Search

OBJECTIVES: Continuity of care measures are widely used to evaluate the quality of health care delivery, but which visits are included vary across studies. Our objective was to determine how the provider specialties included affect continuity values, year-to-year stability, and association with emergency department (ED) visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of Alabama Medicaid administrative data. METHODS: We included beneficiaries with diabetes who had at least 3 outpatient visits in each of 2018 and 2019 (N = 9578). We defined 3 provider groupings: all providers, diabetes-broad (primary care, cardiology, neurology, endocrinology, ophthalmology, nephrology, and psychiatry), and diabetes-narrow (primary care and endocrinology). Continuity of care was calculated using the Continuity of Care Index (COCI) for each provider grouping. We compared correlation between measures and from year to year using Spearman correlations, and we used multivariable logistic regression to determine association with ED visits. RESULTS: The mean COCI was 0.54 using visits with all providers, 0.64 with diabetes-broad providers, and 0.83 with diabetes-narrow providers. COCI with diabetes-narrow providers was moderately correlated with the broader sets of providers (Spearman ρ, 0.52-0.65). Comparing each participant's COCI in 2018 with that in 2019, the mean intraperson difference was similar (0.16-0.22), and correlation was moderate (Spearman ρ, 0.41-0.47) for each measure. COCI had similar weak association with ED visits using each provider grouping (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99 for each 0.1-unit difference in COCI). CONCLUSIONS: Continuity values differed substantially depending on which provider specialties were included. The importance of this variation is uncertain, as continuity was weakly associated with ED visits using each of the measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diabetes distress affects approximately 36% of adults with diabetes and is associated with worse diabetes self‐management and poor glycaemic control. We characterized participants' diabetes distress and studied the relationship between social support and diabetes distress. Methods: In this cross‐sectional study, we surveyed a population‐based sample of adults with type 2 diabetes covered by Alabama Medicaid. We used the Diabetes Distress Scale assessing emotional burden, physician‐related, regimen‐related and interpersonal distress. We assessed participants' level of diabetes‐specific social support and satisfaction with this support, categorized as low or moderate–high. We performed multivariable logistic regression of diabetes distress by level of and satisfaction with social support, adjusting for demographics, disease severity, self‐efficacy and depressive symptoms. Results: In all, 1147 individuals participated; 73% were women, 41% White, 58% Black and 3% Hispanic. Low level of or satisfaction with social support was reported by 11% of participants; 7% of participants had severe diabetes distress. Participants with low satisfaction with social support were statistically significantly more likely to have severe diabetes distress than those with moderate–high satisfaction, adjusted odds ratio 2.43 (95% CI 1.30, 4.54). Conclusions: Interventions addressing diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from a focus on improving diabetes‐specific social support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We evaluated patient-level factors associated with receipt of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing among Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of person-year observations from Medicaid claims data from 2011 to 2020. Adults aged 19-64 years with type 2 diabetes and continuous enrollment in Medicaid for study year and year prior were included. Primary outcomes were ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 HbA1c test(s) per year. We conducted multivariable Poisson regression stratified by Medicaid eligibility reason (disability, poverty) examining the association of study year, demographics, clinical factors, and healthcare utilization with HbA1c testing., Results: We analyzed 288,379 observations, 51% with disability-based, 49% poverty-based eligibility. Overall, 57% observations had ≥ 1 HbA1c, 35% had ≥ 2 HbA1c tests. More observations with disability-based than poverty-based eligibility had ≥ 1 (76% vs. 38%) and ≥ 2 HbA1c tests (49% vs. 20%). Patient-level factors were associated with a higher likelihood of having ≥ 1 HbA1c: Black race and older age (disability-based eligibility); year after 2011, female sex, and younger age (poverty-based eligibility); and rurality, insulin use, endocrinology care, diabetes complications, and ambulatory care visits (both groups)., Conclusions: Just over one-third of adult Alabama Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes had ≥ 2 HbA1c tests per year; testing frequency differed by Medicaid eligibility., (Copyright © 2023 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Despite advances in diabetes management, only one-quarter of people with diabetes in the US achieve optimal targets for glycated hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ), blood pressure, and cholesterol. We sought to evaluate temporal trends and predictors of achieving glycemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes covered by Alabama Medicaid from 2011 through 2019., Methods: We completed a retrospective analysis of Medicaid claims and laboratory data, using person-years as the unit of analysis. Inclusion criteria were being aged 19 to 64 years, having a diabetes diagnosis, being continuously enrolled in Medicaid for a calendar year and preceding 12 months, and having at least 1 HbA 1c result during the study year. Primary outcomes were HbA 1c thresholds of <7% and <8%. Primary exposure was study year. We conducted separate multivariable-adjusted logistic regressions to evaluate relationships between study year and HbA 1c thresholds., Results: We included 43,997 person-year observations. Mean (SD) age was 51.0 (9.9) years; 69.4% were women; 48.1% were Black, 42.9% White, and 0.4% Hispanic. Overall, 49.1% had an HbA 1c level of <7% and 64.6% <8%. Later study years and poverty-based eligibility were associated with lower probability of reaching target HbA 1c levels of <7% or <8%. Sex, race, ethnicity, and geography were not associated with likelihood of reaching HbA 1c <7% or <8% in any model., Conclusion: Later study years were associated with lower likelihood of meeting target HbA 1c levels compared with 2011, after adjusting for covariates. With approximately 35% not meeting an HbA 1c target of <8%, more work is needed to improve outcomes of low-income adults with type 2 diabetes.

Purpose: To describe patterns of care use for Alabama Medicaid adult beneficiaries with diabetes and the association between primary care utilization and ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) diabetes hospitalizations., Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzes Alabama Medicaid claims data from January 2010 to April 2018 for 52,549 covered adults ages 19-64 with diabetes. Individuals were characterized by demographics, comorbidities, and health care use including primary, specialty, mental health and hospital care. Characteristics of those with and without any ACS diabetes hospitalization are reported. A set of 118,758 observations was created, pairing information on primary care use in one year with ACS hospitalizations in the following year. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the impact of primary care use on the occurrence of an ACS hospitalization., Results: One third of the cohort had at least one ACS diabetes hospitalization over their observed periods; hospital users tended to have multiple ACS hospitalizations. Hospital users had more comorbidities and pharmaceutical and other types of care use than those with no ACS hospitalizations. Controlling for other types of care use, comorbidities and demographics, having a primary care visit in one year was significantly associated with a reduced likelihood of ACS hospitalization in the following year (odds ratio comparing 1-2 visits versus none 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.85)., Conclusions: Program and population health interventions that increase access to primary care can have a beneficial effect of reducing excess inpatient hospital use for Medicaid covered adults with diabetes., (Copyright © 2021 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Among nonelderly adults with diabetes, we compared hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions from 2013 (pre-Medicaid expansion) and 2014 (post-Medicaid expansion) for 13 expansion and 4 nonexpansion states using State Inpatient Databases. Medicaid expansion was associated with decreases in proportions of hospitalizations for chronic conditions (difference between 2014 and 2013 -0.17 percentage points in expansion and 0.37 in nonexpansion states, P = .04), specifically diabetes short-term complications (difference between 2014 and 2013 -0.05 percentage points in expansion and 0.21 in nonexpansion states, P = .04). Increased access to care through Medicaid expansion may improve disease management in nonelderly adults with diabetes.