequalities in access to diabetes technology exist in many countries. In Germany, disparities in technology use have been described in pediatric T1D, but no data for adults are available so far. We therefore aimed to analyze whether demographic factors and area deprivation are associated with technology use in a representative population of adults with T1D.

Materials and methods

In adults with T1D from the German prospective diabetes follow-up registry (DPV), we analyzed the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and sensor augmented pump therapy (SAP, with and without automated insulin delivery) in 2019-2021 by age group, gender, migration background, and area deprivation using multiple adjusted regression models. Area deprivation, defined as a relative lack of area-based resources, was measured by quintiles of the German index of Multiple Deprivation (GIMD 2015, from Q1, least deprived, to Q5, most deprived districts).

Results

Among 13,351 adults with T1D, the use of technology decreased significantly with older age: CSII use fell from 56.1% in the 18-<25-year age group to 3.1% in the ≥80-year age group, CGM use from 75.3% to 28.2%, and SAP use from 45.1% to 1.5% (all p for trend <0.001). The use of technology was also significantly higher in women than in men (CSII: 39.2% vs. 27.6%; CGM: 61.9% vs. 58.0%; SAP: 28.7% vs. 19.6%, all p <0.001), and in individuals without migration background than in those with migration background (CSII: 38.8% vs. 27.6%; CGM: 71.1% vs. 61.4%; SAP: 30.5% vs. 21.3%, all p <0.001). Associations with area deprivation were not linear: the use of each technology decreased only from Q2 to Q4.

Discussion

Our real-world data provide evidence that higher age, male gender, and migration background are currently associated with lower use of diabetes technology in adults with T1D in Germany. Associations with area deprivation are more complex, probably due to correlations with other factors, like the higher proportion of migrants in less deprived areas or the federal structure of the German health care system.

Narrowing the Divide: The Role of Telehealth in Type 1 Diabetes Care for Marginalized Communities

Widespread uptake of telehealth in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted geographic, demographic, and economic disparities in access to virtual care. However, research studies and clinical programs that predate the pandemic demonstrate the potential for telehealth-based interventions to improve access to and outcomes of type 1 diabetes (T1D) care for individuals in geographically or socially marginalized communities. In this expert commentary, we discuss telehealth-based care models that have been successful in improving care for marginalized T1D populations. We also outline the policy changes needed to expand access to such interventions to reduce established disparities in T1D care and promote better health equity among people living with T1D.

Outcomes and experiences of families with children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pumps through subsidised pump access programs in Western Australia

Introduction

In Australia, access to insulin pump therapy for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is predominantly restricted to families with private health insurance. In an attempt to improve equity, additional subsidised pathways exist which provide pumps to families with reduced financial resources. We aimed to describe the outcomes and experiences of families with children commenced on pumps through these subsidised pathways in Western Australia (WA).

Methods

Children with T1D in WA who did not have private health insurance and received pumps from the subsidised pump programs between January 2016 and December 2020 were included. Study 1 was designed to review glycaemic outcome. A retrospective analysis of HbA1c was conducted in the whole cohort and in children who commenced pump after the first year of diagnosis to exclude the impact of the partial clinical remission phase following diagnosis. HbA1c at baseline, and six, 12, 18 and 24 months after pump initiation were collected. Study 2 was designed to review experiences of families commenced on pumps through subsidised pathway. A questionnaire designed by the clinical team was distributed to parents via an online secure platform to capture their experiences.

Results

Of the 61 children with mean (SD) age 9.0 (4.9) years who commenced pump therapy through subsidised pump programs, 34 children commenced pump therapy after one year of diagnosis of T1D. The median (IQR) HbA1c (%) in 34 children at baseline was 8.3 (1.3), with no statistically significant change from baseline at six months [7.9 (1.4)], 12 months [8.0 (1.5)], 18 months [8.0 (1.3)] or 24 months [8.0 (1.3)]. The questionnaire response rate was 56%. 83% reported intention to continue pump therapy, however 58% of these families did not have avenue to acquire private health insurance. Families expressed inability to procure private health insurance due to low income and unreliable employment and remained largely unsure about the pathway to obtain the next pump.

Discussion

Children with T1D who commenced insulin pump therapy on subsidised pathways maintained glycaemic control for two years, and families favored pumps as a management option. However, financial limitations persist as a significant barrier to procure and continue pump therapy. Pathways for access need to be assessed and advocated.

