Allaire Jason C, Dennis Consuela, Wright Eugene E, Edelman Steven V, Masturzo Arti
Generativity Solutions Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Chapel Hill, NC.
Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Clin Diabetes. 2025 Mar 24;43(3):399-408. doi: 10.2337/cd24-0108. eCollection 2025 Summer.
This real-world analysis compared adherence rates, total health care costs, and health care resource utilization of individuals receiving continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) supplies through durable medical equipment (DME) providers versus through pharmacies, according to insurance type. Patients in the DME cohort had higher adherence rates than those in the pharmacy cohort. Total costs were lower for Medicare/Medicare Advantage patients getting supplies from a DME than for patients getting supplies from a pharmacy. Among those with commercial insurance, health care utilization was lower in the DME cohort than in the pharmacy cohort. Sourcing CGM supplies from DME providers versus pharmacies may yield benefits on adherence, health care costs, and resource utilization.
这项真实世界分析根据保险类型，比较了通过耐用医疗设备（DME）供应商与通过药房获得持续葡萄糖监测（CGM）用品的个体的依从率、总医疗保健成本和医疗保健资源利用率。DME队列中的患者依从率高于药房队列中的患者。医疗保险/医疗保险优势计划患者从DME获得用品的总成本低于从药房获得用品的患者。在拥有商业保险的人群中，DME队列的医疗保健利用率低于药房队列。与从药房采购CGM用品相比，从DME供应商采购CGM用品可能在依从性、医疗保健成本和资源利用方面产生益处。
