Disease Management & Health Outcomes

, Volume 11, Issue 7, pp 439–453 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Diabetes Mellitus Management Programs

A Health Plan Perspective
Review Article

Abstract

In this article, we provide a practical and systematic framework to evaluate the cost effectiveness of health plans’ investments towards improvements in diabetes care. Through a literature search of PubMed and our own review, we identified research studies providing evidence on the cost effectiveness of diabetes management. Published and unpublished studies that address these issues are reviewed and synthesized in this paper, with the goal of assisting resource allocation decision makers in selecting the most appropriate and effective diabetes care improvement strategies available to meet the needs of specific care delivery systems and patient populations. We summarize this evidence as it relates to four areas: (i) healthcare provider characteristics, the provider-patient relationship, and systems of care; (ii) clinical care decisions including the management of blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol; (iii) models for improved delivery of care; and (iv) the health plan perspective regarding returns on investment.

Research data indicate that cost effectiveness varies by clinical domain. Blood pressure control, use of aspirin, and influenza and pneumococcal immunizations are cost saving in adults with diabetes across a wide range of ages and types of patients. Lipid control is most cost effective between the ages of 45–85 years, while the cost effectiveness of intensified glycemic control declines with age. Cost-effective diabetes management may be organized by primary care clinicians or by case managers working closely with either primary care or subspecialty physicians. Each delivery model has unique advantages and limitations, and there are insufficient data to compare the cost effectiveness of diabetes care across these organizational settings. Improving or enhancing a current model may require substantial investment. However, the resulting changes in the delivery of care may extend the benefits of improved management to other chronic diseases and to preventive care.

There is evidence that patient activation, physician behavior change, and care system improvements may improve care, but the cost effectiveness of these strategies is incompletely understood at present. Selection of clinical goals for improvement is likely to have a major impact on cost effectiveness, with maximal return on investment for blood pressure control, aspirin use, immunizations, and smoking cessation. Effective diabetes care can be delivered across a wide range of care settings, including primary care clinics. The organizational characteristics of clinics and use of tools such as patient registries, guidelines, visit planning and active outreach to patients improve care, but returns on investment with regards to these specific strategies awaits further research.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by grant RO1-HS 09946 from the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Hogan P, Dall T, Nikolov P. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care 2003 Mar; 26(3): 917–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Resource utilization and costs of care in the diabetes control and complications trial: The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Diabetes Care 1995; 18(11): 1468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. 3. Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ 1998 Sep 12; 317(7160): 720–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM I: model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 725–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM II: analysis of the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating NIDDM with the goal of normoglycemia. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(5): 735–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CDC Diabetes Cost-effectiveness Group. Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes: The CDC Diabetes Cost-effectiveness Group. JAMA 2002 May 15; 287(19): 2542–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Selby JV, Ray GT, Zhang D, et al. Excess costs of medical care for patients with diabetes in a managed care population. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(9): 1396–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenfield S, Nerlson EC, Zubkoff M, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1992; 267(12): 1624–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, et al. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialists: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1995; 274: 1436–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Costs of care and administration at for-profit and other hospitals in the United States. N Engl J Med 1997 Mar 13; 336(11): 769–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griffin S. Diabetes care in general practice: meta-analysis of randomised control trials. BMJ 1998; 317(7155): 390–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffin S, Kinmonth A. Diabetes care: the effectiveness of systems for routine surveillance for people with diabetes. Cambridge: University of Cambridge: Institute of Public Health, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Greenfield S, et al. The unreliability of individual physician ‘report cards’ for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. JAMA 1999; 281(22): 2098–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA 2002; Oct 9; 288(14): 1775–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson PE, Veazie PJ, Kochevar L, et al. Understanding variation in chronic disease outcomes. Health Care Manag Sci 2002; 5: 175–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, et al. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2003 Jan 30; 348(5): 383–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall JA, Palmer RH, Orav EJ, et al. Performance quality, gender, and professional role: a study of physicians and nonphysicians in 16 ambulatory care practices. Med Care 1990 Jun; 28(6): 489–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. 19. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998 Sep 12; 352(9131): 837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. 