The Rising Cost of Insulin for Pump Users: How Policy Drives Prices.

The price of insulin has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Medicare reimbursement for insulin is based on the route of administration via syringe (Part D) or via pump (Part B). Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a voluntary model for Part D enhanced plans that lower out-of-pocket costs to a co-pay of ≤$35/month. Meanwhile, the 21st Century Cures Act and manufacturer price increases raised the cost of insulin for pump users by 304% in less than 2 years. Because insulin is a life-saving necessity and unlike other Part B infused drugs, we call on CMS to determine drug reimbursement on a drug-by-drug basis and to develop a payment model that lowers out-of-pocket costs for patients using insulin delivered via pumps.

C-PEPTIDE AND BETA-CELL AUTOANTIBODY TESTING PRIOR TO INITIATING CONTINUOUS SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION PUMP THERAPY DID NOT IMPROVE UTILIZATION OR MEDICAL COSTS AMONG OLDER ADULTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the C-peptide and beta-cell autoantibody testing required by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on costs/utilization for patients with diabetes mellitus initiating continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used propensity score-matched patients. Analysis 1 compared patients 1-year pre- and 2-years post-CSII adoption who met or did not meet CMS criteria. Analysis 2 compared Medicare Advantage patients using CSII or multiple daily injections (MDI) who did not meet CMS criteria for 1-year pre- and 1-year post-CSII adoption. Analysis 3 extended analysis 2 to 2 years postindex and also included a subset of patients ≥55 years old but not yet in Medicare Advantage. RESULTS: Analysis 1 resulted in significantly slower growth in hospital admissions ( P = .0453) in CSII-treated patients who did not meet the criteria. Analyses 2 and 3 showed numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) costs for CSII versus MDI patients (both not meeting criteria). Analysis 3 showed significantly slower growth in ED costs and hospital admissions for CSII versus MDI Medicare Advantage patients before propensity matching (both P<.05). In patients ≥55 years old, ED costs grew more slowly for CSII than MDI therapy ( P = .0678). CONCLUSION: Numerically slower growth in hospital admissions was seen for pump adopters who did not meet CMS C-peptide criteria, while medical costs growth was similar. For CSII users who did not meet the CMS criteria, numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, ED costs, and hospital admissions occurred versus MDI. ABBREVIATIONS: CMS = Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DM = diabetes mellitus; DME = durable medical equipment; ED = emergency department; MDI = multiple daily injections (of insulin).

IMPROVED HBA1C, TOTAL DAILY INSULIN DOSE, AND TREATMENT SATISFACTION WITH INSULIN PUMP THERAPY COMPARED TO MULTIPLE DAILY INSULIN INJECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES IRRESPECTIVE OF BASELINE C-PEPTIDE LEVELS.

OBJECTIVE: Fasting C-peptide levels are used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes (T2D), thereby determining eligibility for coverage of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for patients with T2D. METHODS: A total of 168 patients (74 female/94 male, aged 55.5 ± 9.7 years) were randomized to CSII, and 163 patients (77 female/86 male, aged 56.4 ± 9.5 years) were randomized to multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin and grouped by baseline C-peptide level: group A (≤183 pmol/L [≤0.55 ng/mL]); group B (>183 pmol/L [>0.55 ng/mL]). At 6 months, the MDI group crossed over to CSII. Within- and between-group comparisons were recorded at 6 and 12 months in the entire group and separately for those patients aged ≥65 years. RESULTS: CSII reduced hemoglobin A1c (A1c) equally in groups A ( P = .0006, P = .0022) and B ( P<.0001, P<.0001) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was an increase in weight in group A versus group B at 6 months but not 12 months ( P<.03). CSII therapy reduced total daily dose (TDD) of insulin and improved treatment satisfaction similarly in groups A and B. The results for patients aged ≥65 years displayed a similar trend as the entire group. CONCLUSION: A1c, TDD of insulin, and treatment satisfaction improved for T2D patients using CSII versus MDI therapy, irrespective of baseline C-peptide level. A subgroup of patients aged ≥65 years displayed a similar trend. These results support abandoning C-peptide as a criterion for reimbursing CSII therapy in patients with diabetes. ABBREVIATIONS: A1c = hemoglobin A1c; CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DTSQ = Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire; MDI = multiple daily injections; RCT = randomized controlled trials; T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes; TDD = total daily dose.

Health Care Costs, Hospital Admissions, and Glycemic Control Using a Standalone, Real-Time, Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Commercially Insured Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing standalone real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have found that rtCGM is associated with lower glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, yet does not increase the risk of severe hypoglycemia. However, little is known about the relationship between rtCGM and health care costs and utilization. The objective of this study was to compare health care spending, hospital admissions, and A1C levels of patients using rtCGM to that of patients not using rtCGM. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis used a large repository of health plan administrative data to compare average health care costs (excluding durable medical equipment), hospital admissions, and A1C levels of those using rtCGM (N = 1027) versus not using rtCGM (N = 32 583). To control for potentially confounding variables, a propensity score method was used to match patients using rtCGM to those not using rtCGM, based on characteristics such as age, gender, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Patients using rtCGM spent an average of approximately $4200 less in total health care costs, when compared to patients not using rtCGM ( P < .05). They also experienced fewer hospital admissions ( P < .05) and lower A1C ( P < .05) during the postindex year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of rtCGM by patients with T1DM is associated with lower health care costs, fewer hospital admissions, and better glycemic control.

Association between provider specialty and healthcare costs and glycemic control for patients with diabetes.

AIMS: To analyze the association between provider, healthcare costs, and glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study identified adults with type 1 or 2 DM (T1D, T2D) in the Optum database. The main independent variable was provider (endocrinologist or primary care). Regression analysis compared total medical and pharmacy costs, adjusting for health status and other patient differences, by provider. RESULTS: For all patients, HbA1C improvement was greater, and medical costs significantly lower with an endocrinologist rather than a primary care provider. The largest HbA1C improvement (4%) occurred for insulin-dependent patients seen by endocrinologists. Significant medical savings with endocrinologist management occurred within the Medicare Advantage population in every sub-group of patients, with 14% lower costs ($4,767) for patients with T1D, 11% lower costs ($3,160) for patients with macro- and microvascular complications, and 10% lower costs ($2,237) for insulin-dependent patients. Within the commercial insurance population, medical costs were reduced by ≥9% in every sub-group of patients, with a 20% reduction ($8,450) for patients with micro- and macrovascular complications. Overall total costs (medical and pharmacy) were 8% ($1,541) higher for patients receiving endocrinologist rather than primary care, although endocrinologist care resulted in a 9% reduction (-$3,710) in costs for Medicare Advantage patients with T1D. Total medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) may be a more accurate indicator of costs associated with patients in various stages of DM. LIMITATIONS: There was insufficient data to develop risk-adjustment payments for pharmacy costs based on disease severity. The cross-sectional design identifies associations and not cause-effect relationships. CONCLUSION: DM management by an endocrinologist was associated with greater HbA1C improvement and significantly lower medical costs. Total costs were higher with an endocrinologist, but for patients with T1D lower costs were seen, ranging from 2-9% regardless of insurance type.