Search

Aims: To estimate the cost of diabetes complications in the United States (U.S.)., Methods: We constructed longitudinal panel data using one of the largest claims databases in the U.S. for privately insured Type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes patients with a follow-up time of one to ten years. Complication costs were estimated both in years of the first occurrence and in subsequent years, using individual fixed-effects models. All costs were in 2016 dollars., Results: 47,166 people with T1DM and 608,237 with T2DM were included in our study. Aside from organ transplants, which were rare, the estimated average costs for the top three most costly conditions in the first vs. subsequent years were: end stage renal disease ($73,534 vs. $97,431 for T1DM; $94,231 vs. $98,981 for T2DM), congestive heart failure ($41,681 vs. $14,855 for T1DM; $31,202 vs. $7062 for T2DM), and myocardial infarction ($40,899 vs. $9496 for T1DM; $45,251 vs. $8572 for T2DM). For both diabetes types, retinopathy and neuropathy tend to have the lowest cost estimates., Conclusions: Our study provides the latest and most comprehensive cost estimates for a broad set of diabetes complications needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing and managing diabetes., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle change program demonstrated health benefits and potential for health care cost-savings. For many states, employers, and insurers, there is a strong business case for paying for type 2 diabetes prevention, which will likely result in medical and nonmedical cost-savings as well as improved quality of life after a few years. Using an iterative feedback process with multiple stakeholders, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the Diabetes Prevention Impact Tool kit, https://nccd.cdc.gov/toolkit/diabetesimpact, which forecasts the cost impact the lifestyle change program can have for states, employers, and health insurers. We conducted key informant interviews and a qualitative analysis to evaluate the tool kit. We found that end users recognized its utility for decision making. They valued the detail of the tool kit's underlying calculations and appreciated the option of either using the default settings or revising assumptions based on their own data. The Diabetes Prevention Impact Tool kit can be a helpful tool for organizations that wish to forecast the economic costs and benefits of implementing or covering the National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle change program.

Despite the promise of incentive-based chronic disease prevention programs, comprehensive evidence on their accessibility among low-income populations remains limited. We adapted Aday and Andersen's framework to examine accessibility and consumer satisfaction within the Medicaid Incentives for the Prevention of Chronic Disease (MIPCD) cross-site demonstration. MIPCD provided 10 states with 5-year grants to implement incentivized chronic disease prevention and management programs for low-income and/or disabled-Medicaid enrolled-Americans. We conducted 36 focus group discussions between July 2014 and December 2015 with Medicaid enrollees participating in the MIPCD programs. We assessed participants' satisfaction by program type (i.e., diabetes prevention, diabetes management, hypertension reduction, smoking cessation, and weight management) related to three components: program enrollment and participation, staff courtesy, and program convenience. Based on Aday and Andersen's framework, we conducted thematic analysis to determine similarities and differences across MIPCD programs by type. Participant feedback confirmed the importance of several features of the Aday and Andersen framework, particularly programs with easy enrollment and participation procedures, courteous and helpful staff, and those that are convenient and flexible for participants. Participants valued programming around the clock via telephone and flexible, in-person hours of operation as well as proximity of the program to reliable transportation. We observed that most participants, despite enrollment and participation barriers, perceived programs as accessible and were willing to engage and continue to participate. This finding may reflect behavior change theory's perspective on personal readiness to change. Individuals in the preparation stage of change can effectively change health habits despite barriers they may encounter. In some cases, personal readiness to change was more impactful than consumer satisfaction at encouraging ongoing participation and perceived access to the programs. Thus, program developers may want to consider individual participant readiness to change and its impact on consumer satisfaction when designing, implementing, and evaluating behavior change initiatives.

