Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recent studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients who are treated with intensive insulin management. Large retrospective database analyses of T2D patients treated with less-intensive therapies have also shown that CGM use was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c levels and health resource utilization, including diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room care. Despite the growing body of evidence supporting CGM use in the broader T2D population, current eligibility criteria required by public and many private insurers are denying millions of individuals with T2D access to this valuable technology. In this article, we discuss an evidence-based rationale for modifying current eligibility requirements for CGM coverage.

Introduction

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) once limited to use in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), recent studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of CGM use in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients who are treated with intensive insulin management.^1

–6 Recognizing the potential benefits of CGM use within the broader population, investigators have conducted studies demonstrating similar glycemic improvements among individuals treated with less-intensive therapies.^{7

–22}

Unfortunately, millions of individuals with T2D are denied insurance coverage for CGM by government and many commercial payers. In this article, we discuss an evidence-based rationale for modifying current eligibility requirements for CGM coverage.

“Follow the Science”

For more than a year, health officials have relentlessly instructed the public to “follow the science” to stem the tide of the growing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Of particular concern was the elevated risk for poor outcomes among individuals with diabetes. As demonstrated in several studies, diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitalized COVID-19 patients are strong predictors of worse outcomes compared with individuals without diabetes or elevated glucose at admission.^23

–27

In a retrospective study of 1561 adults hospitalized for COVID-19, 153 (9.8%) patients had a prior diagnosis of diabetes.²⁷ It was shown that these patients had significantly higher glucose levels at admission (170 mg/dL) and, compared with those without diabetes (103 mg/dL), represented a significantly larger proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (17.6% vs. 7.8%, respectively, P = 0.01) and fatalities (20.3% vs. 10.5%, respectively, P = 0.017).

Based on the science, individuals with diabetes were prioritized to be among the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.²⁸ However, a question that has yet to be answered is, Why not focus on expanding access to tools and technologies that can help individuals better manage their diabetes before contracting the COVID-19 virus?

Restrictive CGM Eligibility Criteria Obstruct Safe and Effective Diabetes Management

Current criteria

The current eligibility requirements for CGM coverage are prime examples of how scientific evidence is being ignored or dismissed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and many private insurers. Although both government and most private insurers cover the newest classes of diabetes medications, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I), coverage for CGM remains unattainable for the majority of individuals with T2D due to restrictive coverage policies that are both onerous and scientifically unfounded.

We conducted an extensive internet search to ascertain the eligibility criteria used by CMS and the top five private insurers to determine the medical necessity for CGM use by beneficiaries and health plan members (Table 1). Among the CMS health plans, we found that CGM coverage, in general, was inconsistent. Whereas the Medicare clearly defines its eligibility criteria, Medicaid coverage criteria for CGM is inconsistent among states, constantly changing and, in many states, not available. The most recent data show that 17 states cover T1D only, 14 cover both T1D and T2D, 4 cover pediatric patients only, and 16 (including Washington DC) provide no CGM coverage.²⁹ However, eligibility criteria in the states that do offer coverage often mirror the current Medicare requirements. Only three of the top five private insurers (Aetna,³⁰ Humana,³¹ United Healthcare Medicare Advantage³²) provided eligibility guidance to its members or potential members. Information about CGM eligibility was not readily available on the Anthem or Cigna websites.

Table 1.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Eligibility Criteria for Major Commercial Health Plans

Health plan	Eligibility criteria
Medicare²⁹	CGM initiation criteria: diagnosis of diabetes AND documentation of frequent BGM (defined as testing ≥4 times daily) AND treatment with intensive insulin therapy (defined as ≥3 times daily insulin injections or use of a Medicare-covered insulin pump) AND frequent adjustment of insulin dosages based on blood glucose measurements AND in-person consultation with clinician before initiating CGM AND follow-up in-person clinical consultations every 6 months
Aetna³⁰	CGM initiation criteria: adults aged ≥18 years with T1D or T2D AND treated with intensive insulin regimens (≥3 times daily or insulin pump) AND not meeting glycemic targets OR experiencing hypoglycemia (including hypoglycemic unawareness) Continued CGM use: adults aged ≥18 years: experiencing improved glycemic control or decreased hypoglycemia episodes while using a CGM OR being assessed every 6 months by the prescriber for adherence to their CGM regimen and diabetes treatment plan
Humana³¹	CGM initiation criteria: individual has been diagnosed with T1D or T2D that requires insulin treatment AND the device is being prescribed according to its FDA-approved indications AND documented history of hypoglycemic unawareness OR documented history of inadequate glycemic control (despite compliance) as noted with frequent BGM (≥4 times daily) or as the FDA device approval requires AND documentation that demonstrates a pattern of recurrent hypoglycemic events (≥2 events within a 30-day period), characterized by glucose levels <70 mg/dL, despite appropriate modifications in insulin therapy and member compliance
United Healthcare Medicare Advantage³²	CGM initiation criteria: diagnosis of T1D or T2D diabetes mellitus AND using a home BGM and performing frequent BGM (≥4 times daily) AND treated with intensive insulin regimens (≥3 times daily or Medicare-covered insulin pump) AND treatment regimen requires frequent adjustment by the member based on BGM or CGM testing results AND within 6 months before ordering the CGM, the treating practitioner has an in-person visit with the member to evaluate his or her diabetes control and determined that the mentioned criteria are met AND every 6 months after the initial prescription of the CGM, the treating practitioner has an in-person visit with the member to assess adherence to his or her CGM regimen and diabetes treatment plan

BGM, blood glucose monitoring; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; FDA, US Food & Drug Administration; T1D, type 1 diabetes; T2D, type 2 diabetes.

As given in Table 1, two of the three private plans include criteria that are similar to Medicare requirements³³ regarding blood glucose monitoring (BGM) frequency (≥4 times daily) treatment with intensive insulin regimens (≥3 times daily injections or insulin pump). Although all the plans require insulin therapy, Medicare and United Healthcare impose the added requirement of frequent insulin dosage adjustments but do not consider having a history of hypoglycemia as an indication for CGM eligibility. They also ignore the demonstrated advantages of telemedicine visits by requiring in-person consultations at CGM initiation and 6-month follow-up visits.

