Cited by 152Diabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management StrategiesDiabetes Management and Research

Use of Medicare’s diabetes self-management training benefit

Strawbridge, Larisa M., Lloyd, Jennifer T., Meadow, Ann, Riley, Gerald F., Howell, Benjamin L.·2015·Health Education & Behavior

Abstract

Medicare began reimbursing for outpatient diabetes self-management training (DSMT) in 2000; however, little is known about program utilization. Individuals diagnosed with diabetes in 2010 were identified from a 20% random selection of the Medicare fee-for-service population (N = 110,064). Medicare administrative and claims files were used to determine DSMT utilization. Multivariate logistic regression analyses evaluated the association of demographic, health status, and provider availability factors with DSMT utilization. Approximately 5% of Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed diabetes used DSMT services. The adjusted odds of any utilization were lower among men compared with women, older individuals compared with younger, non-Whites compared with Whites, people dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid compared with nondual eligibles, and patients with comorbidities compared with individuals without those conditions. Additionally, the adjusted odds of utilizing DSMT increased as the availability of providers who offered DSMT services increased and varied by Census region. Utilization of DSMT among Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed diabetes is low. There appear to be marked disparities in access to DSMT by demographic and health status factors and availability of DSMT providers. In light of the increasing prevalence of diabetes, future research should identify barriers to DSMT access, describe DSMT providers, and explore the impact of DSMT services. With preventive services being increasingly covered by insurers, the low utilization of DSMT, a preventive service benefit that has existed for almost 15 years, highlights the challenges that may be encountered to achieve widespread dissemination and uptake of the new services.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1090198114566271

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strawbridge, L. M., Lloyd, J. T., Meadow, A., Riley, G. F., & Howell, B. L.
Affiliations
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (US)
Venue
Health Education & Behavior
Published
2015-01-23
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
530-538
ISSN
  • 1090-1981 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6127
OpenAlex
W2008032536
Cited by
152
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Education & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
diabetes self-management education, Medicare, program utilization, newly diagnosed diabetes, health disparities, provider availability, Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, comorbidities, sex differences, racial disparities
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Medicare, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Sex Factors, United States, Racial Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review