Search

Background: Twenty-five states have implemented insulin out-of-pocket (OOP) cost caps, but their effectiveness is uncertain., Objective: To examine the effect of state insulin OOP caps on insulin use and OOP costs among commercially insured persons with diabetes., Design: Pre-post study with control group., Setting: Eight states implementing insulin OOP caps of $25 to $30, $50, or $100 in January 2021, and 17 control states., Participants: Commercially insured persons with diabetes and insulin users younger than 65 years. Subgroups of particular interest included members from states with insulin OOP caps of $25 to $30, enrollees with health savings accounts (HSAs) that require high insulin OOP payments, and lower-income members., Measurements: Mean monthly 30-day insulin fills and OOP costs., Results: State insulin caps were not associated with changes in insulin use in the overall population (relative change in fills per month, 1.8% [95% CI, -3.2% to 6.9%]). Insulin users in intervention states saw a 17.4% (CI, -23.9% to -10.9%) relative reduction in insulin OOP costs, largely driven by reductions among HSA enrollees; there was no difference in OOP costs among nonaccount plan members. More generous ($25 to $30) state insulin OOP caps were associated with insulin OOP cost reductions of 40.0% (CI, -62.5% to -17.6%), again primarily driven by a larger reduction in the subgroup with HSA plans., Limitations: Single national insurer; 9-month follow-up., Conclusion: Insulin OOP caps were associated with reduced insulin OOP costs but no overall increases in insulin use. A proposed national insulin cap of $35 for commercially insured persons might lead to meaningful insulin OOP savings but have a limited effect on insulin use., Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-1965.

Importance: The association of value-based medication benefits with diabetes health outcomes is uncertain., Objective: To assess the association of a preventive drug list (PDL) value-based medication benefit with acute, preventable diabetes complications., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a controlled interrupted time series design and analyzed data from a large, national, commercial health plan from January 1, 2004, through June 30, 2017, for patients with diabetes aged 12 to 64 years enrolled through employers that adopted PDLs (intervention group) and matched and weighted members with diabetes whose employers did not adopt PDLs (control group). All participants were continuously enrolled and analyzed for 1 year before and after the index date. Subgroup analysis assessed patients with diabetes living in lower-income and higher-income neighborhoods. Data analysis was performed between August 19, 2020, and December 1, 2023., Exposure: At the index date, intervention group members experienced employer-mandated enrollment in a PDL benefit that was added to their follow-up year health plan. This benefit reduced out-of-pocket costs for common cardiometabolic drugs, including noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin. Matched control group members continued to have cardiometabolic medications subject to deductibles or co-payments at follow-up., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications (eg, bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis) measured as complication days per 1000 members per year. Intermediate measures included the proportion of days covered by and higher use (mean of 1 or more 30-day fills per month) of antidiabetic agents., Results: The study 10 588 patients in the intervention group (55.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51.1 [10.1] years) and 690 075 patients in the control group (55.2% male; mean [SD] age, 51.1 [10.1] years) after matching and weighting. From baseline to follow-up, the proportion of days covered by noninsulin antidiabetic agents increased by 4.7% (95% CI, 3.2%-6.2%) in the PDL group and by 7.3% (95% CI, 5.1%-9.5%) among PDL members from lower-income areas compared with controls. Higher use of noninsulin antidiabetic agents increased by 11.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-14.5%) in the PDL group and by 15.2% (95% CI, 10.6%-19.8%) among members of the PDL group from lower-income areas compared with controls. The PDL group experienced an 8.4% relative reduction in complication days (95% CI, -13.9% to -2.8%; absolute reduction, -20.2 [95% CI, -34.3 to -6.2] per 1000 members per year) compared with controls from baseline to follow-up, while PDL members residing in lower-income areas had a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, -17.4% to -3.0%; absolute, -26.1 [95% CI, -45.8 to -6.5] per 1000 members per year)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, acute, preventable diabetes complication days decreased by 8.4% in the overall PDL group and by 10.2% among PDL members from lower-income areas compared with the control group. The results may support a strategy of incentivizing adoption of targeted cost-sharing reductions among commercially insured patients with diabetes and lower income to enhance health outcomes.

