Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Disclosure: W. Solorzano: None. L. Scarlett: None. K.P. Santiago Mangual: None. J. Borrell: None. B. Brumley: None. M. Tavares: None. C. Santana: None. T. Moin: None. E.M. Everett: None. Background: Despite the numerous benefits of CGMs in diabetes management, studies have consistently reported inequities in CGM use in racial-ethnic minorities, lower socioeconomic status, and with public insurance. In January 2022, a new California Medicaid policy switched coverage of CGMs from a Durable Medical Equipment benefit to a pharmacy benefit, creating less stringent insurance related criteria for CGM approval. We aim to evaluate the utilization of CGM use after the aforementioned policy change in an urban, multi-centered, federally qualified health center. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients with diabetes seen by diabetes NPs in three different clinics from January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. We excluded patients not managed on insulin. Patients were stratified by CGM status (current user, former user, never user). We used descriptive statistics to report patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Chi-squared test was used to evaluate differences between groups. We performed multivariate logistic regression to evaluate predictors of never using CGM. Results: We identified 239 patients who met inclusion criteria. They were primarily between the ages of 45-64 (60%), female (57%), Hispanic (84%), Spanish speaking (70%), and on Medicaid insurance (63%). Majority had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (93%) and managed on basal insulin plus other antidiabetic medication(s) (48%) with a mean HbA1c ≥ 10% (31%). At the end of the study period, 37% were current CGM users, 13% were former users and 51% were never users. Almost all (98%) of those who used CGMs started after January 2022.There was a statistically significant difference between CGM groups and treatment regimen (p = 0.000), insurance type (p = 0.000), type of diabetes (p = 0.000), and clinic site (p = 0.029). There was no statistically significant association between age, birth sex, race, primary language, or mean Hba1c. Most current and former users were/are on Freestyle Libre 2 (61% and 93%, respectively). Among never users, 55% had no discussion about CGM use documented in their charts. In an adjusted analysis, insurance type was the strongest predictor of never using CGM. Those without insurance on a county program, My Health LA (OR 15.5, 95% CI 3.7-65.6) or self-pay (OR 10.0, 95% CI 1.77-56.3) were more likely to be a never user. Conclusion: In an underserved population with diabetes, insurance status was the primary barrier to CGM use as demonstrated by the large uptake of CGM use after the policy change and that insurance status was the largest predictor of use. Additional studies are needed to evaluate other barriers impacting CGM uptake and adherence, clinical impact of CGM use, and patient experience. This will improve the utilization and adherence of this diabetes technology in this patient population who historically experiences more challenges with diabetes and obtaining optimal glycemic control. Presentation: 6/1/2024
Solorzano et al. (Tue,) studied this question.