A Longitudinal View of Disparities in Insulin Pump Use Among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study

Objective: To evaluate changes in insulin pump use over two decades in a national U.S. sample. Research Design and Methods: We used data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study to perform a serial cross-sectional analysis to evaluate changes in insulin pump use in participants <20 years old with type 1 diabetes by race/ethnicity and markers of socioeconomic status across four time periods between 2001 and 2019. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to assess insulin pump use. Temporal changes by subgroup were assessed through interactions. Results: Insulin pump use increased from 31.7% to 58.8%, but the disparities seen in pump use persisted and were unchanged across subgroups over time. Odds ratio for insulin pump use in Hispanic (0.57, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.45-0.73), Black (0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37), and Other race (0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.76) participants were significantly lower than White participants. Those with ≤high school degree (0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.47) and some college (0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79) had lower use compared to those with ≥bachelor's degree. Those with public insurance (0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00) had lower use than those with private insurance. Those with an annual household income <$25K (0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.53), $25K-$49K (0.52, 95% CI 0.43-0.63), and $50K-$74K (0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) had lower use compared to those with income ≥$75,000. Conclusion: Over the past two decades, there was no improvement in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in insulin pump use, despite an overall increase in use. Studies that evaluate barriers or test interventions to improve technology access are needed to address these persistent inequities.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions: Closing the loop

CONTEXT

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSIIs) and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have revolutionized the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). Over the last two decades the development of advanced, small, and user-friendly technology has progressed substantially, essentially closing the loop in the fasting and post-absorptive state, nearing the promise of an artificial pancreas. The momentum was mostly driven by the diabetes community itself, to improve its health and quality of life.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Literature regarding CSII and CGM was reviewed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Management of DM aims to regulate blood glucose to prevent long term micro and macrovascular complications. CSIIs combined with CGMs provide an integrated system to maintain tight glycemic control in a safe and uninterrupted fashion, while minimizing hypoglycemic events. Recent advances have allowed to 'close the loop' by better mimicking endogenous insulin secretion and glucose level regulation. Evidence supports sustained improvement in glycemic control with reduced episodes of hypoglycemia using these systems, while improving quality of life. Ongoing work in delivery algorithms with or without counterregulatory hormones will allow for further layers of regulation of the artificial pancreas.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing efforts to develop an artificial pancreas have created effective tools to improve the management of DM. CSIIs and CGMs are useful in diverse populations ranging from children to the elderly, as well as in various clinical contexts. Individually and more so together, these have had a tremendous impact in the management of DM, while avoiding treatment fatigue. However, cost and accessibility are still a hindrance to its wider application.

A Team-based Training for Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Diabetes Care: An Implementation Pilot in Primary Care Practices (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) develops and maintains continuing medical education that is relevant to modern primary care practices. One continuing medical education modality is AAFP TIPS, which are comprised of resources designed for family medicine physicians and their care teams that aid in quick and accessible practice improvement strategies, with actionable steps. Evaluating physicians' use of and satisfaction with this modality's content and implementation strategies has not been prioritized previously. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) plays an increasing role in the treatment of diabetes; uptake occurs more rapidly in endocrinology settings than in primary care settings. To help address such differences in CGM uptake and diabetes care, AAFP TIPS on Continuous Glucose Monitoring (AAFP TIPS CGM) was developed, using published evidence and input from content experts (family medicine faculty; AAFP staff; and an advisory group comprised of other primary care physicians, patients, a pharmacist, and a primary care practice facilitator). A pilot implementation project was conducted in 3 primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate AAFP TIPS CGM in primary care practices, the research team assessed use of and satisfaction with the content and assessed barriers to and facilitators for strategy and workflow implementation.

METHODS

In total, 3 primary care practices participated in a mixed methods pilot implementation of AAFP TIPS CGM between June and October 2021. Practice champions at each site completed AAFP TIPS CGM and baseline practice surveys to evaluate practice characteristics and CGM prescribing. They conducted team trainings (via webinars or in person), with the goals of implementing CGM into practice and establishing or improving CGM workflows. Practice champions and team training participants completed posttraining surveys to evaluate the training, AAFP TIPS materials, and likelihood of implementing CGM. Interviews were conducted with 6 physicians, including practice champions, 2 months after team training. Satisfaction surveys were also distributed to those who completed the AAFP TIPS CGM course via the internet during the study period.

RESULTS

Of the 3 practices, 2 conducted team trainings. The team training evaluation survey showed that practice staff understood their role in implementing CGM in practice (19/20, 95%), and most (11/20, 55%) did not have questions after the training. Insurance coverage for CGM was a remaining knowledge gap and potential barrier to implementing CGM in practice. Physicians and interdisciplinary care team members who took the AAFP TIPS CGM course via the internet, as well as those who attended in-person team training, expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the education, content, and applicability of the course.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot implementation of AAFP TIPS CGM offers pertinent and timely information for primary care practices that desire to initiate or expand CGM use to best meet the needs of their patients with diabetes.

Barriers and Facilitators to Diabetes Device Adoption for People with Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes technology (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery systems) has advanced significantly and provides benefits to the user. This article reviews the current barriers to diabetes device adoption and sustained use, and outlines the known and potential facilitators for increasing and sustaining device adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Barriers to diabetes device adoption continue to exist at the system-, provider-, and individual-level. Known facilitators to promote sustained adoption include consistent insurance coverage, support for providers and clinics, structured education and support for technology users, and device user access to support as needed (e.g., through online resources). Systemic barriers to diabetes device adoption persist while growing evidence demonstrates the increasing benefits of newest devices and systems. There are ongoing efforts to develop evidence-based structured education programs to support device adoption and sustained use.