Gary A Puckrein1, Gail Nunlee-Bland2, Farhad Zangeneh3, Jaime A Davidson4, Robert A Vigersky5, Liou Xu1, Christopher G Parkin6, David G Marrero7. 1. National Minority Quality Forum, Washington, DC. 2. Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC. 3. George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 4. University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 5. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD Medtronic, Northridge, CA. 6. CGParkin Communications, Boulder City, NV chris@cgparkin.org. 7. Diabetes Translational Research Center, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) in nine markets for diabetes supplies. The intent was to lower costs to consumers. Medicare claims data (2009-2012) were used to confirm the CMS report (2012) that there were no disruptions in acquisition caused by CBP and no changes in health outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study population consisted of insulin users: 43,939 beneficiaries in the nine test markets (TEST) and 485,688 beneficiaries in the nontest markets (NONTEST). TEST and NONTEST were subdivided: those with full self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) supply acquisition (full SMBG) according to prescription and those with partial/no acquisition (partial/no SMBG). Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Outcomes were impact of partial/no SMBG acquisition on mortality, inpatient admissions, and inpatient costs. RESULTS: Survival was negatively associated with partial/no SMBG acquisition in both cohorts (P < 0.0001). Coterminous with CBP (2010-2011), there was a 23.0% (P < 0.0001) increase in partial/no SMBG acquisition in TEST vs. 1.7% (P = 0.0002) in NONTEST. Propensity score-matched analysis showed beneficiary migration from full to partial/no SMBG acquisition in 2011 (1,163 TEST vs. 605 NONTEST) was associated with more deaths within the TEST cohort (102 vs. 60), with higher inpatient hospital admissions and associated costs. CONCLUSIONS: SMBG supply acquisition was disrupted in the TEST population, leading to increased migration to partial/no SMBG acquisition with associated increases in mortality, inpatient admissions, and costs. Based on our findings, more effective monitoring protocols are needed to protect beneficiary safety.
OBJECTIVE: In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) in nine markets for diabetes supplies. The intent was to lower costs to consumers. Medicare claims data (2009-2012) were used to confirm the CMS report (2012) that there were no disruptions in acquisition caused by CBP and no changes in health outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study population consisted of insulin users: 43,939 beneficiaries in the nine test markets (TEST) and 485,688 beneficiaries in the nontest markets (NONTEST). TEST and NONTEST were subdivided: those with full self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) supply acquisition (full SMBG) according to prescription and those with partial/no acquisition (partial/no SMBG). Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Outcomes were impact of partial/no SMBG acquisition on mortality, inpatient admissions, and inpatient costs. RESULTS: Survival was negatively associated with partial/no SMBG acquisition in both cohorts (P < 0.0001). Coterminous with CBP (2010-2011), there was a 23.0% (P < 0.0001) increase in partial/no SMBG acquisition in TEST vs. 1.7% (P = 0.0002) in NONTEST. Propensity score-matched analysis showed beneficiary migration from full to partial/no SMBG acquisition in 2011 (1,163 TEST vs. 605 NONTEST) was associated with more deaths within the TEST cohort (102 vs. 60), with higher inpatient hospital admissions and associated costs. CONCLUSIONS: SMBG supply acquisition was disrupted in the TEST population, leading to increased migration to partial/no SMBG acquisition with associated increases in mortality, inpatient admissions, and costs. Based on our findings, more effective monitoring protocols are needed to protect beneficiary safety.
Authors: Grazia Aleppo; Christopher G Parkin; Anders L Carlson; Rodolfo J Galindo; Davida F Kruger; Carol J Levy; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Gregory P Forlenza; Janet B McGill Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 6.118