Objective: The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease-related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes., Research Design and Methods: This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year, followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1,000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment., Results: HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months [95% CI 0.4, 1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months [0.5, 5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months [1.2, 6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to control subjects at follow-up., Conclusions: People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objectives: To examine trends in high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrolment among members with diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with healthy members and compare out-of-pocket (OOP) and total spending for members with chronic conditions in HDHPs versus low deductible plans., Design: Descriptive study with time trends., Setting: A large national commercial insurance database., Participants: 1.2 million members with diabetes, 4.5 million members with CVD (without diabetes) and 18 million healthy members (defined by a low comorbidity score) under the age of 65 years and insured between 2005 and 2013., Outcome Measures: Percentage of members in an HDHP (ie, annual deductible ≥$1000) by year, annual mean OOP and total spending, adjusted for member sociodemographic and employer characteristics., Results: Enrolment in HDHPs among members in all disease categories increased by 5 percentage points a year and was over 50% by 2013. On average, over the study period, HDHP enrolment among members with diabetes and CVD was 2.84 (95% CI: 2.78 to 2.90) and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.98 to 2.05) percentage points lower, respectively, than among healthy members. HDHP members with diabetes, CVD and low morbidity had higher annual OOP costs ($636 (95% CI: 630 to 642), $539 (95% CI: 537 to 542) and $113 (95% CI: 112 to 113)) and lower total costs (-$529 (95% CI: -597 to -461), -$364 (95% CI: -385 to -342) and -$79 (95% CI: -81 to -76)), respectively, than corresponding low deductible members when averaged over the study period. Members with chronic diseases had yearly OOP expenditures that were five to seven times higher than healthier members., Conclusion: High HDHP enrolment coupled with the high OOP costs associated with HDHPs may be particularly detrimental to the financial well-being of people with diabetes and CVD, who have more healthcare needs than healthier populations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare diabetes outcomes following vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)., Background: There are few comparative studies on diabetes outcomes after VSG and RYGB., Methods: We used a US-wide commercial insurance claims database to identify adults with diabetes undergoing VSG or RYGB in 2010 to 2016. We matched patients on baseline insulin use, total diabetes medication burden, age, presence of diabetes complications, and follow-up duration, and used adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to compare diabetes medication discontinuation between procedures. We used difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in medication use intensity up to 2 years after surgery., Results: The matched cohort included 1111 VSG and 922 RYGB patients: 16% were younger than 40 years, 11% were 60 years or older, 67% were women, 67% had a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or higher, and 23% were on insulin at the time of surgery. Thirteen percent were lost to follow-up at 1 year, and 30% at 2 years after surgery. Patients with VSG were less likely than matched RYGB patients to discontinue all diabetes medications (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.88). Although both groups had substantial decreases in medication use after surgery, RYGB patients had an 86% (32%, 140%) lower total diabetes medication dose than VSG by the second half of postoperative year 2., Conclusions: In a large claims-based, nationwide cohort of bariatric patients with diabetes, those undergoing RYGB were more likely to come off all medications than those undergoing VSG. Patients with diabetes should consider this potential benefit of RYGB when making informed decisions about obesity treatments., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mail order pharmacy (MOP) use has been linked to improved medication adherence and health outcomes among patients with diabetes. However, no large-scale intervention studies have assessed the effect of encouraging MOP use on medication adherence., Objective: To assess an intervention to encourage MOP services to increase its use and medication adherence., Design: Randomized encouragement trial., Patients: 63,012 diabetes patients from three health care systems: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Kaiser Permanente Hawaii (KPHI), and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) who were poorly adherent to at least one class of cardiometabolic medications and had not used MOP in the prior 12 months., Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive either usual care (control arm) or outreach encouraging MOP use consisting of a mailed letter, secure email message, and automated telephone call outlining the potential benefits of MOP use (intervention arm). HPHC intervention patients received the letter only., Measurements: We compared the percentages of patients that began using MOP and that became adherent to cardiometabolic medication classes during a 12-month follow-up period. We also conducted a race/ethnicity-stratified analysis., Results: During follow-up, 10.6% of intervention patients began using MOP vs. 9.3% of controls (p < 0.01); the percent of cardiometabolic medication delivered via mail was 42.1% vs. 39.8% (p < 0.01). Metformin adherence improved in the intervention arm relative to control at the two KP sites (52% vs. 49%, p < 0.01). Stratified analyses suggested a significant positive effect of the intervention in White (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.22) and Asian (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.45) patients., Conclusion: This pragmatic trial showed that simple outreach to encourage MOP modestly increased its use and improved adherence measured by refills to a key class of diabetes medications in some settings. Given its minimal cost, clinicians and health systems should consider outreach interventions to actively promote MOP use among diabetes patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02621476.