20. Effect of intensive bloodglucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998 Sep 12; 352(9131): 854–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curb JD, Pressel SL, Cutler JA, et al. Effect of diuretic based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension: Systolic Hypertension in Elderly Program Cooperative Research Group. JAMA 1996; 276(23): 1886–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998 Jun 13; 351(9118): 1755–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pyorala K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, et al. Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Diabetes Care 1997 Apr; 20(4): 614–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haffner SM. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) subgroup analysis of diabetic subjects: implications for the prevention of coronary heart disease. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(4): 469–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, et al. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 2001 Nov 6; 135(9): 825–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soumerai S, McLaughlin T, Gurwitz J, et al. Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 279(17): 1358–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soumerai S, Avorn J. Principles of education outreach (academic detailing) to improve clinical decision-making. JAMA 1990; 263(4): 549–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Connor P. Organizing diabetes care: identify, monitor, prioritize, intensify. Diabetes Care 2001; 24(9): 1515–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Connor P. Improving diabetes care: organize your office, intensify your care. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001; 14(4): 320–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levetan CS, Passaro MD, Jablonski KA, et al. Effect of physician specialty on outcomes in diabetic ketoacidosis. Diabetes Care 1999 Nov; 22(11): 1790–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Kahn R, et al. Profiling care provided by different groups of physicians: effects of patient case-mix (bias) and physician-level clustering on quality assessment results. Ann Intern Med 2002 Jan 15; 136(2): 111–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grumbach K, Selby J, Schmittdiel J, et al. Quality of primary care practice in a large HMO according to physician specialty. Health Serv Res 1999; 34(2): 485–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Selby J, Grumbach K, Quesenberry CJ, et al. Differences in resource use and costs of primary care in a large HMO according to physician specialty. Health Serv Res 1999; 34(2): 503–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Connor PJ. Commentary: practice environment, specialty, and primary care. Health Serv Res 1999 Jun; 34(2): 519–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Glasgow RE, Hiss RG, Anderson RM, et al. Report of the health care delivery work group: behavioral research related to the establishment of a chronic disease model for diabetes care. Diabetes Care 2001; 24(1): 124–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roter DL, Hall JA, Merisca R, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis. Med Care 1998; 36(8): 1138–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Friedrich MJ. Enhancing diabetes care in a low-income, high-risk population. JAMA 2000 Jan 26; 283(4): 467–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams GC, Freedman ZR, Deci EL. Supporting autonomy to motivate patients with diabetes for glucose control. Diabetes Care 1998 Oct; 21(10): 1644–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anderson RM, Funneil MM, Barr PA, et al. Learning to empower patients: results of professional education program for diabetes educators. Diabetes Care 1991 Jul; 14(7): 584–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE, et al. Patients’ participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med 1988; 3(5): 448–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL, et al. Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial. Med Care 1999; 37(1): 5–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grol R, Mokkink H, Smits A. Work satisfaction of general practitioners and the quality of patient care. Fam Pract 1985; 2: 128–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van de Ven A, Ferry D. Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Starfield B, Powe NR, Weiner JR, et al. Costs vs quality in different types of primary care settings. JAMA 1994 Dec 28; 272(24): 1903–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    O’Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Pronk NP, et al. Primary care clinic-based chronic disease care. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001; 9(12): 691–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sperl-Hillen J, O’Connor PJ, Carlson RR, et al. Improving diabetes care in a large health care system: an enhanced primary care approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000 Nov; 26(11): 615–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Berwick DM. A primer on leading the improvement of systems. BMJ 1996; 312: 619–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mosser G. Clinical process improvement: engage first, measure later. Qual Manag Health Care 1996; 4(4): 11–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nyman MA, Murphy ME, Schryver PG, et al. Improving performance in diabetes care: a multicomponent intervention. Eff Clin Pract 2000; 3(5): 205–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brown JB, Pedula KL, Bakst AW. The progressive cost of complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 1999 Sep 13; 159(16): 1873–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gilmer TP, O’Connor PJ, Manning WG, et al. The cost to health plans of poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(12): 1847–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Centers for Disease Control. Economic aspects of diabetes services and education: selected annotations. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control, 1992.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, et al. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA 2001 Sep 12; 286(10): 1195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, et al. Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in US adults. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Diabetes Care 1998 Apr; 21(4): 518–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Diabetes Data Group. Diabetes in America. National Diabetes Data Group. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 1995: Publ. No. 95–1468.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, et al. Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA 2001; 285(2): 182–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    National Cholesterol Education Program. Report of the expert panel on population strategies for blood cholesterol reduction. Circulation 1991; 83: 2154–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    National Cholesterol Education Program. Executive Summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001 May 16; 285(19): 2486–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Haffner SM, Alexander CM, Cook TJ, et al. Reduced coronary events in simvastatin-treated patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes or impaired fasting glucose levels: subgroup analyses in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159(22): 2661–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Group HPSC. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002 Jul 6; 360(9326): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Herman WH, Alexander CM, Cook JR, et al. Effect of simvastatin treatment on cardiovascular resource utilization in impaired fasting glucose and diabetes: findings from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Diabetes Care 1999; 22(11): 1771–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kannel WB. Elevated systolic blood pressure as a cardiovascular risk factor. Am J Cardiol 2000 Jan 15; 85(2): 251–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. 62. Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ 1998 Sep 12; 317(7160): 713–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schrier R, Estacio R, Jeffers B. Appropriate blood pressure control in NIDDM (ABCD Trial). Diabetologia 1996; 39(12): 646–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Group ACR. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002 Dec 18; 288(23): 2981–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease: Part 1, Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990 Mar 31; 335(8692): 765–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Barrett-Connor E, Wingard DL. “Normal” blood glucose and coronary risk. BMJ 2001 Jan 6; 322(7277): 5–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, et al. Smoking cessation and the risk of stroke in middle-aged men. JAMA 1995 Jul 12; 274(2): 155–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gordon T, Kannel WB, McGee D, et al. Death and coronary attacks in men after giving up cigarette smoking: a report from the Framingham study. Lancet 1974 Dec 7; 2(7893): 1345–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cromwell J, Bartosch WJ, Fiore MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the clinical practice recommendations in the AHCPR guideline for smoking cessation: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. JAMA 1997 Dec 3; 278(21): 1759–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhu S-H, Anderson C, Tedeschi G, et al. Evidence of real-world effectiveness of a telephone quitline for smokers. N Engl J Med 2002 Oct; 347(14): 1087–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nielsen K, Fiore MC. Cost-benefit analysis of sustained-release bupropion, nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. Prev Med 2000 Mar; 30(3): 209–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    ETDRS Investigators. Aspirin effects on mortality and morbidity in patients with diabetes mellitus: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report 14. ETDRS Investigators. JAMA 1992 Sep 9; 268(10): 1292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy: I. prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. BMJ 1994 Jan 8; 308(6921): 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rolka DB, Fagot-Campagna A, Narayan KM. Aspirin use among adults with diabetes: estimates from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes Care 2001 Feb; 24(2): 197–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    O’Connor P, Pronk N, Tan A, et al. Does professional advice influence aspirin use to prevent heart disease in an HMO population? Eff Clin Pract 1998; 1(1): 26–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Maciosek M, Goodman M, O’Connor PJ. Selecting diabetes improvement strategies: costs and population health impact. Diabetes 2000; 49 Suppl. 1: A345.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Nichols GA, Glauber HS, Brown JB. Type 2 diabetes: incremental medical care costs during the 8 years preceding diagnosis. Diabetes Care 2000; 23(11): 1654–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nichol KL, Nordin J, Mullooly J, et al. Influenza vaccination and reduction in hospitalizations for cardiac disease and stroke among the elderly. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1322–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000; 342(3): 145–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Carroll CA, Coen MM, Rymer MM. Assessment of the effect of ramipril therapy on direct healthcare costs for first and recurrent strokes in high risk cardiovascular patients using data from the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE). Clin Ther 2003; 25: 1248–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001 May 3; 344(18): 1343–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Duncan GE, Perri MG, Theriaque DW, et al. Exercise training, without weight loss, increases insulin sensitivity and postheparin plasma lipase activity in previously sedentary adults. Diabetes Care 2003 Mar; 26(3): 557–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pronk N, Tan A, O’Connor P, et al. Identifying the potential to increase physical activity using stages of change in HMO members [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30(5): S309.