The Science That Supports These Criteria Is Nowhere to Be Found

The rationale behind current eligibility criteria remains a mystery. Without inside knowledge of how criteria developed and the evidence considered, it is impossible to know the motive(s) driving the criteria, whether it is ignorance of current scientific evidence demonstrating improved diabetes control or simply the desire to reduce short-term costs. With either scenario, the decisions relevant to many of the requirements are not supported in the diabetes literature.

Is a history of diabetes self-management behaviors relevant to optimal CGM use and outcomes?

The answer is no. Large clinical trials have shown that successful use of CGM is not associated with history of BGM daily frequency, use glucose data for insulin adjustments or specific insulin regimens Table 2.

Table 2.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Eligibility Criteria Is Not Supported in Large Randomized Controlled Trials

Study	Diabetes type	Age	Study design	Study size	BGM frequency (minimum)	Use of glucose data to dose insulin	Insulin type	Insulin dosing frequency
IMPACT³⁴	Type 1	Adult	RCT	239	3 times/day	No	N/A	N/A
REPLACE⁴	Type 2	Adult	RCT	224	10 times/week	No	Prandial Prandial+Basal CSII	1 time/day 1 time/day N/A
Yaron³⁵	Type 2	Adult	RCT	101	N/A	No	Prandial Overall dosing (includes prandial)	1 time/day 2 times/day
WISDM³⁶	Type 1	>60	RCT		1.8/day during blinded CGM phase	No	CSII or MDI	N/A
GOLD³⁷	Type 1	Adult	Cross-over RCT	161	N/A	No	N/A	N/A
DIAMOND³⁸	Type 1	>25	RCT	158	3 times/day	No	MDI	N/A
DIAMOND¹	Type 2	>25	RCT	158	2 times/day	No	MDI	N/A
DIAMOND (subgroup)²	Elderly T1D/T2D	>60	RCT	T1D (34) T2D (82)	3 times/day for T1D and 2 times/day for T2D	No	MDI	N/A
IN CONTROL³⁹	Type 1	18–75	Cross-over RCT	52	3 times/day	No	MDI or CSII	N/A
HypoDE⁴⁰	Type 1	>18	RCT	149	N/A	No	MDI	Basal with prandial at major meals
REPLACE-BG⁴¹	Type 1	≥18	RCT	226	N/A	No	CSII at least 1 year	N/A
JDRF⁴²	Type 1	Adult/Pediatric (>8 years)	RCT	322	N/A	No	CSII or MDI	3 times/day

MDI, multiple daily insulin injection; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

BGM frequency

Review of the reported baseline characteristics of participants in large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) clearly demonstrates that individuals who performed BGM <4 times /day achieved similar glycemic improvements compared, when switched to CGM, with those testing at a higher frequency. For example, in the recent IMPACT³⁴ and REPLACE⁴ studies, there were no significant differences in glycemic outcomes between participants who were testing <4 times daily and those testing ≥4 times daily before using CGM. Findings of “nonassociation” between baseline BGM frequency and glycemic outcomes were also observed in the DIAMOND T1D⁴³ and DIAMOND T2D¹ trials. In a subsequent analysis of the older T1D and T2D individuals (age 67 ± 5 years) included in the DIAMOND trials, significant hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reductions were achieved with CGM versus BGM use regardless of baseline BGM frequency; 52% of CGM users reported performing BGM <4 times/day before initiating CGM.² Moreover, a recent retrospective claims database analysis of 12,521 T1D and T2D patients found that CGM use was significantly associated with reductions in acute diabetes-related events (from 0.245 to 0.132 events/patient-year (P < 0.001), and that these reductions were not associated with prior BGM frequency, <4 versus ≥4 times daily.⁴⁴ In a recent claims database study that assessed the impact of flash CGM compared with traditional BGM, investigators found no relationship between prior BGM monitoring frequency and significant reductions in hospitalizations for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.⁴⁵

Use of BGM data to make frequent insulin adjustments

In addition, none of the protocols for the RCTs listed in Table 2 required participants to use glucose data for frequent insulin adjustments. Requiring patients to provide documentation of frequent dosage adjustments based on BGM readings is unfounded; we know of no studies that have shown a relationship between this requirement and clinical outcomes. Moreover, it ignores the other benefits of CGM regarding reductions in hypoglycemia as demonstrated by Pratley et al.³⁶

Three or more daily insulin injections

Similarly, the large RCTs provide no indication that prior use of intensive insulin regimens, multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) or insulin pump, is a prerequisite for CGM. In fact, large retrospective database analyses of T2D patients treated with less-intensive insulin regimens or oral antidiabetic medications have shown that CGM use was associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels^46,47 and health resource utilization, including diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room care.⁴⁸

Even intermittent use of CGM has been shown to improve glycemic outcomes and psychological measures. In an earlier RCT involving individuals with T2D treated with basal insulin only, noninsulin medications, and diet/physical activity, Vigersky et al. demonstrated that intermittent use of CGM (2 weeks on/1 week off) versus BGM over 3 months resulted in significant HbA1c reductions.¹³ Ehrhardt et al. showed that these improvements persisted throughout a 52-week follow-up period.⁴⁹ In an economic analysis of this cohort, CGM was found to be cost-effective, and that repeated CGM use would likely result in additional cost savings.⁷ In two more recent studies of individuals with noninsulin-treated T2D who were enrolled in a comprehensive telemedicine program, intermittent CGM use resulted in significant HbA1c reductions.^21,50

Are frequent therapy adjustments required to optimize CGM use?

