Search

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a prevalent condition for which screening rates remain low and disparities in screening exist. This study examines the impacts of a medical assistant screening protocol on the rates of depression screening, overall and by sociodemographic groups, in a primary care setting. METHODS: Between September 2016 and August 2018, a quasi-experimental study of adult primary care visits was conducted at an urban academic clinic to ascertain the change in the rates of completion of the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 after the implementation of a medical assistant protocol (intervention) versus that of physician-only screening (control arm). Analyses were conducted between April 2019 and April 2020 and used interrupted time-series models with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 45,157 visits by 21,377 unique patients were included. Overall, screening increased from 18% (physician-only screening) to 57% (medical assistant protocol) (p

This report details ongoing efforts to improve integration in the 2 years following implementation of the Primary Care Behavioral Health model at a general internal medicine clinic of an urban academic medical center. Efforts were informed by a modified version of the validated Level of Integration Measure, sent to all faculty and staff annually. At baseline, results indicated that the domains of systems integration, training, and integrated clinical practices had the greatest need for improvement. Over the 2 years, the authors increased availability of behavioral medicine appointments, improved depression screening processes, offered behavioral health training for providers, disseminated clinical decision support tools, and provided updates about integration progress during clinic meetings. Follow-up survey results demonstrated that physicians and staff perceived improvements in integration overall and in targeted domains. However, the main ongoing barrier to integration was insufficient behavioral health staff to meet patient demand for behavioral health services.

Aim To evaluate the U.S. population-level impact of two alternatives for initial type 2 diabetes screening [opportunistic random plasma glucose (RPG) > 6.7 mmol/l and a 1-h 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) > 8.9 mmol/l] compared with American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended tests. Methods Using a sample (n = 1471) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014 that represented 145 million U.S. adults at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes, we simulated a two-test screening process. We compared ADA-recommended screening tests [fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c ] vs. initial screening with opportunistic RPG or GCT (followed by FPG, OGTT or HbA1c ). After simulation, participants were entered into an individual-level Monte Carlo-based Markov lifetime outcomes model. Primary outcomes were representative number of U.S. adults correctly identified with type 2 diabetes, societal lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results In NHANES 2013-2014, 100 individuals had undiagnosed diabetes [weighted estimate: 8.4 million, standard error (se): 1.1 million]. Among ADA-recommended screening tests, FPG followed by OGTT (FPG-OGTT) was most sensitive, identifying 35 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes (weighted estimate: 3.2 million, se: 0.9 million). Four alternative screening strategies performed superior to FPG-OGTT, with RPG followed by OGTT being the most sensitive overall, identifying 72 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes (weighted estimate: 6.1 million, se: 1.0 million). There was no increase in average lifetime costs and comparable QALYs. Conclusions Initial screening using opportunistic RPG or a GCT may identify more U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes without increasing societal costs.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) are a recent class of medication approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Previous meta-analyses have quantified the benefits and harms of SGLT2Is; however, these analyses have been limited to specific outcomes and comparisons and included trials of short duration. We comprehensively reviewed the longer-term benefits and harms of SGLT2Is compared to placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medications. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to July 2019 for randomized controlled trials of minimum 52 weeks’ duration that enrolled adults with T2D, compared an SGLT2I to either placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medications, and reported at least one outcome of interest including cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, mortality, and adverse events. We conducted random effects meta-analyses to provide summary estimates using weighted mean differences (MD) and pooled relative risks (RR). The study was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42018090506). RESULTS: Fifty articles describing 39 trials (vs. placebo, n = 28; vs. other anti-hyperglycemic medication, n = 12; vs. both, n = 1) and 112,128 patients were included in our analyses. Compared to placebo, SGLT2Is reduced cardiovascular risk factors (e.g., hemoglobin A1c, MD − 0.55%, 95% CI − 0.62, − 0.49), macrovascular outcomes (e.g., hospitalization for heart failure, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62, 0.78), and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80, 0.94). Compared to other anti-hyperglycemic medications, SGLT2Is reduced cardiovascular risk factors, but insufficient data existed for other outcomes. About a fourfold increased risk of genital yeast infections for both genders was observed for comparisons vs. placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. DISCUSSION: We found that SGLT2Is led to durable reductions in cardiovascular risk factors compared to both placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. Reductions in macrovascular complications and mortality were only observed in comparisons with placebo, although trials comparing SGLT2Is vs. other anti-hyperglycemic medications were not designed to assess longer-term outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07227-0.

Objectives Early antibiotic administration is a central component of sepsis guidelines, and delays may increase mortality. However, prior studies have examined the delay to first antibiotic administration as a single time period even though it contains two distinct processes: antibiotic ordering and antibiotic delivery, which can each be targeted for improvement through different interventions. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare patients who experienced order or delivery delays, investigate the association of each delay type with mortality, and identify novel patient subphenotypes with elevated risk of harm from delays. Design Retrospective analysis of multicenter inpatient data. Setting Two tertiary care medical centers (2008-2018, 2006-2017) and four community-based hospitals (2008-2017). Patients All patients admitted through the emergency department who met clinical criteria for infection. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Patient demographics, vitals, laboratory values, medication order and administration times, and in-hospital survival data were obtained from the electronic health record. Order and delivery delays were calculated for each admission. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between each delay and in-hospital mortality. Causal forests, a machine learning method, was used to identify a high-risk subgroup. A total of 60,817 admissions were included, and delays occurred in 58% of patients. Each additional hour of order delay (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05) and delivery delay (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) was associated with increased mortality. A patient subgroup identified by causal forests with higher comorbidity burden, greater organ dysfunction, and abnormal initial lactate measurements had a higher risk of death associated with delays (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09 vs odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03). Conclusions Delays in antibiotic ordering and drug delivery are both associated with a similar increase in mortality. A distinct subgroup of high-risk patients exist who could be targeted for more timely therapy.

The urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic has increased attention on the need to include patients traditionally underrepresented in research, especially people with comorbid diseases, racial/ethnic minorities, pregnant/lactating women, and children.1–4 We characterized the inclusion and exclusion criteria of US COVID-19 treatment trials to understand their applicability to highly affected populations and groups traditionally underrepresented in research.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses of the benefits and harms of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have been limited to specific outcomes and comparisons and often included short-term results. We aimed to estimate the longer-term effects of GLP1RAs on cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, mortality, and adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov (inception–July 2019) for randomized controlled trials ≥ 52 weeks’ duration that compared a GLP1RA to placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medication and included at least one outcome of interest. Outcomes included cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, and treatment-related adverse events. We performed random effects meta-analyses to give summary estimates using weighted mean differences (MD) and pooled relative risks (RR). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias in randomized trials tool. Quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The study was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42018090506). RESULTS: Forty-five trials with a mean duration of 1.7 years comprising 71,517 patients were included. Compared to placebo, GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular complications (including renal events, RR 0.85, 0.80–0.90), macrovascular complications (including stroke, RR 0.86, 0.78–0.95), and mortality (RR 0.89, 0.84–0.94). Compared to other anti-hyperglycemic medications, GLP1RAs only reduced cardiovascular risk factors. Increased gastrointestinal events causing treatment discontinuation were observed in both comparisons. DISCUSSION: GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors and increased gastrointestinal events compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. GLP1RAs also reduced MACE, stroke, renal events, and mortality in comparisons with placebo; however, analyses were inconclusive for comparisons with other anti-hyperglycemic medications. Given the high costs of GLP1RAs, the lack of long-term evidence comparing GLP1RAs to other anti-hyperglycemic medications has significant policy and clinical practice implications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07105-9.

In this narrative review, we summarise the evidence for and against the glycaemic legacy effect from the long-term follow-up of major diabetes trials and observational cohort studies. We provide a summary of the pathophysiological basis for the legacy effect and discuss some translational research. Results from trials of early diabetes and observational cohort studies suggest that a long-term effect of early glycaemic control exists; however, long-term follow-up from trials in participants with established diabetes is not supportive. Additionally, findings for the legacy effect are more conclusive for microvascular complications than macrovascular events. Overall, these results suggest that the glycaemic legacy effect is a long-term benefit (or risk) conferred to individuals in the early stages of diabetes and which is muted over time as individuals' vasculature changes and they develop complications from diabetes.

Importance: Medication non-adherence is highly costly and leads to worse disease control and outcomes. However, knowledge about medication adherence is often disconnected from prescribing decisions, and this disconnect may lead to inappropriate increases in medications and higher risks of adverse events. Objectives: To evaluate the association between medication non-adherence and the likelihood of increases in the intensity of medication regimens for two chronic conditions, hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Design: Cohort Study. Setting and Participants: This study used US national pharmacy claims data for Medicare Part D (ages ≥ 65) and commercial (ages 50–64) plans to evaluate medication adherence and its association with the likelihood of receiving an increase in medication intensity for patients with hypertension and/or oral diabetes medication fills. Patients had an index fill for hypertension (N = 2,536,638) and/or oral diabetes (N = 701,376) medications in January 2015. Medication fills in the follow-up period from August 2015 to December 2016 were assessed for increases in medication regimen intensity. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The proportion of days covered (PDC) over 181 days was used as a measure for patient’s medication adherence before a medication addition, medication increase, or dosage increase. Differences in the likelihood of experiencing an escalation in medication intensity was considered between patients with a PDC &lt, 80% vs. PDC ≥ 80%. Results: Among Medicare Part D and commercial plan patients filling hypertension and/or oral diabetes medications, non-adherent patients were significantly more likely to experience an intensification of their medication regimens (p &lt, 0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found a significant association between non-adherence to medications and a higher likelihood of patients experiencing potentially inappropriate increases in treatment intensity. Sharing of objective patient refill data between retail pharmacies and prescribers can enable prescribers to have more targeted discussions with patients about their adherence and overall treatment plan. Additionally, it can increase safe medication prescribing and plausibly reduce adverse drug events and healthcare costs while improving patient health outcomes.

Background Scribes have been proposed as an intervention to decrease physician electronic health record (EHR) workload and improve clinical quality. We aimed to assess the impact of a scribe on clinical efficiency and quality in an academic internal medicine practice. Methods Six faculty physicians worked with one scribe at an urban academic general internal medicine clinic April through June 2017. Patient visits during the 3 months prior to intervention (baseline, n = 789), unscribed visits during the intervention (concurrent control, n = 605), and scribed visits (n = 579) were included in the study. Clinical efficiency outcomes included time to close encounter, patient time in clinic, and number of visits per clinic session. Quality outcomes included EHR note quality, rates of medication and immunization review, population of patient instructions, reconciliation of outside information, and completion of preventative health recommendations. Results Median time to close encounter (IQR) was lower for scribed visits [0.4 (4.8) days] compared to baseline and unscribed visits [1.2 (5.9) and 2.9 (5.4) days, both p p = 0.001] and sufficient HPI information [OR = 2.21 (1.13–4.35), p = 0.02] compared to unscribed notes. Physicians were more likely to review the medication list during scribed vs. baseline visits [OR = 1.70 (1.22–2.35), p = 0.002]. No differences were found in the number of visits per clinic session, patient time in clinic, completion of preventative health recommendations, or other outcomes. Conclusions Working with a scribe in an academic internal medicine practice was associated with more timely documentation.

Background Depression is one of the most common illnesses in the United States, with increased prevalence among people with lower socioeconomic status and chronic mental illness who often seek care in the emergency department (ED). We sought to estimate the rate and severity of major depressive disorder (MDD) in a nonpsychiatric ED population and its association with subsequent ED visits and hospitalizations. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled a convenience sample of English-speaking adults presenting to an urban academic medical center ED without psychiatric complaints between January 1, 2015, and September 21, 2015. Patients completed a computerized adaptive depression diagnostic screen (CAD-MDD) and dimensional depression severity measurement test (CAT-DI) via tablet computer. Primary outcomes included number of ED visits and hospitalizations assessed from index visit until January 1, 2016. Negative binomial regression modeling was performed to assess associations between depression, depression severity, clinical covariates, and utilization outcomes. Results Of 999 enrolled patients, 27% screened positive for MDD. The presence of MDD conveyed a 61% increase in the rate of ED visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 2.03) and a 49% increase in the rate of hospitalizations (IRR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.06-2.09). For each 10% increase in MDD severity, there was a 10% increase in the relative rate of subsequent ED visits (IRR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.16) and hospitalizations (IRR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.18). Across the range of the severity scale there was over a 2.5-fold increase in the rate of ED visits and hospitalization rates. Conclusions Rates of depression were high among a convenience sample of English-speaking adult ED patients presenting with nonpsychiatric complaints and independently associated with increased risk of subsequent ED utilization and hospitalization. Standardized assessment tools that provide rapid, accurate, and precise classification of MDD severity have the potential to play an important role in identifying ED patients in need of urgent psychiatric resource referral.