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    O’Connor PJ, Rush WA, Prochaska JO, et al. Professional advice and readiness to change behavioral risk factors among members of a managed care organization. Am J Manag Care 2001 Feb; 7(2): 125–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pritchard DA, Hyndman J, Taba F. Nutritional counselling in general practice: a cost effective analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999 May; 53(5): 311–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pronk N, Goodman M, O’Connor P, et al. Relationship between modifiable health risks and short-term health care charges. JAMA 1999; 282(23): 2235–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Martinson B, Crain A, Pronk N, et al. Changes in physical activity and short-term changes in health care charges: a prospective cohort study of older adults. Prev Med. In press.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Martinson BC, O’Connor PJ, Pronk NP. Physical inactivity and short-term all-cause mortality in adults with chronic disease. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161(9): 1173–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Haffner SM, Letho S, Ronnemaa T, et al. Mortality from chronic heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and non-diabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 229–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    O’Connor PJ, Desai J, Rush WA, et al. Is having a regular provider of diabetes care related to intensity of care and glycemic control? J Fam Pract 1998 Oct; 47(4): 290–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Williams TF, Martin DA, Watkins JD, et al. The clinical picture of diabetic control, studied in four settings. Am J Public Health 1967; 57: 41–51.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Peterson K. Diabetes care by primary care physicians in Minnesota and Wisconsin. J Fam Pract 1994; 38(12): 361–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hiss R, Anderson RM, Hess GE, et al. Community diabetes care: a 10-year perspective. Diabetes Care 1994; 17(10): 1124–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sidorov J, Gabbay R, Harris R, et al. Disease management for diabetes mellitus: impact on Hemoglobin A1c. Am J Manag Care 2000; 6(11): 1217–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Sutherland JE, Hoehns JD, O’Donnell B, Wiblin RT. Diabetes management quality improvement in a family practice residency program. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001 Jul–Aug; 14(4): 243–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wagner EH, Austin BT, Korff MV. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996; 74(4): 511–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Casalino L, Gillies RR, Shortell SM, et al. External incentives, information technology, and organized processes to improve health care quality for patients with chronic diseases. JAMA 2003 Jan 22–29; 289(4): 434–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    O’Connor PJ. Electronic medical records and diabetes care improvement: are we waiting for Godot? Diabetes Care 2003 Mar; 26(3): 942–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Meigs JB, Cagliero E, Dubey A, et al. A controlled trial of web-based diabetes disease management: the MGH diabetes primary care improvement project. Diabetes Care 2003 Mar; 26(3): 750–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Norris SL, Nichols PJ, Caspersen CJ, et al. Increasing diabetes self-management education in community settings: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2002 May; 22(4 Suppl. 1): 39–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, et al. Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129(8): 605–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Sadur CN, Moline N, Costa M, et al. Diabetes management in a health maintenance organization: efficacy of care management using cluster visits. Diabetes Care 1999 Dec; 22(12): 2011–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Peters AL, Davidson MB, Ossorio RC. Management of patients with diabetes by nurses with support of subspecialists. HMO Pract 1995; 9(1): 8–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Weinberger M, Murray MD, Marrero DG, et al. Effectiveness of pharmacist care for patients with reactive airways disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002 Oct 2; 288(13): 1594–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Norris SL, Nichols PJ, Caspersen CJ, et al. The effectiveness of disease and case management for people with diabetes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2002 May; 22(4 Suppl.): 15–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Norris SL, Engelgau MM, Narayan KM. Effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2001 Mar; 24(3): 561–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Philis-Tsimikas A, Walker C. Improved care for diabetes in underserved populations. J Ambul Care Manage 2001 Jan; 24(1): 39–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Philis-Tsimikas A, Rivard L, Walker C, et al. Nurse management of diabetes mellitus in low income latino populations (Project Dulce) improves care, clinical outcomes and culture bound beliefs [abstract]. Circulation 2002; 102(18): 856.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, et al. A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10(2): 59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Rubin RJ, Dietrich KA, Hawk AD. Clinical and economic impact of implementing a comprehensive diabetes management program in managed care. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998 Aug; 83(8): 2635–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ramsey S, Summers KH, Leong SA, et al. 109. Productivity and medical costs of diabetes in a large employer population. Diabetes Care 2002 Jan 25; 25(1): 23–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Glasgow RE, Orleans CT, Wagner EH, et al. Does the chronic care model serve also as a template for improving prevention? Milbank Q 2001; 79(4): 579–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gilmer T, Kronick R, Fishman P, et al. The Medicaid Rx model: pharmacy-based risk adjustment for public programs. Med Care 2001 Nov; 39(11): 1188–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family and Preventive MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaUSA
  2. 2.HealthPartners Research FoundationMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations