To compare diabetes management in adults between England and the United States, particularly focusing on the impact of a universal access health insurance system.
Design
Analysis of the nationally-representative surveys Health Survey of England, 2003 (unweighted n=14 057) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2002 (unweighted n=5411).
Setting and Participants
Adults 20–64 years of age; individuals >65.
Main Outcome Measures
Glycaemic, lipid and blood pressure control and medication use among individuals with previously diagnosed diabetes.
Results
Among those aged 20–64 the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes was lower in England (2.7%) than in the USA (5.0%). The proportion with diabetes receiving treatment was similar for the two countries. However, the mean HbA1c in England was 7.6%: in the USA it was 7.5% for those with insurance and 8.6% for those without insurance. The proportion of individuals on ACE inhibitors in England was 39%: in USA it was 39% for those with insurance, and 14% for those without.
Conclusions
Individuals in a healthcare system providing universal access have better managed diabetes than those in a market based system once one accounts for insurance.
References
1.
CohenR.A., Coraty-NelsonZ.Health Insurance Coverage: Estimates From The National Health Interview Survey, 2003. June 2004[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm]
2.
ShawJC Oh. Canada: comparing single-payer health care with practice in the United States.Am J Med2005; 118: 1064–6
3.
BrownL.D.Comparing health systems in four countries: lessons for the United States.Am J Public Health2003; 93: 52–6
4.
LightD.W.Universal health care: lessons from the British experience.Am J Public Health2003; 93: 25–30
5.
FeachemR.G., SekhriN.K., WhiteK.L.Getting more for their dollar: a comparison of the NHS with California's Kaiser Permanente.BMJ2002; 324: 135–41
6.
HamC., YorkN., SutchS., ShawR.Hospital bed utilisation in the NHS, Kaiser Permanente, and the US Medicare programme: analysis of routine data.BMJ2003; 327: 1257
7.
HimmelsteinD.U., WoolhandlerS.Getting more for their dollar: Kaiser v the NHS. Price adjustments falsify comparison.BMJ2002; 324: 1332
8.
Talbot-SmithA., GnaniS., PollockA.M., GrayD.P.Questioning the claims from Kaiser.Br J Gen Pract2004; 54: 415–21
9.
HarrisM.I., FlegalK.M., CowieC.C.. Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in US adults.Diabetes Care1998; 21: 518–24
10.
EastmanR.C., JavittJ.C., HermanW.H.. Model of complications of NIDDM. II. Analysis of the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating NIDDM with the goal of normoglycemia.Diabetes Care1997; 20: 735–44
11.
American Diabetes Association.Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus.Diabetes Care2000; 23: S32–42
CowieC.C., RustK.F., Byrd-HoltD., Prevalence of diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in adults—United States, 1999–2000.MMWR2003; 52: 833–7
15.
MainousA.G.III, KoopmanR.J., GillJ.M., BakerR., PearsonW.S.The relationship between continuity of care and diabetes control: evidence from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Am J Public Health2004; 94: 66–70
16.
KoopmanR.J., MainousA.G.III, BakerR., GillJ.M., GilbertG.E.Continuity of care and recognition of diabetes, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.Arch Intern Med2003; 163: 1357–61
17.
Italian Society of Diabetology.Risultati dello studio pilota sul controllo di qualita’ del dosaggio dell'emoglbina glicosilata.Diabete1994; 6: 89–92
18.
WeykampC.W., PendersT.J., MuskietF.A.J., van der SlikW.Glycohemoglobin: comparison of 12 analytic methods, applied to lyophilized haemolysates by 101 laboratories in an external quality assurance programme.Ann Clin Biochem1993; 30: 169–74
19.
JohnW.G.Performance of glycated haemoglobin analysis: data from the UK national external quality assessment scheme (UK NEQAS).Biochim Clin1989; 13(suppl 8): 253
20.
RohlfingC.L., LittleR.R., WiedmeyerH.M., Use of GHb (HbA1C) in screening for undiagnosed diabetes in the U.S. population.Diabetes Care2000; 23: 187–91
21.
HansonR.L., NelsonR.G., McCanceD.R., Comparison of screening tests for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med1993; 153: 2133–40
22.
ParkP.J., GriffinS.J., SargeantD.M., WarehamN.J.The performance of a risk score in predicting undiagnosed hyperglycemia.Diabetes Care2002; 25: 984–8
23.
Guidelines for good practice in the diagnosis and treatment of NIDDM.Report of a Joint working Party of the British Diabetic Association, The Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners.J R Coll Physicians Lond1993; 27: 259–66
24.
EdelmanD., OlsenM.K., DudleyT.K., HarrisA.C., OddoneE.Z.Utility of hemoglobin A1c in predicting diabetes risk.J Gen Intern Med2004; 19: 1175–80
25.
American Diabetes Association.Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus.Diabetes Care1999; 22: S32–41
26.
American Diabetes Association.Standards of medical care in diabetes.Diabetes Care2004; 27: S15–35
27.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Management of type 2 diabetes. Management of blood glucose.Inherited Clinical Guideline G.London: NICE, 2002 [http://www.nice.org.uk]
28.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Management of type 2 diabetes. Management of blood pressure and blood lipids.Inherited Clinical Guideline H.London: NICE, 2002 [http://www.nice.org.uk]
29.
Private Medical Insurance UK Market Sector Report.London: Laing & Buisson, 2001 [http:www.laingbuisson.co.uk]
30.
Institute of Medicine.Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late.Washington: National Academy Press, 2002
31.
RolandM.Linking physicians’ pay to the quality of care—a major experiment in the United Kingdom.N Engl J Med2004; 351: 1448–54