Objective: To demonstrate rolling entry matching (REM), a new statistical method, for comparison group selection in the context of staggered nonuniform participant entry in nonrandomized interventions., Study Setting: Four Health Care Innovation Award (HCIA) interventions between 2012 and 2016., Study Design: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation HCIA participants entering these interventions over time were matched with nonparticipants who exhibited a similar pattern of health care use and expenditures during each participant's baseline period., Data Extraction Methods: Medicare fee-for-service claims data were used to identify nonparticipating, fee-for-service beneficiaries as a potential comparison group and conduct REM., Principal Findings: Rolling entry matching achieved conventionally-accepted levels of balance on observed characteristics between participants and nonparticipants. The method overcame difficulties associated with a small number of intervention entrants., Conclusions: In nonrandomized interventions, valid inference regarding intervention effects relies on the suitability of the comparison group to act as the counterfactual case for the intervention group. When participants enter over time, comparison group selection is complicated. Rolling entry matching is a possible solution for comparison group selection in rolling entry interventions that is particularly useful with small sample sizes and merits further investigation in a variety of contexts., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Purpose: Evaluate the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Diseases (MIPCD) program in terms of participant satisfaction and self-reported program impact., Design: Participant survey (mail/telephone follow-up), English and Spanish (N = 2274)., Settings: Ten states in MIPCD program., Participants: Medicaid beneficiaries., Intervention: Incentive-based health promotion programs targeting diabetes prevention and management, smoking cessation, and weight, hypertension, and cholesterol management., Measures: Dependent measures are (1) overall program satisfaction and (2) self-reported program impact, operationalized as whether program helped with understanding health issues, learning ways to take care of health, and encouraging healthy lifestyle changes., Analysis: Multilevel multivariable ordinal logistic regression models to identify predictors of overall program satisfaction and program impact., Results: Sixty-seven percent were very satisfied with the program, and 76% strongly agreed the program encouraged healthy lifestyle changes. Age (59+ vs <45 years) and being female predicted overall program satisfaction. Satisfaction with specific aspects of the program including communication with staff, accessibility, and incentives predicted higher overall satisfaction. Age (45-52 vs <45 years) and being black or Hispanic predicted higher program impact. Points redeemable for rewards performed worse than money-valued incentives in terms of encouraging lifestyle changes (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.82). Participants receiving incentives valued at $25 to <$100 were more likely to report higher agreement that the program helped them learn ways to care for their health (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.21-2.44) and encouraged lifestyle changes (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.10), compared to participants receiving incentives valued at $0 to <$25. Incentives valued at $100 to <$400 predicted higher agreement that the program helped with understanding of health issues (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.13-2.33), compared to incentives valued at $0 to <$25., Conclusion: Effective chronic disease prevention programs are needed for Medicaid populations. Study findings highlight important considerations for incentive-based programs.

Objective: To test the effectiveness of financial incentives for smoking cessation in the Medicaid population., Data Sources: Secondary data from the Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Disease (MIPCD) program and Medicaid claims/encounter data from 2010 to 2015 for five states., Study Design: Beneficiaries were randomized into receipt or no receipt of financial incentives. We ran multivariate regression models testing the impact of financial incentives on the use of counseling services, smoking behavior, and Medicaid expenditures and utilization., Data Extraction: Participating states provided Medicaid eligibility, claims and encounters, program enrollment, and incentivized service use data., Principal Findings: Participants who received incentives were more likely to call the Quitline and complete counseling sessions. Incentive receipt was positively associated with self-reported quit attempts, self-reported quits, or passing cotinine tests of smoking cessation in most programs, although results were only statistically significant in a subset. There was no systematic evidence that incentives affected health care use or spending., Conclusions: Financial incentives are a promising policy lever to motivate behavioral change in the Medicaid population, but more evidence is needed regarding optimal incentive size, effectiveness of process-versus outcome-based incentives, targeting of incentives, and long-run cost-effectiveness., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background and Aims: Effective strategies are needed to address dramatic increases in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among people who inject drugs (PWID) in rural settings of the United States. We determined the required scale-up of HCV treatment with or without scale-up of HCV prevention interventions to achieve a 90% reduction in HCV chronic prevalence or incidence by 2025 and 2030 in a rural US setting., Design: An ordinary differential equation model of HCV transmission calibrated to HCV epidemiological data obtained primarily from an HIV outbreak investigation in Indiana., Setting: Scott County, Indiana (population 24 181), USA, a rural setting with negligible baseline interventions, increasing HCV epidemic since 2010, and 55.3% chronic HCV prevalence among PWID in 2015., Participants: PWID., Measurements: Required annual HCV treatments per 1000 PWID (and initial annual percentage of infections treated) to achieve a 90% reduction in HCV chronic prevalence or incidence by 2025/30, either with or without scaling-up syringe service programmes (SSPs) and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) to 50% coverage. Sensitivity analyses considered whether this impact could be achieved without re-treatment of re-infections, and whether greater intervention scale-up was required due to the increasing epidemic in this setting., Findings: To achieve a 90% reduction in incidence and prevalence by 2030, without MAT and SSP scale-up, 159 per 1000 PWID (initially 24.9% of infected PWID) need to be HCV-treated annually. However, with MAT and SSP scaled-up, treatment rates are halved (89 per 1000 annually or 14.5%). To reach the same target by 2025 with MAT and SSP scaled-up, 121 per 1000 PWID (19.9%) need treatment annually. These treatment requirements are threefold higher than if the epidemic was stable, and the impact targets are unattainable without retreatment., Conclusions: Combined scale-up of hepatitis C virus treatment and prevention interventions is needed to decrease the increasing burden of hepatitis C virus incidence and prevalence in rural Indiana, USA, by 90% by 2025/30., (© 2017 Society for the Study of Addiction.)