Background: Clinical trials of SGLT2Is and GLP1RAs have shown improved outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, but comprehensive data of their effectiveness in the Asian subpopulation are lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials evaluating SGLT2Is and GLP1RAs was conducted to assess their efficacy in Asians with type 2 diabetes. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to July 2019 for randomized controlled trials (≥52 weeks) that enrolled Asians with type 2 diabetes and reported outcome data for SGLT2Is or GLP1RAs compared to placebo or other diabetic medications. Using random effect models, binary outcomes were evaluated with relative risks (RR) and continuous outcomes were evaluated with standardized mean differences (MD). Results: The analysis included 9 trials for SGLT2Is and 11 trials for GLP1RAs. Compared to placebo, SGLT2Is reduced HbA1c (MD: -0.70%, 95% CI: -1.29% to -0.10%) and weight (MD: -1.52 kg, -2.08 to -0.96 kg); compared to other diabetic medications, SGLT2Is reduced systolic blood pressure (MD: -6.42 mmHg, -9.43 to -3.41 mmHg). Compared to placebo, SGLT2Is increased the risk of genital infection (RR: 2.51, 1.01 to 6.21) but reduced the risk for renal events (RR: 0.69, 0.57 to 0.84). GLP1RAs were associated with lower HbA1c (MD: -0.65%, -1.07% to -0.22%) and weight (MD: -2.06 kg, -3.20 to -0.93 kg) when compared to other diabetic medications. GLP1RAs also reduced major cardiovascular events compared to placebo (RR: 0.72, 0.59 to 0.89). Data were not available for comparisons between GLP1RAs and placebo for other outcomes. Neither SGLT2Is or GLP1RAs had sufficient evidence to suggest their use was associated with a change in all-cause mortality. Conclusion: In the Asian subpopulation, clinical trials provide evidence for a reduction in cardiovascular risk factors and some diabetes-related adverse events by SGLT2Is and GLP1RAs. Disclosure R. Johnson: None. M. Franco: None. E. M. Staab: None. A. C. Knitter: None. W. Wan: None. J. Alexander: None. N. Laiteerapong: Other Relationship; Self; American Diabetes Association. Funding American Diabetes Association (1-18-JDF-037 to N.L.)

Background: Adults with type 2 diabetes and Medicaid insurance are a highly vulnerable population. Despite the vital role of primary care for diabetes management, few studies have examined how the type of primary care setting affects quality of care for this population, and existing studies have not examined data across the US. Since federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are the primary care safety net for many Medicaid patients, we compared process of care outcomes and acute care utilization for non-elderly adult Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes at FQHC vs. non-FQHC primary care settings. Methods: We analyzed 2012 Medicaid fee-for-service and managed care claims data in all 50 states and DC in order to compare 8 processes of care and acute care utilization for patients receiving care at FQHCs (N=121,977) vs. non-FQHCs (N=700,401). We used propensity score overlap weighting to obtain groups balanced on covariates, then used generalized estimating equation models to compare the two groups. Results: FQHC patients had 2.6-3.6% lower rates of each measure compared to non-FQHC patients, with the exception of a higher rate of diabetes education (relative risk, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.16]). Compared to non-FQHC patients, FQHC patients had more overall (incident rate ratio, 1.06 [1.05-1.07]) and diabetes-related emergency department (ED) visits (1.10 [1.08-1.13]), but fewer overall (0.87 [0.86-0.88]) and diabetes-related hospitalizations (0.79 [0.77-0.81]). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes receiving primary care at FQHCs may have limited access to both preventative and urgent diabetes care. FQHC patients with diabetes may visit EDs more frequently as a result of limited appointment availability or access to specialists at FQHCs. These results underscore the need for increased support and funding for Medicaid patients with type 2 diabetes, especially in FQHCs. Disclosure A. C. Knitter: None. M. Murugesan: None. L. Saulsberry: None. W. Wan: None. R. Nocon: None. E. Huang: None. J. Bolton: None. M. Chin: Advisory Panel; Self; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. N. Laiteerapong: Other Relationship; Self; American Diabetes Association. Funding Health Resources and Services Administration (HHSH250201300025I); National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK092949)

Frontiers in oncology 11, 630953 (2021). doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.630953 special issue: "Advances in Mathematical and Computational Oncology, Volume II", Published by Frontiers Media, Lausanne

Purpose Both undertreatment and overtreatment of hypothyroidism with thyroid hormone are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Disparities in the treatment of hypothyroidism may lead to a higher risk of adverse outcomes for certain sociodemographic groups. Our objectives were to identify sociodemographic disparities between those with treated and untreated hypothyroidism, and between those who were adequately and inadequately treated. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of US adults aged 20 years and older with hypothyroidism (n = 698). The main measures were age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, and health care access differences among those with treated and untreated hypothyroidism. Results Of those with hypothyroidism, women were more likely than men to be taking thyroid hormone (odds ratio [OR] 2.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42–4.99]), as were older participants (45–69 years old vs 20–44 years old: OR 7.25 [95% CI 4.15–12.67]; 70 years of age and older: OR 11.00 [95% CI 5.30–22.79]). Health care access was strongly associated with thyroid hormone use (OR 14.32, 95% CI 3.63–56.58). Hispanic race/ethnicity was associated with inadequate treatment compared with non-Hispanic whites (OR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.14–5.14). Main Conclusions Male gender, younger age, and lack of health care access were associated with untreated hypothyroidism, and Hispanic race was associated with inadequate treatment of hypothyroidism. Clinicians should be aware of these sociodemographic disparities in the hypothyroid population and consider strategies to improve treatment of hypothyroidism in men, younger adults, Hispanics, and those without routine health care access.

BACKGROUND: The 2016 American Diabetes Association position statement emphasized that psychosocial and medical care should be integrated and provided to all people with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether better integration of diabetes and depression care is associated with better glycemic control. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys of Midwestern federally qualified health center (FQHC) leaders and primary care providers (PCPs) in 2016. Responses were linked to FQHC-level data on the percentage of patients with uncontrolled diabetes (glycated hemoglobin ≥ 9%; 75 mmol/mol). PARTICIPANTS: Midwest Clinicians’ Network–affiliated FQHC leaders, and PCPs at the FQHCs. MAIN MEASURES: Multilevel models were used to determine associations between the percentage of patients with uncontrolled diabetes and FQHC and PCP characteristics; presence of diabetes and behavioral health care services; and PCPs’ perception of the stage of integration between diabetes and depression care services based on the transtheoretical model (i.e., pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, or maintenance). KEY RESULTS: Response rates were 60% for the FQHC survey (N = 77) and 55% for the PCP survey (N = 538). In adjusted models, FQHCs in which PCPs perceived a higher stage of integration between diabetes and depression care had 3% fewer patients with uncontrolled diabetes per 1-level increase in integration stage (p = 0.01); on-site diabetes self-management education was associated with 7% fewer patients with uncontrolled diabetes (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: At Midwestern FQHCs, a higher stage of perceived integration of diabetes and depression care was associated with better FQHC-level glycemic control. Future studies are needed to elucidate what defines integration of diabetes and depression care services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06585-5.

Background Despite widespread interest in the use of virtual (ie, telephone and video) visits for ambulatory patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, studies examining their adoption during the pandemic by race, sex, age, or insurance are lacking. Moreover, there have been limited evaluations to date of the impact of these sociodemographic factors on the use of telephone versus video visits. Such assessments are crucial to identify, understand, and address differences in care delivery across patient populations, particularly those that could affect access to or quality of care. Objective The aim of this study was to examine changes in ambulatory visit volume and type (ie, in-person vs virtual and telephone vs video visits) by patient sociodemographics during the COVID-19 pandemic at one urban academic medical center. Methods We compared volumes and patient sociodemographics (age, sex, race, insurance) for visits during the first 11 weeks following the COVID-19 national emergency declaration (March 15 to May 31, 2020) to visits in the corresponding weeks in 2019. Additionally, for visits during the COVID-19 study period, we examined differences in visit type (ie, in-person versus virtual, and telephone versus video visits) by sociodemographics using multivariate logistic regression. Results Total visit volumes in the COVID-19 study period comprised 51.4% of the corresponding weeks in 2019 (n=80,081 vs n=155,884 visits). Although patient sociodemographics between the COVID-19 study period in 2020 and the corresponding weeks in 2019 were similar, 60.5% (n=48,475) of the visits were virtual, compared to 0% in 2019. Of the virtual visits, 61.2% (n=29,661) were video based, and 38.8% (n=18,814) were telephone based. In the COVID-19 study period, virtual (vs in-person) visits were more likely among patients with race categorized as other (vs White) and patients with Medicare (vs commercial) insurance and less likely for men, patients aged 0-17 years, 65-74 years, or ≥75 years (compared to patients aged 18-45 years), and patients with Medicaid insurance or insurance categorized as other. Among virtual visits, compared to telephone visits, video visits were more likely to be adopted by patients aged 0-17 years (vs 18-45 years), but less likely for all other age groups, men, Black (vs White) patients, and patients with Medicare or Medicaid (vs commercial) insurance. Conclusions Virtual visits comprised the majority of ambulatory visits during the COVID-19 study period, of which a majority were by video. Sociodemographic differences existed in the use of virtual versus in-person and video versus telephone visits. To ensure equitable care delivery, we present five policy recommendations to inform the further development of virtual visit programs and their reimbursement.

Background Economic analyses of medical scribes have been limited to individual, specialty-specific clinics. Objective To determine the number of additional patient visits various specialties would need to recover the costs of implementing scribes in their practice at 1 year. Design Modeling study based on 2015 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Scribe costs were based on literature review and a third-party contractor model. Revenue was calculated from direct visit billing, CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) billing, and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Data sources 2015 data from CMS and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Target population Health care providers. Time horizon 1 year. Perspective Office-based clinic. Outcome measures The number of additional patient visits a physician must have to recover the costs of a scribe program at 1 year. Results of base-case analysis An average of 1.34 additional new patient visits per day (295 per year) were required to recover scribe costs (range, 0.89 [cardiology] to 1.80 [orthopedic surgery] new patient visits per day). For returning patients, an average of 2.15 additional visits per day (472 per year) were required (range, 1.65 [cardiology] to 2.78 [orthopedic surgery] returning visits per day). The addition of 2 new patient (or 3 returning) visits per day was profitable for all specialties. Results of sensitivity analysis Results were not sensitive to most inputs, with the exception of hourly scribe cost and inclusion of CPT revenue. Limitation Use of Medicare data and failure to account for indirect costs, downstream revenue, or changes in documentation quality. Conclusion For all specialties, modest increases in productivity due to scribes may allow physicians to see more patients and offset scribe costs, making scribe programs revenue-neutral. Primary funding source University of Chicago Medicine's Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation and the Bucksbaum Institute.

Background: Several large randomized trials suggest GLP-1RAs may reduce mortality in addition to lowering A1c in patients with T2D. Treatment algorithms from the ADA/EASD now recommend a GLP-1RA be initiated in patients with T2D who either have or are at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease, regardless of A1c level. To better quantify the efficacy and safety of GLP-1RAs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials of this drug class. Methods: We searched PubMed and Scopus (inception to June 2019) for randomized trials of at least 52 weeks duration enrolling adults with T2D that compared GLP-1RAs with placebo. Outcomes included microvascular/macrovascular complications, mortality, change in cardiovascular risk factors, and adverse events. Continuous outcomes were calculated with standardized mean differences, and binary outcomes were calculated using odds ratios. Pooled analyses were performed with fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results: See Table for results. Conclusions: Patients with T2D who received GLP-1RAs when compared to placebo had a significantly lower rate of major adverse CV events and A1c. These findings support the current ADA/EASD treatment recommendations. Subsequent cost effectiveness analyses will help further inform healthcare policy decisions. Disclosure J. Alexander: None. E.M. Staab: None. W. Wan: None. M. Franco: None. A.C. Knitter: None. C.C. Thomas: None. V.G. Press: Consultant; Self; Humana, Vizient Inc. M. Zeytinoglu: None. R. Skandari: None. K.E. Gunter: None. B. Bindon: None. S. Jumani: None. S.D. Bolen: None. N.M. Maruthur: Other Relationship; Self; Johns Hopkins HealthCare Solutions. E. Huang: None. L.H. Philipson: None. N. Laiteerapong: None. Funding American Diabetes Association (1-18-JDF-037 to N.L.); National Institutes of Health (P30DK092949)

Background: Several large randomized trials suggest SGLT2Is may reduce mortality in addition to lowering A1c in patients with T2D. Treatment algorithms from the ADA and EASD now recommend a SGLT2I be initiated in patients with T2D who have chronic kidney disease or heart failure, regardless of A1c level. To better quantify the efficacy and safety of SGLT2Is, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials of this drug class. Methods: We searched PubMed and Scopus (inception to June 2019) for randomized trials of at least 52 weeks duration enrolling adults with T2D that compared SGLT2Is with placebo. Outcomes included microvascular/macrovascular complications, mortality, change in cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, and adverse events. Continuous outcomes were calculated with standardized mean differences, and binary outcomes were calculated using odds ratios. Pooled analyses were performed with fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Results: See Table for results. Conclusions: Patients who received SGLT2Is when compared to placebo had significantly lower rates of heart failure and A1c. These findings support the current ADA/EASD treatment recommendations. Subsequent cost effectiveness analyses will help further inform healthcare policy decisions. Disclosure J. Alexander: None. E.M. Staab: None. W. Wan: None. M. Franco: None. A.C. Knitter: None. C.C. Thomas: None. V.G. Press: Consultant; Self; Humana, Vizient Inc. M. Zeytinoglu: None. R. Skandari: None. K.E. Gunter: None. B. Bindon: None. S. Jumani: None. S.D. Bolen: None. N.M. Maruthur: Other Relationship; Self; Johns Hopkins HealthCare Solutions. E. Huang: None. L.H. Philipson: None. N. Laiteerapong: None. Funding American Diabetes Association (1-18-JDF-037 to N.L.); National Institutes of Health (P30DK092949)

Objective: We examined how diabetes medication initiation after first diagnosis varied by race/ethnicity. Method: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 66,939 patients with newly diagnosed diabetes using data from a large integrated healthcare system. We classified patients into 12 race/ethnicity groups (see Table) and assessed their associations with diabetes medication initiation within 1, 12 and 18 months after diagnosis. We used a modified Poisson regression to estimate risk ratios adjusted for pre-diagnosis demographics and clinical characteristics. Results: Medications were started in 30%, 43% and 48% of patients within 1, 12 and 18 months, respectively. Within 1 month of diagnosis, Chinese, Filipino, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander were less likely to initiate a medication compared to whites. Results were consistent at 12 and 18 months, except that Japanese and blacks/African Americans were less likely to initiate compared to whites and that there was no difference between Native Hawaiian/Pacific islanders and whites at 18 months. Conclusions: We observed persistent racial differences between patients receiving any medication following initial diabetes diagnosis, with the largest differences for several Asian populations. Disclosure A.N. Winn: None. A.J. Karter: Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc. E.M. Staab: None. J. Liu: None. W. Wan: None. R. Skandari: None. A.C. Knitter: None. H.H. Moffet: None. D.R. Miller: None. M.E. Peek: Research Support; Self; Merck Foundation. E. Huang: None. N. Laiteerapong: None.