The answer is no. It is well recognized that CGM offers a clear advantage over BGM in assisting users when calculating their insulin dosages. However, a more significant benefit is its ability to detect and alert users to immediate and impending hypoglycemia. Problematic hypoglycemia remains a major barrier to effective diabetes self-management⁵¹ and is particularly concerning in older diabetes patients and those with long duration of diabetes who are higher risk for severe hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) and impaired hypoglycemia awareness.^52

–58

In older Medicare beneficiaries, severe hypoglycemia is the most common acute glycemic event in those treated with insulin or sulfonylurea therapy⁵⁸ and is associated with significant adverse outcomes, including acute cardiovascular events,⁵⁹ fall-related fractures,⁶⁰ dementia,^61,62 and mortality.^63,64 The increased risk and clinical consequences of hypoglycemia are evidenced in a retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries of age ≥65 years from 1999 to 2011 that showed an 11.7% increase in inpatient admission rates for severe hypoglycemia (from 94 to 105 admissions per 100,000 person-years).⁵⁸

Although Aetna and Humana eligibility criteria recognize the utility of CGM in preventing hypoglycemia, The Medicare and United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plans seem to dismiss the importance of this capability (Table 1). This omission is particularly troubling given that these plans cover individuals of age ≥65 years, a growing population that comprises ∼26.8% of all diabetes in the United States.⁶⁵

Moreover, none of the plans recognize that all individuals treated with any insulin regimen or sulfonylurea therapy are at risk for severe hypoglycemia.^{37,51

–57,66

–74} In one study that included ∼32,000 U.S. T2D adults treated with noninsulin therapy, investigators reported that the probability of severe hypoglycemia was almost doubled in >45% patients who received intensive treatment with noninsulin medications.⁶⁷

Similar risks for hypoglycemia were seen in a retrospective analysis of a large German/Austria database.⁶⁸ Within a cohort of 29,485 T2D adults treated with sulfonylureas, 826 (2.8%) experienced at least one severe hypoglycemic event during their most recent year of sulfonylurea treatment. Among these, 531 (1.8%) experienced coma and 501 (1.7%) were hospitalized at least once.⁶⁸

Conversely, use of CGM has been shown to reduce the risk of severe hypoglycemia in both insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated diabetes.^36,39,40,66 In a cohort of 203 older T1D adults (≥60 years) randomized to CGM or BGM over a 6-month period, CGM use was associated with significant reductions in severe hypoglycemia incidence rates (per 100 person-years) compared with BGM (1.9 vs. 22.4, respectively, P = 0.02).³⁶ It was also associated with reductions in the percentage of time spent <70 mg/dL (from 5.1% to 2.7%) versus increases with BGM use (from 4.7% to 4.9%), P < 0.001.

Among T2D patients treated with less-intensive insulin regimens or oral antidiabetic medications, large retrospective database analyses of CGM use were associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels^46,47 and diabetes-related hospitalizations/emergency room utilization.⁴⁸ Importantly, CGM use reduces hypoglycemia fear and increases patient and family members' confidence in their ability to manage their diabetes,^37,66,75,76 This is particularly important in individuals with problematic hypoglycemia who often decrease or omit their insulin and maintain their glucose levels in the hyperglycemia range due to fear of hypoglycemia.^77,78

Are in-person clinician visits essential to assess and monitor CGM users?

The answer is no. Evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews clearly demonstrates that the use of telemedicine interventions to monitor glycemic status in individuals with T1D and T2D is associated with significant HbA1c reductions,^79

–84 lower incidence of severe hypoglycemia,⁸³ reduced diabetes-related distress,²² and greater adherence to prescribed therapy.⁸⁵ In a recent RCT that followed 74 adults with T1D for 1 year, investigators reported similar HbA1c improvements between those supported by telemedicine consults and those receiving usual care through in-person clinic visits.⁸³

The value and utility of telemedicine technologies are most apparent when CGM users opt to transmit their data to their clinician for analysis. All current CGM manufacturers provide download software that utilizes variations of the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP). The AGP software program instantly analyzes the data and provides a standardized report that informs the clinician about the individual's current glycemic status relative to achieving established targets for glucose control.⁸⁶ Clinicians can then initiate a telemedicine consult to review the AGP report with the patient. These interactions help patients better understand their disease and treatment regimen, which facilitates greater engagement and treatment adherence.⁸⁷ The importance and utility of telemedicine consults have been clearly demonstrated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, which has prompted a dramatic restructuring of health care delivery.^88

–92 Telemedicine visits can also eliminate the need for in-person training for those with internet access.

In a recent study, Gal et al. assessed the feasibility of initiating CGM training in a cohort of 34 T1D adults.⁹³ During the study, participants completed three virtual clinic visits conducted by certified diabetes care and education specialist (CDCES) outside the clinical care setting. The CDCES served as the participants' primary contact during the study. The virtual sessions included training in sensor insertion, use of alarms/alerts, downloading CGM data, data interpretation, modifying health behaviors, and other aspects of diabetes self-management. At 12 weeks, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3 at baseline to 7.2 (P < 0.001) with a significant increase in percentage of time spent in target glucose range per day, from 48% to 59% (P < 0.001). Substantial improvements in quality-of-life measures, including reductions in diabetes distress, increased satisfaction with glucose monitoring, and fewer perceived technology barriers to management, were also reported.

Are documentation requirements impeding prescription of CGM in eligible individuals?

The answer is we do not know, but it is entirely likely. A burdensome by-product of the current CGM eligibility criteria is the extensive documentation required to obtain coverage.⁹⁴ Adhering to the requirements requires clinicians and office staff to gather and submit extensive documentation that includes patient records that provide detailed information about each patient's glucose testing, insulin adjustments, and other self-management data and activities. In addition, they must include their own notes that justify the CGM prescription. Faced with these obstacles, many busy clinics are unable or unwilling to comply with the requirements and simply refuse to prescribe CGM to their patients.

To our knowledge, no definitive studies have been conducted regarding the extent of these refusals. However, we do know that onerous documentation requirements are negatively impacting patient care. On a 2017 survey of 1000 clinicians, 92% of respondents said that documentation requirements for obtaining authorization for various medications and medical devices delay patient treatment and negatively affect clinical outcomes.⁹⁵

What is particularly puzzling is that CMS only provides coverage for three glucose test strips per day yet requires ≥4 times daily testing with supporting documentation. So, to qualify for CGM coverage, beneficiaries must pay out-of-pocket or their physician must be willing and able to collect and organize patient data at each visit, construct and document a compelling argument supporting the patient's need for extra test strips, complete the necessary paperwork, and then submit the claim to an approved supplier to obtain coverage. Again, many clinicians may not have the time to perform these additional tasks.

