BIG news out of Washington, D.C

Secretary Burwell is proposing to cover diabetes prevention programs for Medicare beneficiaries. The proposal will need to go through a public comment period but as the article states, she has authority to do this under ACA and it does not need Congressional approval.

Here is the press release in it’s entirety.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans on Wednesday to propose expanding Medicare to cover programs to prevent diabetes among millions of people at high risk of developing the disease, marking the sixth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act with the prospect of a new benefit, federal officials said.
Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, is scheduled to announce the proposal at a Y.M.C.A. here. Under the plan, Medicare would pay for certain “lifestyle change programs” in which trained counselors would coach consumers on healthier eating habits and increased physical activity as ways to prevent Type 2 diabetes, formerly called adult onset diabetes. Such programs have been found effective in people with a condition known as prediabetes, meaning that they have blood sugar levels that are higher than normal but not high enough to be considered diabetes.
That expansion was made possible by provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed six years ago Wednesday.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 86 million adults, including at least 22 million people 65 or older, are prediabetic, increasing their risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes itself.
In 2012, the National Council of Y.M.C.A.s, also known as Y.M.C.A. of the U.S.A., received a federal grant of nearly $12 million to test the value of a diabetes prevention program in eight states. The curriculum for the program was approved by the C.D.C.
After a formal evaluation, Ms. Burwell said, “this program has been shown to reduce health care costs and help prevent diabetes.”
Federal officials said that Medicare saved $2,650 for each person enrolled in the prevention program over 15 months, compared with similar beneficiaries not in the program. That was more than enough to cover the costs. In addition, officials said, Medicare beneficiaries in the program lost about 5 percent of their body weight, which was enough to reduce substantially the risk of future diabetes.
Under the 2010 law, the health secretary can, by regulation, expand such demonstration projects nationwide if she finds that they would reduce Medicare spending without reducing the quality of care, and if the Medicare actuary agrees. That is a major change from the situation before the health care law, when an act of Congress was generally required to make even minor changes in Medicare benefits.
The proposal must go through a public comment period, but without the need for congressional approval, there is little doubt it will go into force before Mr. Obama leaves office.
Ms. Burwell said the counseling for people with prediabetes was the first preventive service to become eligible for expansion into the Medicare program under the Affordable Care Act.

Dr. Matt Longjohn, the chief health officer at the national Y.M.C.A. organization, said the results of the demonstration project vindicated the role of “lay health workers” in preventing chronic disease. These workers, he said, delivered preventive services at a much lower cost than doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and the services were “just as effective in terms of weight loss.”
Private insurers have also begun to cover diabetes prevention services like those provided by Medicare and the Y.M.C.A.s.
“The program helped me a lot, and I hope it helps other folks,” said Timothy L. Enfinger, a 45-year-old nuclear licensing engineer in Wilmington, N.C., who received the service through UnitedHealthcare and his employer, General Electric.
He said in an interview that he had lost 35 pounds, lowering his weight to 240 pounds. And he told the government: “I was pretty much your standard couch potato before the program. Now my wife and I go walking every day, sometimes as much as two and a half miles. I feel a lot better.”
Services covered by the proposed diabetes prevention benefit could be provided in person or online. Omada Health, a San Francisco company founded in 2011 with venture capital, says it has provided diabetes-prevention services online to more than 45,000 people, most of whom had employer-sponsored insurance.
“With Medicare coverage, our work with seniors is likely to grow dramatically,” said Mike Payne, the head of medical affairs at Omada.
Prediabetes is treatable, federal officials said, but only about 10 percent of people with the condition are aware they have it. Left untreated, up to one-third of people with prediabetes will develop diabetes within five years, the government says.
The government has not said how it would pay for diabetes prevention services. Medicare could reimburse providers directly or could pay for their services as part of a package that also includes the services of doctors who monitor the progress of patients.
Omada executives said that health insurers and employers paid the company $650 to $800 in the first year for each person who successfully completed its program and lost weight, reducing the risk of diabetes. But Medicare could use a different approach. Medicare officials will set forth details of payment in a proposed regulation that will be open to public comment.

