Exploring the Impact of Device Sourcing on Real-World Adherence and Cost Implications of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Diabetes: Retrospective Claims Analysis (Preprint)
Authors: Allaire Jason C , Dennis Consuela , Masturzo Arti , Wittlin Steven 
Published: March 2024

BACKGROUND

Insurance benefit design influences whether individuals with diabetes who require a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) to provide real-time feedback on their blood glucose levels can obtain the CGM device from either a pharmacy or a durable medical equipment supplier. The impact of the acquisition channel on device adherence and health care costs has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the adherence rates for patients new to CGM therapy and the costs of care for individuals who obtained CGM devices from a pharmacy versus acquisition through a durable medical equipment supplier using retrospective claims analysis.

METHODS

Using the Mariner commercial claims database, individuals aged &gt;18 years with documented diabetes and an initial CGM claim during the first quarter of 2021 (2021 Q1, index date) were identified. Patients had to maintain uninterrupted enrollment for a duration of 15 months but file no CGM claim during the 6 months preceding the index date. We used direct matching to establish comparable pharmacy and durable medical equipment cohorts. Outcomes included quarterly adherence, reinitiation, and costs for the period from 2021 Q1 to the third quarter of 2022 (2022 Q3). Between-cohort differences in adherence rates and reinitiation rates were analyzed using <i>z</i> tests, and cost differences were analyzed using 2-tailed <i>t</i> tests.

RESULTS

Direct matching was used to establish comparable pharmacy and durable medical equipment cohorts. A total of 2356 patients were identified, with 1178 in the pharmacy cohort and 1178 in the durable medical equipment cohorts. Although adherence declined over time in both cohorts, the durable medical equipment cohort exhibited significantly superior adherence compared to the pharmacy cohort at 6 months (pharmacy n=615, 52% and durable medical equipment n=761, 65%; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), 9 months (pharmacy n=579, 49% and durable medical equipment cohorts n=714, 61%; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and 12 months (pharmacy 48% and durable medical equipment n=714, 59%; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Mean annual total medical costs for adherent patients in the pharmacy cohort were 53% higher than the durable medical equipment cohort (pharmacy US $10,635 and durable medical equipment US $6967; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). In nonadherent patients, the durable medical equipment cohort exhibited a significantly higher rate of therapy reinitiation during the period compared to the pharmacy cohort (pharmacy 61/613, 10% and durable medical equipment 108/485, 22%; <i>P</i>&lt;.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this real-world claims analysis demonstrate that, in a matched set, individuals who received their CGM through a durable medical equipment supplier were more adherent to their device. For individuals who experienced a lapse in therapy, those whose supplies were provided through the durable medical equipment channel were more likely to resume use after an interruption than those who received their supplies from a pharmacy. In the matched cohort analysis, those who received their CGM equipment through a durable medical equipment supplier demonstrated a lower total cost of care.