Compounding the problem is the lack of clarity the CMS provides to the durable medical equipment suppliers who make the final decision when submitting claims. In essence, these suppliers must determine whether the clinician's documentation supports the claim for “medical necessity,” which is not clearly defined by CMS. As a result, claims are often rejected by suppliers to avoid potential financial penalties that could be imposed by CMS audits if they guess wrong.

Rationale for Expanding CGM Coverage

Traditional approaches to diabetes management are ineffective and unsustainable

Persistent hyperglycemia significantly increases the risks for both acute^52,96,97 and long-term complications^98

–103 with associated increased costs.¹⁰⁴ Thus, preventing or reducing the severity of acute and long-term diabetes complications remains a primary goal of diabetes management, and maintaining optimal glycemic control is central to achieving this goal.^105,106

However, despite advances in diabetes medications, glucose monitoring technologies, and insulin-delivery systems, a significant proportion of individuals with diabetes are not achieving their individual glycemic targets.^107

–111 A major driver of suboptimal glycemic control is therapeutic inertia. Although national and international clinical guidelines recommend that treatment should be escalated if individualized glycemic targets are not met within 3–6 months of initiation of treatment,¹⁰⁵ intensification of treatment when clinically indicated often does not occur.¹¹²

Several barriers to therapy intensification have been cited.^113

–116 Patients are often reluctant to adhere to their prescribed therapy due to negative perceptions about the efficacy of their treatment, lack of appropriate knowledge about managing their diabetes, and concerns about hypoglycemia.¹¹⁷ Clinicians are challenged to intensify therapy by different barriers, including restrictions on time and resources,^118,119 inaccurate or incomplete glucose data,^120
–122 lack of decision support tools,¹²³ and concerns about hypoglycemia.¹²⁴

Use of CGM Addresses Many of the Obstacles to Treatment Intensification

Utility of CGM Versus BGM

It is widely recognized that frequent glucose monitoring is critical for achieving glycemic targets and reducing hypoglycemia in individuals treated with antihyperglycemic medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas. It is particularly important for elderly patients to systematically monitor their glucose due to their increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.^125
–127 Although BGM through fingerstick capillary blood sampling is the most common method for glucose testing, it cannot detect the velocity or direction of rapidly changing glucose levels without frequent testing. Because many individuals find BGM painful and burdensome, they often do not test as frequently as needed to detect immediate or impending hypoglycemia. In a recent study of 33 T2D adults treated with antihyperglycemic oral medications, Siddiqui reported that 61.9% did not use BGM in their daily regimen.¹²⁸

Unlike BGM, which provides only a single glucose value, CGM continuously samples interstitial glucose and transmits the data to the user's handheld reader or smartphone app, automatically or when the user scans the sensor. The data are displayed in both numerical and graphical presentations that provide information about the user's current glucose level, recent glucose trend, and direction/velocity of changing glucose. This information facilitates more informed decision making regarding medication adjustments and lifestyle behaviors (e.g., meal size, timing of physical activity). Importantly, it enables them to take immediate action to mitigate current or impending acute glycemic events.

Today's CGM systems also feature active alarms and alerts that warn users of high or low glucose, offering additional safety advantages.^129
–131 These features can be critical for some individuals such as those who experience frequent hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and/or impaired hypoglycemia awareness.^40,132 BGM cannot provide information on glucose levels and cannot provide alerts about urgent glucose levels between tests.

Because CGM presents the glucose trend and direction/rate of changing glucose in graphical formats, users are able to visualize their current glucose status, which both demonstrate the impact (and efficacy) of their medications and facilitate a greater understanding of the “cause and effect” of their health behaviors. Moreover, the use of graphical data formats is essential for the many individuals with diabetes who are challenged with poor numeracy skills. As reported in several studies, poor numeracy is common among and associated with poor glycemic control with diabetes.^133

–136

An additional feature of current CGM devices is the ability to share data with others. A recent study of device usage in 15,000 CGM users found that 94.8% of respondents utilized the sharing feature and had at least one follower.¹³⁷ Investigators reported that the presence of at least one follower was associated with lower mean glucose values, greater time spend in target range (70–180 mg/dL), less time spent in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and significantly more frequent CGM utilization. This suggests that use of the sharing feature contributed to more timely interventions and/or increased engagement among the caregivers or other followers.

Importantly, glucose data can be downloaded for retrospective analysis using efficacy metrics that are unique to CGM technology. These include time and percentage of time spent in various glucose ranges (time in range, time below range, and time above range).^86,138 These metrics have been adopted by several national and international medical organizations.⁸⁶

Conclusions

Advances in glucose monitoring technologies have led to the development of CGM systems that offer significantly greater accuracy, reliability, safety, and convenience than previous systems. The value and efficacy of these new systems are supported by an abundance of well-designed RCTs and real-world studies that have withstood rigorous peer review and evaluation.

Although the evidence supporting CGM use in individuals with T1D and T2D treated with intensive insulin regimens is now indisputable,^1

–6 we are also seeing a significant and growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating similar benefits in individuals treated with less-intensive therapies, including improved glycemic control, reductions in hypoglycemia, and lower rates of diabetes-related events requiring emergency department services and/or hospitalizations.^{7

–22}

If government and private insurers were (truly) interested in “following the science” when determining eligibility criteria for CGM coverage, we would expect to see a relaxation of the current requirements in ways that encourage use of CGM within the larger T2D population that now includes >16 million individuals who are treated with basal insulin and/or oral diabetes medications.⁶⁵ Yet, current CGM eligibility criteria remain both restrictive and scientifically unsupported.

Although we understand and support the need for payers to maintain a sense of fiscal discipline in their decision making, the fact that U.S. payers (public and private) are currently paying out >$327 billion in diabetes-related costs that are directly associated with the treatment of both acute and long-term complications, including emergency room services, hospitalizations, outpatient care, and lost/reduce productivity.¹³⁹ Many of these costs and complications are avoidable with the use of appropriate tools and medications.

Given the growing worldwide prevalence and rising costs of diabetes, insurers should feel compelled to investigate ways to expand access to the tools and therapies that are proven effective or show the potential to improve diabetes outcomes and enhance the patient's life, while reducing costs.

Footnotes

Authors' Contributions

D.F.K. and J.E.A. wrote the article. All authors reviewed the article before submission and take full responsibility for the accuracy of its content.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Christopher G. Parkin, MS, CGParkin Communications, Inc., for editorial support.

Author Disclosure Statement

D.F.K. has served on advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for Abbott Diabetes Care, has served on advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care, and her institution has received research support from Abbott Diabetes Care and Dexcom. J.E.A. reports receiving speaker fees from Abbott Diabetes Care.

Funding Information

Funding for the development of this article was provided by Abbott Diabetes Care.

References

Beck

, Riddlesworth

, Ruedy

, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med, 2017; 167:365–374.

Ruedy

, Parkin

, Riddlesworth

, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring in older adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin: results from the DIAMOND trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2017; 11:1138–1146.

Fokkert

, van Dijk

, Edens

, et al.: Improved well-being and decreased disease burden after 1-year use of flash glucose monitoring (FLARE-NL4). BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 2019; 7:e000809.

Haak

, Hanaire

, Ajjan

, et al.: Use of flash glucose sensing technology for 12 months as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther, 2017; 8:573–586.

Haak

, Hanaire

, Ajjan

, et al.: Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther, 2017; 8:55–73.

Bergenstal

, Kerr

MSD

, Roberts

, et al.: Flash CGM is associated with reduced diabetes events and hospitalizations in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. J Endocr Soc, 2021; 5:bvab013.

Fonda

, Graham

, Munakata

, et al.: The cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) in type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2016; 10:898–904.

Yoo

, An

, Park

, et al.: Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as a motivational device for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2008; 82:73–79.

Dandona

: Minimizing glycemic fluctuations in patients with type 2 diabetes: approaches and importance. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:498–506.

10.

Simonyi

, Csitári

, Gasparics

, et al.: Silent hypoglycaemic episodes among well controlled type 2 diabetic patients treated with sulfonylureas [abstract]. Diabetologia, 2015; 58(Suppl 1):S465.

11.

Allen

, Fain

, Braun

, Chipkin

: Continuous glucose monitoring counseling improves physical activity behaviors of individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2008; 80:371–379.

12.

Maurizi

, Pozzilli

: Do we need continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes?. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2013;DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2450.

13.

Vigersky

, Fonda

, Chellappa

, et al.: Short-and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:32–38.

14.

Ida

, Kaneko

, Murata

: Utility of real-time and retrospective continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Diabetes Res, 2019; 2019:4684815.

15.

Taylor

, Thompson

, Brinkworth

: Effectiveness and acceptability of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 diabetes management: a narrative review. J Diabetes Investig, 2018; 9:713–725.

16.

Park

, Le

: The effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:613–621.

17.

Janapala

, Jayaraj

, Fathima

, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Cureus, 2019; 11:e5634.

18.

Ehrhardt

, Zaghal

: Behavior modification in prediabetes and diabetes: potential use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019; 13:271–275.

19.

Wright

, Kerr

MSD

, Reyes

, et al.: Use of flash continuous glucose monitoring is associated with A1C reduction in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin or non-insulin therapy. Diabetes Spectrum, 2021; 34:184–189.

20.

Miller

, Kerr

MSD

, Roberts

, et al. FreeStyle Libre^® system use associated with reduction in acute diabetes events and all-cause hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes without bolus insulin. Am J Manag Care, 2021 (In Press).

21.

Bergenstal

, Layne

, Zisser

, et al.: Remote application and use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring by adults with type 2 diabetes in a virtual diabetes clinic. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23:128–132.

22.

Polonsky

, Layne

, Parkin

, et al.: Impact of participation in a virtual diabetes clinic on diabetes-related distress in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Clin Diabetes, 2020; 38:357–362.

23.

, Huang

, Zhu

, et al.: Elevation of blood glucose level predicts worse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 2020; 8:e001476.

24.

Yang

, Yu

, Xu

, et al.: Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet, 2020; 8:475–481.

25.

Bruce Bode

, Garrett

, Messler

, et al.: Glycemic characteristics and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the United States. Sci Technol, 2020; 14:813–821.

26.

Riddle

, Buse

, Franks

, et al.: COVID-19 in people with diabetes: urgently needed lessons from early reports. Diab Care, 2020; 43:1378–1381.

27.

Shi

, Zhang

, Jiang

, et al.: Clinical characteristics and risk factors for mortality of COVID-19 patients with diabetes in Wuhan, China: a two-center, retrospective study. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:1382–1391.

28.

American Diabetes Association. Diabetes and Coronavirus (COVID-19). What You Need To Know: Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine. https://www.diabetes.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccination-guide (accessed April 18, 2021 ).

29.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Provider Compliance Tips for Glucose Monitors & Diabetic Accessories/Supplies. https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/Downloads/ProviderComplianceTipsforGlucoseMonitors-ICN909465Print-Friendly.pdf (accessed March 23, 2021 ).

30.

Aetna. Diabetes

Tests

, Programs and

Supplies

. www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/1_99/0070.html (accessed March 30, 2021 ).

31.

Humana. Medical and Pharmacy Coverage Policies. http://apps.humana.com/tad/Tad_New/Search.aspx?docbegin=C&policyType=medical&searchtype=beginswith (accessed March 30, 2021 ).

32.

United Healthcare Medicare Advantage. Policy Guideline. Therapeutic Continuous Glucoses Monitors. https://www.uhcprovider.com/content/dam/provider/docs/public/policies/medadv-guidelines/t/therapeutic-continuous-blood-glucose-monitors.pdf (accessed March 30, 2021 ).

33.

Puckrein

, Hirsch

, Parkin

, et al.: Should the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) change their requirements for insulin-using beneficiaries obtaining Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) technology? An analysis of the CMS data set. Diabetes Care, 2020 (submitted).

