Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Glycemic self-monitoring and insurance coverage

Michele Heisler
CMAJ July 06, 2004 171 (1) 48-49; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040681
Michele Heisler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

A growing body of research is calling attention to significant rates of medication underuse and to adverse health consequences associated with high out-of-pocket drug costs, especially among patients with low incomes, multiple chronic illnesses or no prescription drug coverage.1,2 Studies in the United States and Canada have shown that public- and private-sector policies limiting drug coverage lead to fewer prescriptions being filled,3,4 higher rates of nursing home admissions5 and increased use of acute care services.3 Yet physicians often fail to identify patients who are burdened by high out-of-pocket expenses.6 Many patients with chronic illnesses who report having underused medications because of cost never discuss this underuse with their physicians.7,8

In this issue Samantha Bowker and colleagues9 (see page 39) contribute to this body of research and expand the policy debate on the scope of health insurance coverage into the realm of medical supplies. They examine cross-sectional baseline survey and laboratory data from 405 non-insulin-using patients with type 2 diabetes who are enrolled in a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effect of providing free blood glucose testing supplies on glycemic control. Of these patients, 41% had at least some level of insurance coverage for blood glucose testing supplies. In multivariate analyses adjusted for age, income, education, frequency of monitoring and perceived barriers to monitoring, they found that patients with insurance coverage of testing supplies had hemoglobin A1c values that were 0.5% higher than the values for patients without such insurance coverage (p = 0.006). As the authors note, this finding is clinically significant. There were even larger differences among people with poorer baseline glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c concentrations > 8.4%). These findings reinforce those of Soumerai and coauthors,10 who examined trends in hemoglobin A1c concentrations 2 years before and after a large US health maintenance organization instituted coverage of blood glucose testing supplies. In that study, among the 288 patients who initiated self-monitoring of blood glucose, mean hemoglobin A1c concentrations fell from 10.8% to 8.6%.

If the current study's findings are confirmed by subsequent results from the authors' randomized controlled trial, they will have important implications for the ongoing policy debate in Canada. Approximately 6% of Canadians have diabetes, and the prevalence of the disease is projected to increase by 35% over the next 25 years.11 The total economic burden of diabetes in Canada is estimated to exceed US$5 billion a year.11 Policy decisions determining which medications, procedures or supplies to cover should be based on sound scientific evidence of clinical benefit. Certainly, blood glucose testing supplies are expensive. However, for conditions such as diabetes whose associated morbidity and mortality are high, the greater the clinical benefit, the less significant are the costs of coverage relative to the downstream costs of treating complications of the disease.

Although Bowker and colleagues' findings are provocative, they must be considered in the context of the mixed findings of earlier research on self-monitoring among patients with type 2 diabetes who do not take insulin.12 In the face of limited empirical evidence, proponents argue that self-monitoring is an effective tool to guide patients and physicians in modifying diabetes management (including diet, physical activity and medication). Indeed, studies that have shown improved glycemic control with self-monitoring — even among patients taking insulin — have tended to be those in which self-monitoring was directly linked to concrete steps (such as titrating insulin doses) that patients could take in response to those values.12,13 Few trials have examined the influence of self-monitoring on other modifiable behaviours such as diet and exercise.12 Yet self-monitoring appears most likely to play a significant role in improving glycemic control when it is an integral part of broader efforts to support diabetes self-management.

What, then, might be the mechanism for this study's observed effect of insurance coverage for self-monitoring supplies on glycemic control? Certainly, as the authors hypothesize, it could simply be the removal of a financial obstacle. One might then anticipate that those without coverage, who indeed were more likely to report cost as a barrier to self-monitoring, might also report a lower frequency of testing. However, frequency of self-monitoring did not appear to be independently associated with glycemic control. It is also possible that having insurance coverage — especially if patients had to choose to purchase private coverage on their own or proactively apply for supplemental coverage — is a marker for increased concern about health and involvement in diabetes self-care.

This study alerts us to an association between insurance coverage for blood glucose testing supplies and glycemic control. As Bowker and colleagues note, their randomized controlled trial of free self-monitoring supplies versus “usual health care policy” will more definitively establish the effect of covering these supplies and reduce concerns that other unmeasured attributes might account for the observed differences between the study groups.

This study reinforces several crucial messages for physicians. As with other possible obstacles to effective diabetes self-management, we must discuss with our patients the financial barriers they may be facing. More broadly, we must explore with patients the entire range of factors that they weigh when choosing whether and how to take prescribed medications or to engage in other diabetes self-care activities. Translating effective diabetes treatment regimens into improved clinical outcomes depends on patients' capacity and motivation to initiate and sustain those regimens.

𝛃 See related article page 39

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

    Correspondence to: Dr. Michele Heisler, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, PO Box 130170, Ann Arbor MI 48113; 734 761-2939; mheislermed.umich.edu

References

  1. 1.↵
    Steinman MA, Sands LP, Covinsky KE. Self-restriction of medications due to cost in seniors without prescription coverage. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:793-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Piette JD, Wagner TH, Potter MB, Schillinger D. Health insurance status, medication self-restriction due to cost, and outcomes among diabetes patients in three systems of care. Med Care 2004;42:102-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Tamblyn R, Laprise R, Hanley JA, Abrahamowicz M, Scott S, Mayo N, et al. Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. JAMA 2001;285:421-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J, Ross-Degnan D, Gortmaker S. Payment restrictions for prescription drugs under Medicaid. Effects on therapy, cost, and equity. N Engl J Med 1987;317:550-6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D, Avorn J, McLaughlin T, Choodnovskiy I. Effects of Medicaid drug-payment limits on admission to hospitals and nursing homes. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1072-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Heisler M, Wagner TH, Piette JD. Clinician identification of chronically ill patients who have problems paying for prescription medications. Am J Med 2004; 116:753-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Meltzer DO. Patient-physician communication about out-of-pocket costs. JAMA 2003;290:953-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Piette JD, Heisler M, Wagner TH. Cost-Related Medication Underuse: do patients with chronic illnesses tell their doctors? Arch Intern Med [In press].
  9. 9.↵
    Bowker SL, Mitchell CG, Majumdar SR, Toth EL, Johnson JA. Lack of insurance coverage for testing supplies is associated with poorer glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. CMAJ 2004;171(1):39-43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Soumerai S, Mah C, Zhang F, Adams A, Barton M, Ross-Degnan D. Effects of HMO coverage of diabetes self-monitoring devices on rates of self-monitoring, medication compliance, and blood glucose control. In: AcademyHealth 2002 Annual Research Meeting Abstracts. Available: www.academyhealth.org/2002/abstracts/pharmaceutical.pdf (accessed 2004 June 01).
  11. 11.↵
    Dawson KG, Gomes D, Gerstein H, Blanchard JF, Kahler KH. The economic cost of diabetes in Canada, 1998. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1303-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Pre-Assessment Diabetes Testing. May 2004, Number 34. Available: http://www.ccohta.ca/entry_e.html (accessed 2004 June 01).
  13. 13.↵
    Franciosi M, Pellegrini F, De Berardis G, Belfiglio M, Cavaliere D, Di Nardo B, et al. The impact of blood glucose self-monitoring on metabolic control and quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients: an urgent need for better educational strategies. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1870-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 171 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 171, Issue 1
6 Jul 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter (93-100)

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Glycemic self-monitoring and insurance coverage
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Glycemic self-monitoring and insurance coverage
Michele Heisler
CMAJ Jul 2004, 171 (1) 48-49; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040681

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Glycemic self-monitoring and insurance coverage
Michele Heisler
CMAJ Jul 2004, 171 (1) 48-49; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040681
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Lack of insurance coverage for testing supplies is associated with poorer glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Ensuring timely genetic diagnosis in adults
  • The case for improving the detection and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea following stroke
  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Addiction medicine
    • Diabetes

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire