Policy analysis identifies access barriers and facilitators for CGMs in Blind/Low Vision and Deaf populations, suggesting critical changes for equity.
Introduction and Objective: Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs) are essential tools for diabetes management. However, some state Medicaid programs do not have standardized, inclusive policies that ensure equitable access to CGM for Blind/Low Vision (BLV) and Deaf/Hard of Hearing (DHH) populations, driving disparities across the United States (including territories; U.S.). Methods: This policy analysis examines the barriers and facilitators to Medicaid CGM coverage for BLV and DHH populations. Results: CGM barrier language existed in 9.6% of the U.S. Medicaid policies, preventing BLV and DHH populations from accessing CGM. Facilitator language was present in 5.8% of the U.S. Medicaid policies, advocating for equitable access to CGMs for BLV individuals, but not DHH populations (Figure 1). Medicaid currently does not cover secondary devices for BLV (e.g., smart devices to audibly state glucose) or DHH (e.g., smart devices for haptic or visual alarms) populations that are required for CGM accessibility. Conclusion: Given the limitations of CGM alarms, there is an urgent need for Medicaid to cover secondary devices that provide haptic, visual, and audible alarms, as critical accessibility tools, not optional add-ons. These secondary devices are integral to ensuring safe and independent CGM use for BLV and DHH individuals. Policy changes that prioritize health equity, framing CGM access as both a usability issue and a matter of eligibility for all Medicaid beneficiaries, is crucial. Disclosure A.S. Hughes: None. A.P. Bray: None. J. Moore: None. C. Wilford: None. M. Litchman: Research Support; Current; National Institutes of Health, American Diabetes Association, Dexcom, Inc. Funding American Diabetes Association (11-22-ICTSHD-06), National Library of Medicine (G08LM014312)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hughes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: