Sonalee J Ravi1,2, Alexander Coakley2, Tim Vigers3,4, Laura Pyle3,4, Gregory P Forlenza1,2, Todd Alonso1,2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We determined the uptake rate of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and examined associations of clinical and demographic characteristics with CGM use among patients with type 1 diabetes covered by Colorado Medicaid during the first two years of CGM coverage with no out-of-pocket cost. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed data from 892 patients with type 1 diabetes insured by Colorado Medicaid (Colorado Health Program [CHP] and CHP+, Colorado Medicaid expansion). Demographics, insulin pump usage, CGM usage, and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) were extracted from the medical record. Data downloaded into CGM software at clinic appointments were reviewed to determine 30-day use prior to appointments. Subjects with some exposure to CGM were compared to subjects never exposed to CGM, and we examined the effect of CGM use on glycemic control. RESULTS: Twenty percent of subjects had some exposure to CGM with a median of 22 [interquartile range 8, 29] days wear. Sixty one percent of CGM users had >85% sensor wear. Subjects using CGM were more likely to be younger (P < .001), have shorter diabetes duration (P < .001), and be non-Hispanic White (P < .001) than nonusers. After adjusting for age and diabetes duration, combined pump and CGM users had a lower A1c than those using neither technology (P = .006). Lower A1c was associated with greater CGM use (P = .002) and increased percent time in range (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Pediatric Medicaid patients successfully utilized CGM. Expansion of Medicaid coverage for CGM may help improve glycemic control and lessen disparities in clinical outcomes within this population.
BACKGROUND: We determined the uptake rate of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and examined associations of clinical and demographic characteristics with CGM use among patients with type 1 diabetes covered by Colorado Medicaid during the first two years of CGM coverage with no out-of-pocket cost. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed data from 892 patients with type 1 diabetes insured by Colorado Medicaid (Colorado Health Program [CHP] and CHP+, Colorado Medicaid expansion). Demographics, insulin pump usage, CGM usage, and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) were extracted from the medical record. Data downloaded into CGM software at clinic appointments were reviewed to determine 30-day use prior to appointments. Subjects with some exposure to CGM were compared to subjects never exposed to CGM, and we examined the effect of CGM use on glycemic control. RESULTS: Twenty percent of subjects had some exposure to CGM with a median of 22 [interquartile range 8, 29] days wear. Sixty one percent of CGM users had >85% sensor wear. Subjects using CGM were more likely to be younger (P < .001), have shorter diabetes duration (P < .001), and be non-Hispanic White (P < .001) than nonusers. After adjusting for age and diabetes duration, combined pump and CGM users had a lower A1c than those using neither technology (P = .006). Lower A1c was associated with greater CGM use (P = .002) and increased percent time in range (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Pediatric Medicaid patients successfully utilized CGM. Expansion of Medicaid coverage for CGM may help improve glycemic control and lessen disparities in clinical outcomes within this population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medicaid; continuous blood glucose monitor; low income; pediatric type 1 diabetes; technology and diabetes
Authors: A M Delamater; K H Shaw; E B Applegate; I A Pratt; M Eidson; G X Lancelotta; L Gonzalez-Mendoza; S Richton Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: H Peter Chase; Roy W Beck; Dongyuan Xing; William V Tamborlane; Julie Coffey; Larry A Fox; Brett Ives; Joyce Keady; Craig Kollman; Lori Laffel; Katrina J Ruedy Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Priya Prahalad; Ananta Addala; Bruce A Buckingham; Darrell M Wilson; David M Maahs Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jenise C Wong; Nicole C Foster; David M Maahs; Dan Raghinaru; Richard M Bergenstal; Andrew J Ahmann; Anne L Peters; Bruce W Bode; Grazia Aleppo; Irl B Hirsch; Lora Kleis; H Peter Chase; Stephanie N DuBose; Kellee M Miller; Roy W Beck; Saleh Adi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel J DeSalvo; Kellee M Miller; Julia M Hermann; David M Maahs; Sabine E Hofer; Mark A Clements; Eggert Lilienthal; Jennifer L Sherr; Martin Tauschmann; Reinhard W Holl Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Priya Prahalad; Osagie Ebekozien; G Todd Alonso; Mark Clements; Sarah Corathers; Daniel DeSalvo; Marisa Desimone; Joyce M Lee; Ilona Lorincz; Ryan McDonough; Shideh Majidi; Ori Odugbesan; Kathryn Obrynba; Nicole Rioles; Manmohan Kamboj; Nana-Hawa Yayah Jones; David M Maahs Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2021-07