Background Many patients do not receive guideline-recommended preventive, chronic disease, and acute care. One potential explanation is insufficient time for primary care providers (PCPs) to provide care. Objective To quantify the time needed to provide 2020 preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care for a nationally representative adult patient panel by a PCP alone, and by a PCP as part of a team-based care model. Design Simulation study applying preventive and chronic disease care guidelines to hypothetical patient panels. Participants Hypothetical panels of 2500 patients, representative of the adult US population based on the 2017–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Main Measures The mean time required for a PCP to provide guideline-recommended preventive, chronic disease and acute care to the hypothetical patient panels. Estimates were also calculated for visit documentation time and electronic inbox management time. Times were re-estimated in the setting of team-based care. Key Results PCPs were estimated to require 26.7 h/day, comprising of 14.1 h/day for preventive care, 7.2 h/day for chronic disease care, 2.2 h/day for acute care, and 3.2 h/day for documentation and inbox management. With team-based care, PCPs were estimated to require 9.3 h per day (2.0 h/day for preventive care and 3.6 h/day for chronic disease care, 1.1 h/day for acute care, and 2.6 h/day for documentation and inbox management). Conclusions PCPs do not have enough time to provide the guideline-recommended primary care. With team-based care the time requirements would decrease by over half, but still be excessive. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07707-x.

For adults with T1D using multiple insulin injections and still experiencing suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] level <7%) is an established, cost-effective standard of care. However, guidelines recommend individualizing goals on the basis of age, comorbidity, diabetes duration, and complications. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of individualized control versus uniform intensive control (HbA1c level <7%) for the U.S. population with type 2 diabetes. Design Patient-level Monte Carlo–based Markov model. Data Sources National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011–2012. Target Population The approximately 17.3 million persons in the United States with diabetes diagnosed at age 30 years or older. Time Horizon Lifetime. Perspective Health care sector. Intervention Individualized versus uniform intensive glycemic control. Outcome Measures Average lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results of Base-Case Analysis Individualized control saved $13 547 per patient compared with uniform intensive control ($105 307 vs. $118 854), primarily due to lower medication costs ($34 521 vs. $48 763). Individualized control decreased life expectancy (20.63 vs. 20.73 years) due to an increase in complications but produced more QALYs (16.68 vs. 16.58) due to fewer hypoglycemic events and fewer medications. Results of Sensitivity Analysis Individualized control was cost-saving and generated more QALYs compared with uniform intensive control, except in analyses where the disutility associated with receiving diabetes medications was decreased by at least 60%. Limitation The model did not account for effects of early versus later intensive glycemic control. Conclusion Health policies and clinical programs that encourage an individualized approach to glycemic control for U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes reduce costs and increase quality of life compared with uniform intensive control. Additional research is needed to confirm the risks and benefits of this strategy. Primary Funding Source National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.