Expanding access to addiction screening and treatment in primary care, particularly in underserved communities, is a key part of the fight against the opioid epidemic. This study explored correlates of addiction treatment capacity in federally qualified health centers participating in the Midwest Clinicians' Network (MWCN).Two surveys were fielded to 132 MWCN health centers: the Health Center Survey and the Behavioral Health and Diabetes Provider Survey. A total of 77 centers and 515 primary care clinicians, respectively, responded to the surveys. Data were combined with data from the 2016 Uniform Data System and information about receipt of targeted Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) grant funding for addiction treatment capacity. Multivariable models examined associations between Medicaid reimbursement for addiction services, HRSA targeted grant funding, and different types of on-site addiction treatment capacity: psychiatrist and certified addiction counselor staffing, addiction counseling services, and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid addiction.Health centers that received Medicaid behavioral health reimbursement were five times as likely as those that did not to offer addiction counseling and to employ certified addiction counselors. Health centers that received targeted HRSA funding for addiction services were more than 20 times as likely as those that did not to provide MAT and more than three times as likely to employ psychiatrists. Training needs and privacy protections on data related to addiction treatment were cited as barriers to building addiction treatment capacity.Medicaid funding and targeted grant funding were associated with addiction treatment capacity in health centers.

This paper provides an overview of type 2 diabetes economic simulation modeling and reviews current topics of discussion and major challenges in the field. Important challenges in the field include increasing the generalizability of models and improving transparency in model reporting. To identify and address these issues, modeling groups have organized through the Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge meetings and developed tools (i.e., checklist, impact inventory) to standardize modeling methods and reporting of results. Accordingly, many newer diabetes models have begun utilizing these tools, allowing for improved comparability between diabetes models. In the last two decades, type 2 diabetes simulation models have improved considerably, due to the collaborative work performed through the Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge meetings. To continue to improve diabetes models, future work must focus on clarifying diabetes progression in racial/ethnic minorities and incorporating equity considerations into health economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Half of women undergoing mammography have dense breasts. Mandatory dense breast notification and educational materials have been shown to confuse women, rather than empower them. OBJECTIVE: This study used a mixed method, multi-stakeholder approach to assess acceptability of an interactive, computer-animated agent that provided breast density information to women and changes in knowledge, satisfaction, and informational needs. DESIGN: A pre-post survey and qualitative focus groups assessed the acceptability of the computer-animated agent among women. An anonymous, online survey measuring acceptability was delivered to a multi-stakeholder group. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking, mammography-eligible women ages 40–74 were invited and 44 women participated in one of nine focus groups. In addition, 14 stakeholders representing primary care, radiology, patient advocates, public health practitioners, and researchers completed the online survey. INTERVENTIONS: A prototype of a computer-animated agent was delivered to women in a group setting; stakeholders viewed the prototype independently. MAIN MEASURES: Data collected included open-ended qualitative questions that guided discussion about the content and form of the computer-animated agent. Structured surveys included domains related to knowledge, acceptability, and satisfaction. Stakeholder acceptability was measured with a series of statements about aspects of the intervention and delivery approach and are reported as the proportion of respondents who endorsed each statement. KEY RESULTS: Six of 12 knowledge items demonstrated improvement post-intervention, satisfaction with the agent was high (81%), but the number of unanswered questions did not improve (67% vs. 54%, p = 0.37). Understanding of the distinction between connective and fatty tissue in the breast did not increase (30% vs. 26%, p = 0.48). Results of the multi-stakeholder survey suggest broad acceptability of the approach and agent. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the benefits of a brief interactive educational exposure as well as misperceptions that persisted. Results demonstrate the need for an evidence-based, accessible intervention that is easy to understand for patients.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic health records (EHRs) is associated with physician stress and burnout. While emergency departments and subspecialists have used scribes to address this issue, little is known about the impact of scribes in academic primary care. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of a scribe on physician and patient satisfaction at an academic general internal medicine (GIM) clinic. DESIGN: Prospective, pre-post-pilot study. During the 3-month pilot, physicians had clinic sessions with and without a scribe. We assessed changes in (1) physician workplace satisfaction and burnout, (2) time spent on EHR documentation, and (3) patient satisfaction. PARTICIPANTS: Six GIM faculty and a convenience sample of their patients (N = 325) at an academic GIM clinic. MAIN MEASURES: A 21-item pre- and 44-item post-pilot survey assessed physician workplace satisfaction and burnout. Physicians used logs to record time spent on EHR documentation outside of clinic hours. A 27-item post-visit survey assessed patient satisfaction during visits with and without the scribe. KEY RESULTS: Of six physicians, 100% were satisfied with clinic workflow post-pilot (vs. 33% pre-pilot), and 83% were satisfied with EHR use post-pilot (vs. 17% pre-pilot). Physician burnout was low at baseline and did not change post-pilot. Mean time spent on post-clinic EHR documentation decreased from 1.65 to 0.76 h per clinic session (p = 0.02). Patient satisfaction was not different between patients who had clinic visits with vs. without scribe overall or by age, gender, and race. Compared to patients 65 years or older, younger patients were more likely to report that the physician was more attentive and provided more education during visits with the scribe present (p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Male patients were more likely to report that they disliked having a scribe (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In an academic GIM setting, employment of a scribe was associated with improved physician satisfaction without compromising patient satisfaction. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4434-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) will generate real-world evidence to address the unique needs of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) in justice settings. Evidence regarding the economic value of OUD interventions in justice populations is limited. Moreover, the variation in economic study designs is a barrier to defining specific interventions as broadly cost-effective. The JCOIN Health Economics Analytic Team (HEAT) has worked closely with the Measures Committee to incorporate common economic measures and instruments across JCOIN studies, which will: a) ensure rigorous economic evaluations within each trial; b) enhance comparability of findings across studies; and c) allow for cross-study analyses of trials with similar designs/settings (e.g., pre-reentry MOUD), to assess questions beyond the scope of a single study, while controlling for and evaluating the effect of intervention-, organizational-, and population-level characteristics. We describe shared trial characteristics relevant to the economic evaluations, and discuss potential cross-study economic analyses.