34.

Bolinder

, Antuna

, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn

, et al.: Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2016; 388:2254–2263.

35.

Yaron

, Roitman

, Aharon-Hananel

, et al.: Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:1178–1184.

36.

Pratley

, Kanapka

, Rickels

, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2020; 323:2397–2406.

37.

Lind

, Polonsky

, Hirsch

: Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2017; 317:379–387.

38.

Beck

, Riddlesworth

, Ruedy

, et al.: Effect of initiating use of an insulin pump in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections and continuous glucose monitoring (DIAMOND): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2017; 5:700–708.

39.

van Beers

, DeVries

, Kleijer

, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2016; 4:893–902.

40.

Heinemann

, Guido Freckmann

, Gabriele Faber-Heinemann

, et al.: Benefits of continuous glucose monitoring use in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness and/or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections: results of the multicentre, randomised controlled HypoDE study. Lancet, 2018; 391:1367–1377.

41.

Aleppo

, Ruedy

, Riddlesworth

, et al.: REPLACE-BG: a randomized trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring with and without routine blood glucose monitoring in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:538–545.

42.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2008; 359:1464–1476.

43.

Beck

, Riddlesworth

, Ruedy

, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2017; 317:371–378.

44.

Hirsch

, Kerr

MSD

, Roberts

, et al.: Utilization of continuous glucose monitors is associated with reduction in inpatient and outpatient emergency acute diabetes events regardless of prior blood test strip usage. Diabetes, 2020; 69(Supplement 1):875-P.

45.

Roussel

, Riveline

J-P

, Vicaut

, et al.: Important drop rate of acute diabetes complications in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes after initiation of flash glucose monitoring in France: the RELIEF study. Diabetes Care, 2021; 44:1–9.

46.

Miller

, Brandner

, Wright

: HbA1c reduction after initiation of the FreeStyle Libre^® system in type 2 diabetes patients on long-acting insulin or non-insulin therapy. Diabetes, 2020;(Supplement 1):84-LB.

47.

Wright

, Kerr

MSD

, Reyes

, et al.: HbA1c reduction associated with a FreeStyle Libre^® system in people with type 2 diabetes not on bolus insulin therapy. Diabetes, 2020;(Supplement 1):78-LB-P.

48.

Miller

, Kerr

MSD

, Roberts

, et al.: FreeStyle Libre^® system use associated with reduction in acute diabetes events and all-cause hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes without bolus insulin. Diabetes, 2020;(Supplement 1):85-LB.

49.

Ehrhardt

, Chellappa

, Walker

, et al.: The effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2011; 5:668–675.

50.

Majithia

, Kusiak

, Lee

, et al.: Glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes participating in a continuous glucose monitor–driven virtual diabetes clinic: prospective trial. J Med Internet Res, 2020; 22:e21778.

51.

Cryer

: Hypoglycemia: still the limiting factor in the glycemic management of diabetes. EndocrPract, 2008; 14:750–756.

52.

Weinstock

, DuBose

, Bergenstal

, et al.: Risk factors associated with severe hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2016; 39:603–610.

53.

Bremer

, Jauch-Chara

, Hallschmid

, et al.: Hypoglycemia unawareness in older compared with middle-aged patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32:1513–1517.

54.

Punthakee

, Miller

, Launer

, et al.: Poor cognitive function and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: post hoc epidemiologic analysis of the ACCORD trial. Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:787–793.

55.

Giorda

, Ozzello

, Gentile

, et al.: Incidence and risk factors for severe and symptomatic hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Results of the HYPOS-1 study. Acta Diabetol, 2015; 52:845–853.

56.

Cariou

, Fontaine

, Eschwege

, et al.: Frequency and predictors of confirmed hypoglycaemia in type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in a real-life setting: results from the DIALOG study. Diabetes Metab, 2015; 41:116–125.

57.

Seaquist

, Anderson

, Childs

, et al.: Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:1384–1395.

58.

Lipska

, Ross

, Wang

, et al.: National trends in US hospital admissions for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia among medicare beneficiaries, 1999 to 2011. JAMA Intern Med, 2014; 174:1116–1124.

59.

Johnston

, Conner

, Aagren

, et al.: Evidence linking hypoglycemic events to an increased risk of acute cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2011; 34:1164–1170.

60.

Johnston

, Conner

, Aagren

, et al.: Association between hypoglycaemic events and fall-related fractures in Medicare-covered patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2012; 14:634–643.

61.

Whitmer

, Karter

, Yaffe

, et al.: Hypoglycemic episodes and risk of dementia in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA, 2009; 301:1565–1572.

62.

Yaffe

, Falvey

, Hamilton

, et al.: Health ABC Study. Association between hypoglycemia and dementia in a biracial cohort of older adults with diabetes mellitus. JAMA Intern Med, 2013; 173:1300–1306.

63.

McCoy

, Van Houten

, Ziegenfuss

, et al.: Increased mortality of patients with diabetes reporting severe hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:1897–901.

64.

Hsu

, Sung

, Cheng

, et al.: Association of clinical symptomatic hypoglycemia with cardiovascular events and total mortality in type 2 diabetes: a nationwide population-based study. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:894–900.

65.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Diabetes Statistics

Report

, 2020: Estimates of diabetes and Its Burden in the United

States

. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf (accessed February 29, 2020 ).

66.

Ólafsdóttir

, Polonsky

, Bolinder

, et al.: A randomized clinical trial of the effect of continuous glucose monitoring on nocturnal hypoglycemia, daytime hypoglycemia, glycemic variability, and hypoglycemia confidence in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (GOLD-3) diabetes. Technol Ther, 2018; 20:274–284.

67.

McCoy

, Lipska

, Yao

, et al.: Intensive treatment and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes. JAMA Intern Med, 2016; 176:969–978.

68.

Schloot

, Haupt

, Schütt

, et al.: Risk of severe hypoglycemia in sulfonylurea-treated patients from diabetes centers in Germany/Austria: how big is the problem? Which patients are at risk?. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2016; 32:316–324.

69.