Objective: Innovative mobile health technologies (mHealth) may facilitate self-management of blood glucose. This study evaluates uptake, use, and predictors of uptake and long-term use of a diabetes mHealth intervention, which comprises an FDA-approved mobile glucometer and nurse coaching, in a real-world setting., Methods: n = 4438 commercially-insured adults with diabetes were recruited from 2014 to 2015 via an opt-in, phone-based process. In this post-only study, we obtained data on recruitment, glucometer use, demographics, and insurance and employer characteristics. We calculated percent uptake and reasons for unsuccessful recruitment. We used logistic regression to model predictors of uptake and survival analysis to examine duration of testing and predictors of discontinuation., Results: Of the recruited members, 556 (12.5%) signed up for the mHealth program and 324 (7.3%) began testing. Of those who did not sign up, the majority (70.6%) were unable to be reached by phone. Male (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.03) and Spanish-speaking (OR = 8.34, 95% CI: 5.40, 12.88) members were more likely to start testing. Two-thirds (66.2%) of those who started testing had a first test value that indicated hyperglycemia; 97% tested more than once and the median time between first and last test was 407 days. Older age was the only significant predictor of long-term use., Conclusions: Although uptake of the mHealth program was low, most members who started testing had initial glucose values that indicated a need for better glucose management and the majority of patients engaged with the program for over a year. Male and Spanish-speaking members were more likely to initiate the program., (Copyright © 2019 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medication non-adherence is a major contributor to poor outcomes in diabetes. Previous research has shown an association between use of mail order pharmacy delivery and better medication adherence, but little is known about the barriers and facilitators to mail order pharmacy use in diabetes patients. This qualitative study examined factors related to mail order pharmacy use versus traditional "brick and mortar" pharmacies to refill prescriptions., Methods: We conducted four 90-min focus groups in 2016 among 28 diabetes patients in the Hawaii and Northern California regions of Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated health care delivery system. We queried participants on their preferred mode for refilling prescriptions and perceived barriers and facilitators of mail order pharmacy use. One researcher independently coded each focus group transcript, with two of these transcripts double-coded by a second researcher to promote reliability. We employed thematic analysis guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) framework using NVivo 11 software., Results: A total of 28 diabetes patients participated. Participants' average age was 64.1 years; 57% were female; and racial/ethnic backgrounds included Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (36%), Black/African-American (21%) Hispanic/Latino (7%), and non-Hispanic White (36%). Analysis uncovered 26 themes related to the decision to use mail order pharmacy, with each theme representing a barrier or facilitator mapped to the COM-B framework. Most themes (20/26) fell into the COM-B category of 'Opportunity.' Opportunity barriers to mail order pharmacy use included unpredictability of medication delivery date, concerns about mail security, and difficulty coordinating refill orders for multiple prescriptions. In contrast, facilitators included greater access and convenience (e.g., no need to wait in line or arrange transportation) compared to traditional pharmacies. Motivational facilitators to mail order pharmacy use included receiving a pharmacy benefit plan incentive of a free one-month supply of prescriptions., Conclusions: This study found that while patients with diabetes may benefit from mail order pharmacy use, they perceive numerous barriers to using the service. These findings will inform the design of interventions and quality improvement initiatives to increase mail order pharmacy use, which in turn may improve medication adherence and outcomes in diabetes patients, across health care systems.

Public and private insurers increasingly use quality payment programs as a tool to improve quality of care in primary care settings. However, little is known about primary care providers' perspectives on whether and how quality payment programs improve diabetes quality of care. In this qualitative study, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 23 providers from March to June 2015. Transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes using the immersion-crystallization method. Almost all of the providers believed that insurers play a meaningful role in improving quality of care for diabetes patients. Most thought that insurers' efforts are more effective when channeled through providers and delivery systems rather than directed at patients. Providers generally believed that quality payment programs have had a positive impact on quality of diabetes care, although provider views were not evidence based. Providers in practices in which quality payment programs were believed to have had a positive impact stated that the programs provided financial incentives and resources for improved population health management systems and additional staff. Conversely, most providers did not believe that quality payment programs have had any impact via direct financial incentives to individual physicians. A few providers were skeptical about the impact of quality payment programs and noted negative consequences that they had observed. Providers recommended strategies to improve quality payment programs (eg, refine quality measures, provide regular feedback on quality and costs) and additional strategies that insurers could consider to address provider- and patient-level barriers to high-quality diabetes care.

