ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to update national estimates of the economic burden of undiagnosed diabetes, prediabetes, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the United States for year 2017 and provide state-level estimates. Combined with published estimates for diagnosed diabetes, these updated statistics provide a detailed picture of the economic costs associated with elevated blood glucose levels. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study estimated medical expenditures exceeding levels occurring in the absence of diabetes or prediabetes and the indirect economic burden associated with reduced labor force participation and productivity. Data sources analyzed included Optum medical claims for â¼5.8 million commercially insured patients continuously enrolled from 2013 to 2015, Medicare Standard Analytical Files containing medical claims for â¼2.8 million Medicare patients in 2014, and the 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample containing â¼7.1 million discharge records. Other data sources were the U.S. Census Bureau, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. RESULTS: The economic burden associated with diagnosed diabetes (all ages), undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes (adults), and GDM (mothers and newborns) reached nearly $404 billion in 2017, consisting of $327.2 billion for diagnosed diabetes, $31.7 billion for undiagnosed diabetes, $43.4 billion for prediabetes, and nearly $1.6 billion for GDM. Combined, this amounted to an economic burden of $1,240 for each American in 2017. Annual burden per case averaged $13,240 for diagnosed diabetes, $5,800 for GDM, $4,250 for undiagnosed diabetes, and $500 for prediabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Updated statistics underscore the importance of reducing the burden of prediabetes and diabetes through better detection, prevention, and treatment.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetes, Gestational , Prediabetic State , Adult , Blood Glucose , Cost of Illness , Female , Health Care Costs , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) knowledge of type 2 diabetes screening guidelines (American Diabetes Association (ADA) and 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)), the alignment between their self-reported adherence and actual practice, and how often PCPs recommended diabetes prevention and self-management education programs (DPP/DSME). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An online survey of PCPs to understand knowledge and adherence toward use of USPSTF/ADA guidelines and recommendation of DPP/DSME. Patient data from electronic medical records (EMRs) for each PCP were used to identify rates of screening in eligible patients as per guidelines and the two sources were compared to assess concordance. RESULTS: Of 305 surveyed physicians, 38% reported use of both guidelines (33% use ADA only, 25% USPSTF only). Approximately one-third of physicians who reported use of USPSTF/ADA guidelines had non-concordant EMR data. Similarly, while most PCPs reported they are 'very likely' to screen patients with risk factors listed in guidelines, for each criterion at least one-fourth (24%) of PCPs survey responses were non-concordant with EMRs. PCPs reported they provide referral to DPP and DSME on average to 45% and 67% of their newly diagnosed patients with pre-diabetes and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSION: Findings show disconnect between PCPs' perceptions of adherence to screening guidelines and actual practice, and highlight limited referrals to DPP/DSME programs. More research is needed to understand barriers to guideline consistent screening and uptake of DPP/DSME, particularly in light of recent policy changes such as the linking USPSTF criteria to reimbursement and expected Medicare DPP reimbursement in 2018.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Screening to detect prediabetes and diabetes enables early prevention and intervention. This study describes the number and characteristics of asymptomatic, undiagnosed adults in the United States who could be detected with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines compared to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. METHODS: We developed predictive models for undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes using polytomous logistic regression from data on risk factors in the 2003-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 19,056). We applied these predictive models to the 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which contains health care use data, to generate probabilities of undiagnosed diabetes and undetected prediabetes for each adult. We summed individual probabilities to estimate the number of adults who would be detected with prediabetes and/or type 2 diabetes if screened under ADA or USPSTF guidelines. We analyzed health care use patterns of people at high risk for diabetes. RESULTS: In 2010, 59.1 million adults met the USPSTF screening criteria including 24.4 million people with undetected prediabetes and 3.7 million people with undiagnosed diabetes. In comparison, among the 86.3 million people who met the ADA screening criteria, there were 33.9 million with undetected prediabetes and 4.6 million with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. The ADA guidelines detected 38.9% more cases of prediabetes and 24.3% more cases of type 2 diabetes compared to the USPSTF guidelines. Subgroup analysis showed that ADA guidelines would detect 78% more cases of diabetes among the age 54 and younger population, in 40% more blacks, and in more than twice as many Hispanics than USPSTF guidelines. Only 58% of adults meeting ADA guidelines and 70% meeting USPSTF guidelines had ≥ 1 primary care office visit in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to USPSTF guidelines, ADA guidelines would screen more people and detect more cases of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, though a substantial percentage of patients with undetected cases had no contact with a primary care provider in 2010. Addressing the problem of large numbers of undetected prediabetes and type 2 diabetes cases will require new strategies for screening.