1 Like

This would be great if the DPP program worked, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t prevent or reverse diabetes. And as I have posted before, it just fails over the long-term. After 15 years the majority of patients still progressed to diabetes and the difference between patients that did the DPP and those that took metformin was almost nothing (55% of patients doing the DPP progressed to diabetes vs 56% for patients that simply took metformin).

I say skip the DPP and just give them metformin and use the millions of dollars that are saved to do something truly useful.

ps. Metformin is $40/year at Walmart.

5 Likes

Like CGM coverage?

Thanks for the reply Brian. This was exactly my intent on posting. To spark conversation.

3 Likes

It only doesn’t work because the intervention is too little too late. What is needed is a change in our entire society not just a government program to throw money at it

I figure there are 86 million Americans with pre-diabetes. Doing the DPP for each of them (which might cost $1,000 per person) would cost $86 billion. I’m thinking that can buy a lot of CGM.

And even if you didn’t spend it on CGMs you could at least invest in some high quality trials that actually tried some effective diabetes management protocols. Remember that the DPP trial taught patients that diabetes is caused by obesity and the way to manage it is through a low fat high carb diet. How lame brained is that?

4 Likes

I still think with a ground up change in how we live our lives in this country the vast majority of them would never need a cgm…

Are you of the mindset that there is no escaping the destiny of ever exponentially increasing rates of T2 diabetes in this country? If so will 100% of the population eventually be diabetic? Would it be good public health policy to just start treating all public water supply with metformin like they do with fluoride?

Why do you suppose that diabetes rates are tremendously higher now than they were 100 years ago? I just don’t understand the logic that it’s not preventable-- it seems to me like it’s indisputable because of the way we’ve seen prevalence rates change tremendously as society has changed.

1 Like

I’m wondering who is looking at the “lay health workers” and the “diabetes prevention services” to see if they even reach a minimum threshold for “being effective” as opposed to the many snake oil salesmen out there selling “reverse your diabetes” like Jerry Mathers and Mike Huckabee.

2 Likes

I,too, wonder about who will be staffing these programs. Will they know anything more than the myths and stereotypes? The research purporting to demonstrate reversal cover only short periods of time. Better to have programs ensuring access to affordable food, test strips, CGMs, and clean water

Hi Everyone,

It took me a long time to decide to respond to this thread. I’d like to give a bit a background before I share my perspective.

Professionally, I do a lot of things related to health but the one thing that I enjoy very much is using exercise as a therapeutic intervention for populations living with a variety of chronic illnesses. I’ve seen first hand that it works. And yes YDMV, YHMV, YDISLIPMV, and with all chronic illness because people are different, the manner in which they respond to food, exercise, stress, barometric pressure… will differ.

Moving on…

So when I earned my second masters degree in diabetes education and management, the topic of my thesis was: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and an Assessment of the Role American College of Sports Medicine Registered Clinical Exercise Physiologists and Clinical Exercise Specialists Play on the Diabetes Self Management Team. I also need to add that I flew to Atlanta, Georgia to Emory University and took the DPP Training. So I am qualified to deliver the intervention.

I read all the translation studies on the DPP and learned that for the most part those who translated the DPP, although clinicians, had no background in exercise physiology or exercise science. NADA.

For the most part those who were delivering the intervention were nurses. Now I am not undermining the role of nurses. We need them. My mom is a retired RN and she was an effective one at that. But one thing I know. My mother’s academic preparation never included, exercise science, particularly, clinical exercise science. So for me–an exercise clinician, she is a layperson.

It must be highlighted the the DPP is an intervention for those not yet diagnosed with T2DM according to clinical criteria and who do not present with risk factors that put them in danger of harming themselves as a consequence of the exercise intervention.