Objective: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are now the predominant commercial health insurance benefit in the U.S. We sought to determine the effects of HDHPs on emergency department and hospital care, adverse outcomes, and total health care expenditures among patients with diabetes., Research Design and Methods: We applied a controlled interrupted time-series design to study 23,493 HDHP members with diabetes, aged 12-64, insured through a large national health insurer from 2003 to 2012. HDHP members were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan, followed by 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1,000 deductible) after an employer-mandated switch. Patients transitioning to HDHPs were matched to 192,842 contemporaneous patients whose employers offered only low-deductible coverage. HDHP members from low-income neighborhoods ( n = 8,453) were a subgroup of interest. Utilization measures included emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and total (health plan plus member out-of-pocket) health care expenditures. Proxy health outcome measures comprised high-severity emergency department visit expenditures and high-severity hospitalization days., Results: After the HDHP transition, emergency department visits declined by 4.0% (95% CI -7.8, -0.1), hospitalizations fell by 5.6% (-10.8, -0.5), direct (nonemergency department-based) hospitalizations declined by 11.1% (-16.6, -5.6), and total health care expenditures dropped by 3.8% (-4.3, -3.4). Adverse outcomes did not change in the overall HDHP cohort, but members from low-income neighborhoods experienced 23.5% higher (18.3, 28.7) high-severity emergency department visit expenditures and 27.4% higher (15.5, 39.2) high-severity hospitalization days., Conclusions: After an HDHP switch, direct hospitalizations declined by 11.1% among patients with diabetes, likely driving 3.8% lower total health care expenditures. Proxy adverse outcomes were unchanged in the overall HDHP population with diabetes, but members from low-income neighborhoods experienced large, concerning increases in high-severity emergency department visit expenditures and hospitalization days., (© 2018 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Purpose of Review: Diabetes incidence is rising among vulnerable population subgroups including minorities and individuals with limited education. Many diabetes-related programs and public policies are unevaluated while others are analyzed with research designs highly susceptible to bias which can result in flawed conclusions. The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network includes eight research centers and three funding agencies using rigorous methods to evaluate natural experiments in health policy and program delivery., Recent Findings: NEXT-D2 research studies use quasi-experimental methods to assess three major areas as they relate to diabetes: health insurance expansion; healthcare financing and payment models; and innovations in care coordination. The studies will report on preventive processes, achievement of diabetes care goals, and incidence of complications. Some studies assess healthcare utilization while others focus on patient-reported outcomes. NEXT-D2 examines the effect of public and private policies on diabetes care and prevention at a critical time, given ongoing and rapid shifts in the US health policy landscape.

Importance: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have expanded under the Affordable Care Act and are expected to play a major role in the future of US health policy. The effects of modern HDHPs on chronically ill patients and adverse outcomes are unknown., Objective: To determine the association of HDHP with high-priority diabetes outpatient care and preventable acute complications., Design, Setting, and Participants: Controlled interrupted-time-series study using a large national health insurer database from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012. A total of 12 084 HDHP members with diabetes, aged 12 to 64 years, who were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan followed by 2 years in an HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch were included. Patients transitioning to HDHPs were propensity-score matched with contemporaneous patients whose employers offered only low-deductible coverage. Low-income (n = 4121) and health savings account (HSA)-eligible (n = 1899) patients with diabetes were subgroups of interest. Data analysis was performed from February 23, 2015, to September 11, 2016., Exposures: Employer-mandated HDHP transition., Main Outcomes and Measures: High-priority outpatient visits, disease monitoring tests, and outpatient and emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications., Results: In the 12 084 HDHP members included after the propensity score match, the mean (SD) age was 50.4 (10.0) years; 5410 of the group (44.8%) were women. The overall, low-income, and HSA-eligible diabetes HDHP groups experienced increases in out-of-pocket medical expenditures of 49.4% (95% CI, 40.3% to 58.4%), 51.7% (95% CI, 38.6% to 64.7%), and 67.8% (95% CI, 47.9% to 87.8%), respectively, compared with controls in the year after transitioning to HDHPs. High-priority primary care visits and disease monitoring tests did not change significantly in the overall HDHP cohort; however, high-priority specialist visits declined by 5.5% (95% CI, -9.6% to -1.5%) in follow-up year 1 and 7.1% (95% CI, -11.5% to -2.7%) in follow-up year 2 vs baseline. Outpatient acute diabetes complication visits were delayed in the overall and low-income HDHP cohorts at follow-up (adjusted hazard ratios, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88 to 0.99] for the overall cohort and 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98] for the low-income cohort). Annual emergency department acute complication visits among HDHP members increased by 8.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 11.4%) in the overall group, 21.7% (95% CI, 14.5% to 28.9%) in the low-income group, and 15.5% (95% CI, 10.5% to 20.6%) in the HSA-eligible group., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with diabetes experienced minimal changes in outpatient visits and disease monitoring after an HDHP switch, but low-income and HSA-eligible HDHP members experienced major increases in emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications.