Provider- and staff-perceived levels of integration were measured during implementation of a primary care behavioral health clinic; these data were used to tailor and evaluate quality improvement strategies. Providers and staff at an urban, academic, adult primary care clinic completed the 32-item Level of Integration Measure (LIM) at baseline and 7 months. The LIM assesses 6 domains of integrated care. Overall and domain scores were calibrated from 0 to 100, with ≥80 representing a highly integrated clinic. Response rate was 79% (N = 46/58) at baseline and 83% (N = 52/63) at follow-up. Overall, LIM score increased from 64.5 to 70.1, P = .001. The lowest scoring domains at baseline were targeted for quality improvement and increased significantly: integrated clinical practice, 60.0 versus 68.4, P < .001; systems integration, 57.0 versus 63.8, P = .001; and training, 56.7 versus 65.3, P = .001. Ongoing quality improvement, including organizational and financial strategies, is needed to achieve higher levels of integration.

Aims To classify trajectories of long term HbA1c values in patients after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and examine each trajectory's associations with subsequent microvascular and macrovascular events and mortality. Methods A longitudinal follow-up of 28,016 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes was conducted. Latent growth mixture modeling was used to identify ten-year HbA1c trajectories. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess how HbA1c trajectories were associated with events (microvascular and macrovascular) and mortality. Results We identified 5 HbA1c trajectories: “low stable” (82.5%), “moderate increasing late” (5.1%), “high decreasing early” (4.9%), “moderate peaking late” (4.1%) and “moderate peaking early” (3.3%). After adjusting for average HbA1c, compared to the low stable trajectory, all non-stable trajectories were associated with higher incidences of microvascular events (hazard ratio (HR) range, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.08–1.53) (high decreasing early) to 1.45 (95% CI, 1.20–1.75) (moderate peaking early)). The high decreasing early trajectory was associated with an increased mortality risk (HR, 1.27 (95% CI, 1.03–1.58)). Trajectories were not associated with macrovascular events. Conclusions Non-stable HbA1c trajectories were associated with greater risk of microvascular events and mortality. These findings suggest a potential benefit of early diabetes detection, prioritizing good glycemic control, and maintaining control over time.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, To describe how patient characteristics influence physician decision-making about glycemic goals for Type 2 diabetes. 2016 survey of 357 US physicians. The survey included two vignettes, representing a healthy patient and an unhealthy patient, adapted from a past survey of international experts and a factorial design vignette that varied age, heart disease history, and hypoglycemia history. Survey results were weighted to provide national estimates. Over half (57.6%) of physicians recommended a goal HbA1c

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided funding for states to expand Medicaid coverage to include citizens who earned up to 138% of the federal poverty line. We sought to ascertain whether physicians practicing in Medicaid expansion states reported an increase in Medicaid or newly insured patients with type 2 diabetes in their panels, compared to physicians practicing in non-expansion states. METHODS: We conducted a 55-question cross-sectional survey of 356 physicians providing outpatient care for adults with type 2 diabetes. We used adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare responses from physicians who practiced in expansion vs. non-expansion states regarding whether they observed an increase since 2014 in 1) the number of Medicaid or newly insured patients with diabetes and 2) the number of additional newly or previously diagnosed patients who were newly receiving care, in their panels, adjusting for physician, practice, and patient-level characteristics, weighted for the U.S. physician population. RESULTS: 41% of eligible recipients responded. 64.2% of physicians who practice in an expansion state report an increase in Medicaid or newly insured patients with diabetes compared with 46.1% who practice in non-expansion states (p = 0.05; Table 2). CONCLUSION: Compared with physicians who practice in non-expansion states, physicians who practice in Medicaid expansion states are more likely to report an increase in the number of Medicaid or newly insured patients with diabetes in their practice since 2014. The increased access associated with the Medicaid expansion may improve long-term outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background: Health centers (HCs) provide care to many racial and ethnic minority patients with diabetes. However, limited research has described the types of services HCs offer and their association with glycemic control. Objective: To examine the relationship between HC services and glycemic control among Latino patients with diabetes. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational survey of providers in Midwestern HCs about the services offered at their sites. The provider-level report of HC services was summarized as medians of means per HC. HC-level data on glycemic control was obtained from the Uniform Data System. A linear mixed model was used to assess associations between the presence of HC services and the percent of Latino, non-Hispanic white, and overall patients with A1c Results: Survey responses were received from 620 providers practicing at 97 HCs in 10 Midwestern states. There were positive associations between percent of Latino patients with A1c Conclusions: Access to promotoras and dieticians were associated with higher percentage of Latino patients with A1c Disclosure J. Katz: None. W. Wan: None. E.M. Staab: None. N. Laiteerapong: None. A.A. Baig: None. Funding National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

Introduction: Diabetes is one of the most common chronic diseases that is encountered in healthcare. While there have been trials about ideal glycemic targets over the years, there is still lack of guidelines pertaining to the appropriate context for de-intensifying diabetic medications. Our study aimed to assess the general perception amongst primary care physicians and endocrinologists on de-intensifying diabetic medications in patients with stable HbA1C for 1 year. Methods: In 2016, we mailed a national cross-sectional survey to 480 adult endocrinologists and 720 adult primary care physicians (PCPs) listed in the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. Physicians were asked this yes-no question: “In general, if your patient with type 2 diabetes has a low, stable HbA1c level for 1 year, do you ever initiate conversations about discontinuing or reducing the dose of their diabetes medications”. Physicians who answered yes to the first question were then directed to a follow-up question: “At what HbA1c level do you initiate this conversation?” Main outcomes were physician self-reported, with options including “HbA1C < 5.0%”, “HbA1C

Background: Physicians often receive feedback on their quality of diabetes care. However, it is unclear what performance measures (e.g., blood pressure targets) are used in this feedback, whether these measures correspond with diabetes care guideline recommendations, and whether feedback affects their clinical practice. Methods: In 2016, we mailed a national survey to 1,200 U.S. primary care physicians and endocrinologists. We excluded physicians who did not provide longitudinal care to patients with type 2 diabetes (adjusted response rate, 41% (N=356)). Physicians were asked to report whether they received feedback on their quality of diabetes care, the hemoglobin A1c (A1C), cholesterol, and blood pressure (BP) goals they were encouraged to reach, and the usual A1C, cholesterol, and BP goals they recommend to their patients. Results: In total, 56% of physicians reported receiving feedback. Among those who received feedback, the most frequent goals were an A1C Conclusions: Many U.S. physicians are being measured on their quality of diabetes care using performance measures that are inconsistent with diabetes care guidelines and national quality standards. Further, many physicians may not be strongly influenced by diabetes performance measurement. These discrepancies suggest that the impact of physician feedback on quality of diabetes care may be limited. Disclosure P. Zarei: None. S.A. Ham: None. A. Nathan: None. L. Sepulveda: None. R.M. Sargis: Advisory Panel; Self; CVS/Caremark. M.T. Quinn: None. E. Huang: None. N. Laiteerapong: None.

Background: In recent clinical trials, some SGLT2is and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been shown to reduce cardiovascular events, leading to their prioritization for patients with cardiovascular disease in diabetes care guidelines. However, because these medications are costly, oftentimes medication access is limited by insurance companies. Objectives: To determine the frequency that physicians encounter cost-related barriers to prescribing new diabetes medications. Methods: We mailed a survey to a national sample of 720 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 480 endocrinologists in 2016 (adjusted response rate, 41%). Physicians were asked how often their patients were unable to start a new diabetes medication in general, and, specifically, an SGLT2i, because it was too expensive. Physicians also reported the frequency of completing a prior authorization (PA) for a new diabetes medication. Results: In 2016, 28% (N=101) and 37% (N=129) of physicians reported that their patients were unable to start medications in general, and specifically, SGLT2is, due to costs “most of the time”/“always.” More PCPs (45%, N=86) than endocrinologists (26%, N=43) were unable to start SGLT2is due to costs. Daily PA were reported by 43% of physicians (N=151); 62% (N=101) endocrinologists completed PAs daily. Adjusting for specialty and panel size, physicians with >50% of patients age >65 were more likely to report that patients were unable to start a new medication or SGLT2i due to costs (OR=2.25, 95% CI=1.38-3.67; p=0.001 and OR=1.63, CI=1.02-2.60, p=0.04). Endocrinologists (OR=5.03, CI=3.09-8.18; p1000 patients in their panel (OR=2.69, CI=1.61-4.49; p Conclusions: U.S. physicians experience significant cost-related barriers to prescribing new diabetes medication classes. Pharmacy benefit management strategies will need to be updated to facilitate access to glucose-lowering medications with clear cardiovascular benefit. Disclosure S.A. Ham: None. A. Nathan: None. N. Laiteerapong: None. R.M. Sargis: Advisory Panel; Self; CVS/Caremark. M.T. Quinn: None. E. Huang: None.

OBJECTIVE To examine for a legacy effect of early glycemic control on diabetic complications and death. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This cohort study of managed care patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and 10 years of survival (1997–2013, average follow-up 13.0 years, N = 34,737) examined associations between HbA1c RESULTS Compared with HbA1c CONCLUSIONS Among patients with newly diagnosed diabetes and 10 years of survival, HbA1c levels ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) for the 1st year after diagnosis were associated with worse outcomes. Immediate, intensive treatment for newly diagnosed patients may be necessary to avoid irremediable long-term risk for diabetic complications and mortality.

In randomized trials, intensive glycemic control has not resulted in lower risks of major cardiovascular events or death than standard glycemic control among patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes...

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work (1) further in response to Hulman et al. (2). While we understand and appreciate their four concerns, we respectfully disagree with their interpretation of our work and stand by our analytic approach and conclusions. One major concern was that the results were biased because we conditioned study inclusion on survival of 10 years. While we agree that conditioning on survival would be a concern if we were generalizing results to all patients with diabetes, we clearly specified that our results only apply to patients who survive a minimum of 10 years. It was necessary to condition the study population on some minimum years of survival because one must …

Medical practice and health policy are both changing rapidly. While the adopting of changes is not new for physicians, the pace of change in standards of care, marked by advances and reversals, has accelerated over the course of the past decade. A recurring new theme in medical practice has been an emphasis on tailoring treatment plans to individual patients. Physicians have had to simultaneously absorb new processes in the health care system brought about by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. The ability of physicians to maintain standards of care that focus on individual patients may conflict with changes resulting from new health policies that emphasize population health management. Primary care physicians may be one of the few collective voices capable of identifying areas where population-level health policies conflict with the care of individual patients, and policymakers should include practicing primary care physicians in the form of community boards in order to ensure the development of new health policies that provide sustainable high-value patient care.

In 1999, standards for diabetes quality of care and performance measurement were established by the National Committee for Quality Assurance's (NCQA's) Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS).1 The HEDIS measure for comprehensive diabetes care includes the intermediate outcome measures of hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) control, for example, A1C < 8% and LDL < 100 mg/dL. These NCQA HEDIS diabetes quality measures have been influential tools for performance measurement, public reporting, and reimbursement as they are endorsed by the National Quality Forum and are used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in a variety of programs, including the Physician Quality Reporting System. Although the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has always endorsed a lower A1C < 7.0% goal for the majority of patients with diabetes, since 2002, they have also recommended an individualized approach to diabetes goal setting.2 In 2012, the ADA and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) published a position statement strengthening their support for a patient-centered approach to managing hyperglycemia.3 This position statement was in response to major diabetes trials which found little benefit, or even harm, from very intensive glycemic control (eg, A1C < 6.5%), especially for patients with cardiovascular disease.4–7 Thus, in addition to uniform goals, diabetes guidelines strongly support personalized glycemic goals based on a combination of risks associated with hypoglycemia or other adverse events, disease duration, life expectancy, important comorbidities, established vascular complications, and social resources. For example, patients with cardiovascular disease are recommended an A1C < 8% goal, as opposed to

Background: Intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] level

PURPOSE The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for depression in the general adult population. Although screening questionnaires for depression and anxiety exist in primary care settings, electronic health tools such as computerized adaptive tests based on item response theory can advance screening practices. This study evaluated the validity of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH) for screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) and assessing MDD and anxiety severity among adult primary care patients. METHODS We approached 402 English-speaking adults for participation from a primary care clinic, of whom 271 adults (71% female, 65% black) participated. Participants completed modules from the CAT-MH (Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD, CAT–Depression Inventory, CAT–Anxiety Inventory); brief paper questionnaires (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2], Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale [GAD-7]); and a reference-standard interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Diagnoses. RESULTS On the basis of the interview, 31 participants met criteria for MDD and 29 met criteria for GAD. The diagnostic accuracy of the Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD (area under curve [AUC] = 0.85) was similar to that of the PHQ-9 (AUC = 0.84) and higher than that of the PHQ-2 (AUC = 0.76) for MDD screening. Using the interview as the reference standard, the accuracy of the CAT–Anxiety Inventory (AUC = 0.93) was similar to that of the GAD-7 (AUC = 0.97) for assessing anxiety severity. The patient-preferred screening method was assessment via tablet/computer with audio. CONCLUSIONS Computerized adaptive testing could be a valid and efficient patient-centered screening strategy for depression and anxiety screening in primary care settings.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of gastric band surgery in overweight but not obese people who receive standard diabetes care.A microsimulation model (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model) was used to project diabetes outcomes and costs from a two-year Australian randomized trial of gastric band (GB) surgery in overweight but not obese people (BMI 25 to 30kg/mThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for GB surgery at two years exceeded $90,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained but decreased to $52,000, $29,000 and $22,000 when the health benefits of surgery were assumed to endure for 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. The cost-effectiveness of GB surgery was sensitive to utility gained from weight loss and, to a lesser degree, the costs of GB surgery. However, the cost-effectiveness of GB surgery was affected minimally by improvements in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and cholesterol.GB surgery for overweight but not obese people with T2D appears to be cost-effective in the U.S. setting if weight loss endures for more than five years. Health utility gained from weight loss is a critical input to cost-effectiveness estimates and therefore should be routinely measured in populations undergoing bariatric surgery.