I raise this point to ask you…

What you would prefer a lay person who has met industry standards and has a personal training certificate, or group fitness certificate or any fitness related certificate that is recognized by the National Commission of Certifying Agencies (NCCA) or a certified diabetes educator who holds a certification that is recognized by the NCCA.

Please know that February 2016 figures as it pertains to CDEs by profession state that 51% are nurses, 40% are dietitians, 7% are pharmacists and the balance being made up of all other disciplines. A whole 3%. That includes MDs, PA, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists AND professionals like myself…registered clinical exercise physiologists.

I include this list that I copied from my profile in www.ideafitness.com for a purpose…

ACE - Group Fitness Instructor Verified
ACE - Medical Exercise Specialist Verified
ACE - Personal Trainer Verified
ACSM - ACSM Certified Exercise Physiologist Verified
ACSM - ACSM Registered Clinical Exercise Physiologist® Verified
NASM - Certified Personal Trainer (CPT) Verified
NSCA - Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist Verified
PMA - PMA Certified Pilates Teacher Verified
ACSM - ACSM/ACS Certified Cancer Exercise Trainer Verified
ACSM - ACSM/NCPAD Certified Inclusive Fitness Trainer Verified
NASM - Corrective Exercise Specialist (CES) Verified
NASM - Performance Enhancement Specialist (PES) Verified
Wellcoaches - Certified Health & Wellness Coach Verified
SilverSneakers - YogaStretch Pending Verification
NCBDE - Certified Diabetes Educator Agency Unavailable
NCHEC - Health Education Specialist Certification

I include my credentials as part of this response to say this…

Any lay person w/o a degree in exercise science who has any one of the fitness credentials that I have earned meets industry standard by virtue of the fact that they’ve earned an NCCA accredited credential just a nurse or dietitian, or pharmacist who has earned the CDE credential earned a NCCA accredited credential.

The perceived layperson on the other hand, that is the fitness professional with the NCCA accredited fitness credential, uses exercise as medicine to help people on a daily basis. They are working at the grassroots level on a day to day basis encouraging people to move. Can that be said of nurses, dietitians and pharmacists?

It just makes sense to have fitness professionals on DPP intervention teams.

In conclusion, on May 18 I will officially be Dr. Jojeegirl. On July 1, (if my application is accepted) I will attend an intense clinical research bootcamp for five weeks. At the bootcamp, among the many things I will learn is how to write an effective National Institutional of Health (NIH) grant.

My goal is to win an NIH award and then conduct research specific to the DPP using lay fitness professionals as opposed to nurses and pharmacists in possession of NCCA accredited credentials to demonstrate that the DPP works when the right professionals are on the team.

Here’s my motivation.

People at risk of acquiring T2DM deserve better. If someone with “prediabetes” decides to participate in the intervention, at the least s/he should feel confident that the interventionist meets industry standards as far as participating in physical activity is concerned, facilitating behavior change and healthy eating. Do nurses and pharmacists do that?

Sorry for the long post. But that is my perspective.

1 Like

Hi Jojeegirl,

Congratulations on your hard work, your commiitment to the health of others, and your success in reaching your doctorate!

And best wishes for your plans and goals! Certainly your knowledge and understanding and commitment will be helpful to many people!

1 Like

@marty1492 Thank you Marty1492. I feel very blessed that I get to do what I love.

Not just here. T2 rates are soaring in Asia, China in particular. Seems to be a consequence of moving from primary-agriculture to primary-manufacturing economy. I understand the objections to “life style disease,” but there is something going on there that’s hard to account for without noticing you’ve got a huge shift in the population from physically strenuous rural employment to largely sedentary urban employment, while at the same time the basic diet–which is exceedingly carb-heavy, rice being the overwhelmingly primary component–has not changed. Weaning America off of Micky D’s is as nothing compared to the idea of weaning China off of rice.