Mobile and smartphone (mHealth) technologies have the potential to improve diabetes care and self-management, but little is known about their effectiveness and how patients, providers, and payers currently interact with them. We conducted a systematic review and found only 20 peer-reviewed articles, published since 2010, with robust evidence about the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for diabetes. The majority of these interventions showed improvement on primary endpoints, such as HbA1c; mHealth technologies that interacted with both patients and providers were more likely to be effective. There was little evidence about persistent use by patients, use by a patient's health care provider, or long-term effectiveness. None of the studies discussed regulatory oversight of mHealth technologies or payer reimbursement for them. No robust studies evaluated the more than 1100 publicly available smartphone apps for diabetes. More research with valid study designs and longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the impact of mHealth technologies for diabetes care and self-management.

Objective: To determine whether Massachusetts Health Reform improved health outcomes in uninsured patients with hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or hypertension., Data Source: Partners HealthCare Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR)., Study Design: We examined 1,463 patients with hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or hypertension who were uninsured in the 3 years before the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform implementation. We assessed mean quarterly total cholesterol, glycosylated hemoglobin, and systolic blood pressure in the respective cohorts for five follow-up years compared with 3,448 propensity score-matched controls who remained insured for the full 8-year study period. We used person-level interrupted time series analysis to estimate changes in outcomes adjusting for sex, age, race, estimated household income, and comorbidity. We also analyzed the subgroups of uninsured patients with poorly controlled disease at baseline, no evidence of established primary care in the baseline period, and those who received insurance in the first follow-up year., Principal Findings: In 5 years after Massachusetts Health Reform, patients who were uninsured at baseline did not experience detectable trend changes in total cholesterol (-0.39 mg/dl per quarter, 95 percent confidence interval [-1.11 to 0.33]), glycosylated hemoglobin (-0.02 percent per quarter [-0.06 to 0.03]), or systolic blood pressure (-0.06 mmHg per quarter [-0.29 to 0.18]). Analyses of uninsured patients with poorly controlled disease, no evidence of established primary care in the baseline period, and those who received insurance in the first follow-up year yielded similar findings., Conclusions: Massachusetts Health Reform was not associated with improvements in hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or hypertension control after 5 years. Interventions beyond insurance coverage might be needed to improve the health of chronically ill uninsured persons., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Consumer-directed health plans combine lower premiums with high annual deductibles, Internet-based quality-of-care information, and health savings mechanisms. These plans may encourage members to seek better value for health expenditures but may also decrease essential care. The expansion of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) represents a natural experiment of tremendous proportion. We designed a pre-post, longitudinal, quasi-experimental study to determine the effect of HDHPs on diabetes quality of care, outcomes, and disparities. We will use a 13-year rolling sample (2001-2013) of members of an HDHP and members of a control group. To reduce selection bias, we will limit participants to those whose employers mandate a single health insurance type. The study will measure rates of monthly hemoglobin A1c, lipid, and albuminuria testing; availability of blood glucose test strips; and rates of retinal examinations, high-severity emergency department visits, and preventable hospitalizations. Results could be used to design health plan features that promote high-quality care and better outcomes among people who have diabetes.