To compare utilization and preventive care receipt among patients of federal Section 330 health centers (HCs) versus patients of other settings.A nationally representative sample of adults from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2004-2008).HC patients were defined as those with ≥50 percent of outpatient visits at HCs in the first panel year. Outcomes included utilization and preventive care receipt from the second panel year. We used negative binomial and logistic regression models with propensity score adjustment for confounding differences between HC and non-HC patients.Compared to non-HC patients, HC patients had fewer office visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.63) and hospitalizations (aIRR, 0.43) (both p.001). HC patients were more likely to receive breast cancer screening than non-HC patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, p.01). In subgroup analyses, uninsured HC patients had fewer outpatient and emergency room visits and were more likely to receive dietary advice and breast cancer screening compared to non-HC patients.Health centers add value to the health care system by providing socially and medically disadvantaged patients with care that results in lower utilization and maintained or improved preventive care.

IMPORTANCE: Among older individuals with type 2 diabetes, those with poor health have greater risk and derive less benefit from tight glycemic control with insulin. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether insulin treatment is used less frequently and discontinued more often among older individuals with poor health compared with those in good health. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This longitudinal cohort study included 21 531 individuals with type 2 diabetes followed for up to 4 years starting at age 75 years. Electronic health record data from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Diabetes Registry was collected to characterize insulin treatment and glycemic control over time. Data were collected from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2017, and analyzed from February 2, 2018, through June 30, 2019. EXPOSURES: Health status was defined as good (2 comorbidities or 2 comorbidities and no self-reported weekly exercise), or poor (having end-stage pulmonary, cardiac, or renal disease; diagnosis of dementia; or metastatic cancer). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Insulin use prevalence at age 75 years and discontinuation among insulin users over the next 4 years (or 6 months prior to death if

Although chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a highly prevalent condition among older adults with diabetes, the associations between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and severity of CKD in this population are not well understood. The objective of this study was to assess HRQoL and depressive symptoms across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stages.Cross-sectional.5,805 members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 60 years or older with diabetes, from the 2005-2006 Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) survey.eGFR categories were defined as ≥90 (referent category), 75-89, 60-74, 45-59, 30-44, or ≤29 mL/min/1.73 m(2).HRQoL was measured using the modified Short Form-8 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-8.In unadjusted linear regression analyses, physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) HRQoL scores were significantly lower with worsening eGFR level. However, after adjustment for sociodemographics, diabetes duration, obesity, and cardiovascular comorbid conditions and taking into account interactions with proteinuria, none of the eGFR categories was significantly or substantively associated with PCS or MCS score. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, higher risk of depressive symptoms was observed in respondents with eGFR ≤29 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (relative risk, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.10-3.71; P0.05) compared with the referent group. However, this eGFR-depression relationship was no longer significant after adjusting for hemoglobin level.Participants are part of a single health care delivery system.Our findings suggest the need for greater attention to and potential interventions for depression in patients with reduced eGFR.

Objectives: To explore racial and ethnic (ethnic hereafter) differences in health-related quality of life (HRQL) in older adults with diabetes mellitus in an integrated delivery system. Design: Observational cross-sectional study. Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Participants: Ethnic-stratified, random sample of 6,096 adults with diabetes mellitus aged 60 to 75 who completed a HRQL questionnaire. Measurements: Physical and mental HRQL were measured based on the Medical Outcomes Study 8-item Short Form Survey (range 0�100, mean 50). Age- and sex-adjusted weighted linear regression models estimated associations between ethnicity and HRQL and evaluated potential mediators (socioeconomic status, acculturation, health behaviors, diabetes mellitus�related conditions). Differences in ethnic-specific, adjusted mean HRQL scores were tested (reference whites). Results: Physical HRQL was better for Filipinos (48.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 47.0�49.6, P < .001), Asians (48.1, 95% CI = 46.8�49.3, P < .001), Hispanics (45.1, 95% CI = 44.2�46.0, P < .001), and blacks (44.2, 95% CI = 43.3�45.1, P = .04) than whites (42.9, 95% CI = 42.6�43.2). Adjusting for potential mediators did not change these relationships. Mental HRQL was better only for Asians (52.7, 95% CI = 51.6�53.7, P = .01) than for whites (51.0, 95% CI = 50.7�51.3), but this difference was small and became nonsignificant after adjustment for socioeconomic status, acculturation, health behaviors, and diabetes mellitus�related conditions. Conclusion: In older adults with diabetes mellitus in a well-established integrated healthcare delivery system, ethnic minorities had better physical HRQL than whites. Equal access to care in an integrated delivery system may hold promise for reducing health disparities in diabetes mellitus-related patient-reported outcomes.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Guidelines for diabetes care recommend that physicians select individualized glycemic goals based on life expectancy, diabetes duration, comorbidity, and resources/support. When patients have stable hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels, guidelines lack recommendations on when diabetes medications should be de-intensified. To understand physicians’ perspectives on de-intensifying diabetes medications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cross-sectional survey, (February–June, 2015). Academic medical center and suburban integrated health system. Primary care and endocrinology physicians. Physicians’ self-reported: awareness, agreement, and frequency of individualizing HbA1C goals; practice of de-intensifying diabetes medications; HbA1C values at which physicians de-intensify diabetes medications; and other patient factors physicians consider when de-intensifying diabetes medications. Response rate was 73% (156/213). Most physicians (78%) responded they were familiar with recommendations to individualize HbA1C goals. For patients with stable HbA1C levels, 80% of physicians reported they had initiated conversations about stopping medications; however, physicians differed in predefined HbA1C levels used to initiate conversations (HbA1C

Objectives. To compare health care use and spending of Medicaid enrollees seen at federally qualified health centers versus non–health center settings in a context of significant growth. Methods. Using fee-for-service Medicaid claims from 13 states in 2009, we compared patients receiving the majority of their primary care in federally qualified health centers with propensity score–matched comparison groups receiving primary care in other settings. Results. We found that health center patients had lower use and spending than did non–health center patients across all services, with 22% fewer visits and 33% lower spending on specialty care and 25% fewer admissions and 27% lower spending on inpatient care. Total spending was 24% lower for health center patients. Conclusions. Our analysis of 2009 Medicaid claims, which includes the largest sample of states and more recent data than do previous multistate claims studies, demonstrates that the health center program has provided a cost-efficient setting for primary care for Medicaid enrollees.