2 Likes

agreed, but they’re all lifestyle / society trends, and therefore potential solutions as well, of course different cultures will have to face that reality through slightly different lenses, but it’s the bottom line nonetheless.

@DrBB I found that fact surprising regarding T2DM prevalence in China. I included that information in my dissertation. Can’t remember the name of the journal article off the top of my head but it mentioned from a global perspective, China is the epicenter of T2DM.

That fact is worrisome from a global health perspective and also the perspective of raising awareness about diabetes.

I read an article in the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report published by the CDC that stated by 2050 diabetes prevalence is expected to double.

We can’t sit on our hands about this as you personally are aware.

2 Likes

@Brian_BSC the trial also included engaging in physical activity.

Congrats on your doctorate.

You are absolutely correct. The DPP is about lifestyle, both diet and exercise. However my understanding is that research has not found exercise alone to be an effective way of losing weight. Weight is lost in the kitchen. This is why I focused on diet.

I do believe that diet and exercise are a primary way that we should manage our diabetes, but by now you probably realize I am not a fan of the DPP. The DPP isn’t going to tide the tsunami of diabetes. The vast majority of patients that do the DPP won’t be helped (the DPP had a number needed to treat of 14 over 15 years) and those that are not helped will be left with the message that they have failed. If they had just done a better job of eating that low fat high carb calorie restricted diet then done all that exercise they wouldn’t have gotten diabetes. Those that fail will be left not only the emotional baggage of failure but their education will have to be undone in order to help them with their diabetes.

ps. And here is a totally alarming fact. The DPP curriculum which runs 370 pages mentions fat 505 times. How many times does it mention carbs? SIX times. How about sugar? TEN times. The curriculum doesn’t even teach patients taught that diabetes is about high blood sugars or that carbs raise blood sugar. This is just plain “whacked.” I think for many patients who will get diabetes they would be better off by not participating in the DPP.

6 Likes

@Brian_BSM I am simply a lone wolf doing my part to help. Respectfully, my innate leaning is to help and look at the bright side. Teach people, give them hope that learning how to manage not cure their chronic condition (and BTW, not only diabetes) by including healthy/healthier eating and moving regularly at the right dose is indeed medicine.

Whether or not it is successful, eating healthfully and moving your body (a the right dosage) in the gazillions of ways that the body can move will make you feel better.

Thank you for your response.

I am glad you are doing your part. We need more people like you. But please understand I have had a long train wreck of talking with people about the DPP and I am deeply troubled by our government and the healthcare system going “all in” on the DPP. I feel like I am here repeating that the “emperor has no clothes” and nobody else sees it.

Thanks for your efforts. No matter what we both totally agree that lifestyle is the first pillar in managing our diabetes.

1 Like

@Brian_BSC Thank you Brian. Like you “lifestyle” is a huge word and depending upon who you are speaking with it can be offensive. It would be wonderful if the AACE would expand upon their definition of “lifestyle.”

All the very best!

The problem with the term is that people perceive it to have an individual, and of course negative, connotation. This is often perceived defensively, but doing so misses the point.

In terms of lifestyle, in my thinking it is far more a social / economic issue than an individual one. People aren’t making ‘bad choices’ to work at jobs where they sit in front of computers many hours every day to support their families instead of driving railroad spikes with sledge hammers or tending to crops like they did 200 years ago-- that’s just how our world has changed-- they aren’t making ‘bad choices’ to eat all the terrible food that’s available at their local grocery stores-- they’re eating it because it’s what’s available and what they can afford.

I don’t know what the solution is in the grand scheme but I do think more society driven solutions to incentivize physical activity and higher quality foods is certainly a large part of it. Some object to calling such things ‘preventative.’ I don’t think it matters what we call them if the next generation benefits by having less burden of diabetes in their world than we do now. The trajectory we are currently on as a society certainly isn’t heading the right direction in that regard, I hope we will take steps to change that before it’s too late.

1 Like