Search

ObjectiveTo examine the association between the organizational model and diabetes processes of care.Research design and methodsWe used data from the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a multicenter study of diabetes care in managed care, including 8354 patients with diabetes. We identified five model types: for-profit group/network, for-profit independent practice association (IPA), nonprofit group/network, nonprofit IPA, and nonprofit group/staff. Process measures included retinal, renal, foot, lipid, and HbA(1c) testing; aspirin recommendations; influenza vaccination; and a sum of these seven processes of care over 1 year. Hierarchical regression models were constructed for each process measure and accounted for clustering at the health plan and provider group levels and adjusted for participant age, sex, race, ethnicity, diabetes treatment and duration, education, income, health status, and survey language.ResultsParticipant membership in the model types ranged from 9% in nonprofit IPA models to 38% in nonprofit group/staff models. Over 75% of participants received most of the processes of care, regardless of model type. However, among for-profit plans, group/network models provided on average more processes of care than IPA models (5.5 vs. 4.7, P < 0.0001), and group/network models generally increased the probability of receiving a process by >or=10 percentage points. Among nonprofit plans, no effect of model type was found.ConclusionsAmong for-profit plans, group/network models provided better diabetes processes of care than IPA models. Although reasons are speculative, this may be due to the clinical infrastructure available in group models that is not available in IPA models.

We examined ranges of A1C useful for identifying persons at high risk for diabetes prior to preventive intervention by conducting a systematic review. From 16 included studies, we found that annualized diabetes incidence ranged from 0.1% at A1C <5.0% to 54.1% at A1C ≥6.1%. Findings from 7 studies that examined incident diabetes across a broad range of A1C categories showed 1) risk of incident diabetes increased steeply with A1C across the range of 5.0 to 6.5%; 2) the A1C range of 6.0 to 6.5% was associated with a highly increased risk of incident diabetes, 25 to 50% incidence over 5 years; 3) the A1C range of 5.5 to 6.0% was associated with a moderately increased relative risk, 9 to 25% incidence over 5 years; and 4) the A1C range of 5.0 to 5.5% was associated with an increased incidence relative to those with A1C <5%, but the absolute incidence of diabetes was less than 9% over 5 years. Our systematic review demonstrated that A1C values between 5.5 and 6.5% were associated with a substantially increased risk for developing diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the costs of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) interventions to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: We describe the direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs of the placebo, metformin, and intensive lifestyle interventions over the 3-year study period of the DPP. Resource use and cost are summarized from the perspective of a large health system and society. Research costs are excluded.Results: The direct medical cost of laboratory tests to identify one subject with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) was $139. Over 3 years, the direct medical costs of the interventions were $79 per participant in the placebo group, $2,542 in the metformin group, and $2,780 in the lifestyle group. The direct medical costs of care outside the DPP were $272 less per participant in the metformin group and $432 less in the lifestyle group compared with the placebo group. Direct nonmedical costs were $9 less per participant in the metformin group and $1,445 greater in the lifestyle group compared with the placebo group. Indirect costs were $230 greater per participant in the metformin group and $174 less in the lifestyle group compared with the placebo group. From the perspective of a health system, the cost of the metformin intervention relative to the placebo intervention was $2,191 per participant and the cost of the lifestyle intervention was $2,269 per participant over 3 years. From the perspective of society, the cost of the metformin intervention relative to the placebo intervention was $2,412 per participant and the cost of the lifestyle intervention was $3,540 per participant over 3 years.Conclusions: The metformin and lifestyle interventions are associated with modest incremental costs compared with the placebo intervention. The evaluation of costs relative to health benefits will determine the value of these interventions to health systems and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates whether there were differences between men and women on the quality of health care related to the prevention of ischemic heart disease in patients with diabetes. Examination of data from diabetics whom medical records were available to document diabetes care; Research design and methods used; Sex differences in process of care measures.