Matsuoka

, Hirota

, Takeda

, et al.: Relationship between glycated hemoglobin level and duration of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes patients treated with sulfonylureas: a multicenter cross-sectional study. J Diabetes Investig, 2020; 11:417–425.

70.

Dunkley

, Fitzpatrick

, Gray

, et al.: Incidence and severity of hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes by treatment regimen: a UK multisite 12-month prospective observational study. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2019; 21:1585–1595.

71.

Lipska

, Yao

, Herrin

, et al.: Trends in drug utilization, glycemic control, and rates of severe hypoglycemia, 2006–2013. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:468–475.

72.

Gehlaut

, Dogbey

, Schwartz

, et al.: Hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes—more common than you think: a continuous glucose monitoring study. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 9:999–1005.

73.

Munshi

, Segal

, Suhl

, et al.: Frequent hypoglycemia among elderly patients with poor glycemic control. Arch Intern Med, 2011; 171:362–364.

74.

Hollander

, Kiljanski

, Spaepen

, Harris

: Risk of clinically relevant hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes self-titrating insulin glargine U-100. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2019; 21:2413–2421.

75.

Barnard

, Thomas

, Royle

, et al.: Fear of hypoglycaemia in parents of young children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. BMC Pediatr, 2010; 10:50.

76.

Haugstvedt

, Wentzel-Larsen

, Graue

, et al.: Fear of hypoglycaemia in mothers and fathers of children with type 1 diabetes is associated with poor glycaemic control and parental emotional distress: a population-based study. Diabet Med, 2010; 27:72–78.

77.

Willis

, Diago-Cabezudo

, Madec-Hily

, Aslam

: Medical resource use, disturbance of daily life and burden of hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes: results from a European online survey. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 2013; 13:123–130.

78.

Perlmuter

, Flanagan

, Shah

, Singh

: Glycemic control and hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care, 2008; 31:2072–2076.

79.

Faruque

, Wiebe

, Ehteshami-Afshar, et al.: Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ, 2017; 189:E341–E364.

80.

Salehi

, Olyaeemanesh

, Mobinizadeh

, et al.: Assessment of remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems for patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Metab Disord, 2020; 19:115–127.

81.

Tchero

, Kangambega

, Briatte

, et al.: Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine in diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials. Telemed J E Health, 2019; 25:569–583.

82.

Wang

, Shu

, Du

, et al.: Mobile health in the management of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Endocr Disord, 2019; 19:21.

83.

Charpentier

, Benhamou

, Dardari

, et al.: The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 Study). Diabetes Care, 2011; 34:533–539.

84.

Dixon

, Zisser

, Layne

, et al.: A virtual type 2 diabetes clinic using continuous glucose monitoring and endocrinology visits. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14:908–911.

85.

Lee

, Balu

, Cobden

, et al.: Medication adherence and the associated health-economic impact among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus converting to insulin pen therapy: an analysis of third-party managed care claims data. Clin Ther, 2006; 28:1712–1725.

86.

Battelino

, Danne

, Bergenstal

, et al.: Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:1593–1603.

87.

Matthaei

: Assessing the value of the ambulatory glucose profile in clinical practice. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis, 2014; 14:148–152.

88.

Keesara

, Jonas

, Schulman

: Covid-19 and health care's digital revolution. N Engl J Med, 2020 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2005835.

89.

Galindo

, Aleppo

, Klonoff

, et al.: Implementation of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital: emergent considerations for remote glucose monitoring during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14:822–832.

90.

Jones

, Goley

, Alexander

, et al.: Inpatient transition to virtual care during COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:444–448.

91.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Using Telehealth to Expand Access to Essential Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic. June 10, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/telehealth.html (accessed June 26, 2020 ).

92.

Peters

, Garg

: The Silver Lining to COVID-19: avoiding diabetic ketoacidosis admissions with telehealth. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:449–453.

93.

Gal

, Cohen

, Kruger

, et al.: Diabetes telehealth solutions: improving self-management through remote initiation of continuous glucose monitoring. J Endocr Soc, 2020; 4:bvaa076.

94.

Huynh

, Toulouse

, Hirsch

: One-year time analysis in an academic diabetes clinic: quantifying our burden. Endocr Pract, 2018; 24:489–491.

95.

American Medical Association (AMA). 2017 AMA Prior Authorization Physician Survey. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/public/arc/prior-auth-2017.pdf (accessed March 1, 2021 ).

96.

Lipska

, Warton

, Huang

, et al.: HbA1c and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: The Diabetes and Aging Study. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:3535–3542.

97.

Zhao

MJY

, Prentice

, Mohr

, Conlin

: Association between hemoglobin A1c variability and hypoglycemia-related hospitalizations in veterans with diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 2021; 9:e001797.

98.

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group; Nathan

, Genuth

, Lachin

, et al. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med, 1993; 329:977–986.

99.

UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet, 1998; 352:854–865.

100.

Ismail-Beigi

, Craven

, Banerji

, et al.: ACCORD Trial Group. Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial. Lancet, 2010; 376:419–430.

101.

Hayward

, Reaven

, Wiitala

, et al.: VADT Investigators. Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2015; 372:2197–2206.

102.

Nathan

, Cleary

, Backlund

, et al.: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group: intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2005; 353:2643–2653.

103.

Holman

, Paul

, Bethel

, et al.: 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2008; 359:1577–1589.

104.

Dall

, Yang

, Gillespie

, et al.: The economic burden of elevated blood glucose levels in 2017: diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, and prediabetes. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:1661–1668.

105.

Davies

, D'Alessio

, Fradkin

, et al.: Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care, 2018; 61:2461–2498.

106.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng17 (accessed July 1, 2019 ).

107.

American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41(Suppl 1):S1–S194.

108.

Stone

, Charpentier

, Doggen

, et al.: Quality of care of people with type 2 diabetes in eight European countries: findings from the Guideline Adherence to Enhance Care (GUIDANCE) study. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:2628–2638.

109.

Meneghini

, Mauricio

, Orsi

, et al.: Achievement of HbA1c targets in the Diabetes Unmet Need with Basal Insulin Evaluation (DUNE) real-world study. ADA 77th Scientific Sessions, 2017; Poster 990-P.

110.

Mauricio

, Meneghini

, Seufert

, et al.: Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia burden in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin in Europe and the USA. Diabet Obes Metab, 2017; 19:1155–1164.

111.

Khunti

, Wolden

, Thorsted

, et al.: Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:3411–3417.

112.

Khunti

, Gomes

, Pocock

, et al.: Therapeutic inertia in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diab Obes Metab, 2018; 20:427–437.

113.

Zafar

, Stone

, Davies

, Khunti

: Acknowledging and allocating responsibility for clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative study. Diabet Med, 2015; 32:407–413.

114.

Peyrot

, Rubin

, Lauritzen

, et al.: On behalf of the International DAWN Advisory Panel. Psychosocial problems and barriers to improved diabetes management: results of the Cross-National Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) Study. Diabetic Med, 2005; 22:1379–1385.

115.

Costagliola

, Chwalow

, Varenne

, et al.: Initiation of insulin treatment after 70 years of age: patient status 2 years later. Diabet Med, 1991; 8:773–777.

116.

Kunt

, Snoek

: Barriers to insulin initiation and intensification and how to overcome them. Int J Clin Pract, 2009; 63(Suppl. 164):6–10.

117.

Polonsky

, Henry

: Poor medication adherence in type 2 diabetes: recognizing the scope of the problem and its key contributors. Patient Prefer Adherence, 2016; 10:1299–1307.

118.

Reach

, Pechtner

, Gentilella

, et al.: Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab, 2017; 43:501–511.

119.

Aujoulat

, Jacquemin

, Rietzschel

, et al.: Factors associated with clinical inertia: an integrative review. Adv Med Educ Pract, 2014; 5:141–147.

120.

Gonder-Frederick

, Julian

, Cox

, et al.: Self-measurement of blood glucose. Accuracy of self-reported data and adherence to recommended regimen. Diabetes Care, 1988; 11:579–585.

121.

Given

, O'Kane

, Bunting

, Coates

: Comparing patient-generated blood glucose diary records with meter memory in diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med, 2013; 30:901–913.

122.

Kazlauskaite

, Soni

, Evans

, et al.: Accuracy of self-monitored blood glucose in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:385–392.

123.

Reaney

: The need for a tool to assist health care professionals and patients in making medication treatment decisions in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Spectr, 2015; 28:227–229.

124.

Andreozzi

, Candido

, Corrao

, et al.: Clinical inertia is the enemy of therapeutic success in the management of diabetes and its complications: a narrative literature review. Diabetol Metab Syndr, 2020; 12:52.

125.

Meneilly

, Cheung

, Tuokko

: Counterregulatory hormone responses to hypoglycemia in the elderly patient with diabetes. Diabetes, 1994; 43:403–410.

126.

Meneilly

, Tessier

: Diabetes in the elderly. Diabet Med, 1995; 12:949–960.

127.

Schutt

, Fach

, Seufert

, et al.: Multiple complications and frequent severe hypoglycaemia in ‘elderly’ and ‘old’ patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med, 2012; 29:e176–e179.

128.

Siddiqui

, Khan

, Moyeen

, Chaudhary

: Identifying barriers to therapeutic adherence in type 2-diabetes: a complex and multidimensional clinical issue. Asp Biomed Clin Case Rep, 2019; 2:22–28.

129.

Edelman

, Argento

, Pettus

, Hirsch

: Clinical implications of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:2265–2274.

130.

Pettus

, Price

, Edelman

: How patients with type 1 diabetes translate continuous glucose monitoring data into diabetes management decisions. Endocr Pract, 2015; 21:613–620.

131.

Vettoretti

, Facchinetti

, Sparacino

, Cobelli

: Simulation of patient decision-making to test safety and effectiveness of CGM sensor for non-adjunctive use in type 1 diabetes: SMBG vs CGM-based therapies. Paper presented at: 15th Annual Diabetes Technology Meeting; 22–24 October 2015; Bethesda, MD.

132.

Reddy

, Jugnee

, El Laboudi

, et al.: A randomised controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med, 2018; 35:483–490.

133.

Cavanaugh

, Huizinga

, Wallston

, et al.: Association of numeracy and diabetes control. Ann Intern Med, 2008; 148:737–746.

134.

Huizinga

, Carlisle

, Cavanaugh

, et al.: Literacy, numeracy, and portion-size estimation skills. Am J Prev Med, 2009; 36:324–328.

135.

Marden

, Thomas

, Sheppard

, Knott

. et al.: Poor numeracy skills are associated with glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Med, 2012; 29:662–669.

136.

Stephanie

, Dogbey

, Collins

, et al.: Diabetes numeracy and blood glucose control: association with type of diabetes and source of care. Clin Diabetes, 2014; 32:152–157.

137.

Welsh

, Derdzinski

, Parker

, et al.: Real-time sharing and following of continuous glucose monitoring data in youth. Diabetes Ther, 2019; 10:751–755.

138.

Danne

, Nimri

, Battelino

, et al.: International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:1631–1640.

139.

American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:917–928.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Is a Tool,Not a Reward: Unjustified Insurance Coverage Criteria Limit Access to CGM

Abstract

Introduction

“Follow the Science”

Restrictive CGM Eligibility Criteria Obstruct Safe and Effective Diabetes Management

Current criteria

The Science That Supports These Criteria Is Nowhere to Be Found

Is a history of diabetes self-management behaviors relevant to optimal CGM use and outcomes?

BGM frequency

Use of BGM data to make frequent insulin adjustments

Three or more daily insulin injections

Are frequent therapy adjustments required to optimize CGM use?

Are in-person clinician visits essential to assess and monitor CGM users?

Are documentation requirements impeding prescription of CGM in eligible individuals?

Rationale for Expanding CGM Coverage

Traditional approaches to diabetes management are ineffective and unsustainable

Use of CGM Addresses Many of the Obstacles to Treatment Intensification

Utility of CGM Versus BGM

Conclusions

Footnotes

Authors' Contributions

Acknowledgment

Author Disclosure Statement

Funding Information

References