Cited by 28Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Glucagon prescribing and costs among U.S. Adults with diabetes, 2011–2021

Open access
Herges, Joseph R., Galindo, Rodolfo J., Neumiller, Joshua J., Heien, Herbert C., Umpierrez, Guillermo E., McCoy, Rozalina G.·2023·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To characterize contemporary trends in glucagon fill rates and expenditures in a nationwide cohort of adults with diabetes overall and by key demographic and clinical characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we examined 1) glucagon fill rates per 1,000 person-years and 2) patient out-of-pocket and health plan costs per filled glucagon dose among adults with diabetes included in OptumLabs Data Warehouse between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2021. RESULTS: The study population comprised 2,814,464 adults with diabetes with a mean age of 62.8 (SD 13.2) years. The overall glucagon fill rate decreased from 2.91 to 2.28 per 1,000 person-years (−22%) over the study period. In groups at high risk for severe hypoglycemia, glucagon fill rates increased from 22.46 to 36.76 per 1,000 person-years (64%) among patients with type 1 diabetes, 11.64 to 16.63 per 1,000 person-years (43%) among those treated with short-acting insulin, and 16.08 to 20.12 per 1,000 person-years (25%) among those with a history of severe hypoglycemia. White patients, women, individuals with high income, and commercially insured patients had higher glucagon fill rates compared with minority patients, males, individuals with low income, and Medicare Advantage patients, respectively. Total cost per dosing unit increased from $157.97 to $275.32 (74%) among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from $150.37 to $293.57 (95%) among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Glucagon fill rates are concerningly low and declined between 2011 and 2021 but increased in appropriate subgroups with type 1 diabetes, using short-acting insulin, or with a history of severe hypoglycemia. Fill rates were disproportionately low among minority patients and individuals with low income.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc22-1564

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Appropriate glucagon prescribing is very low in current practice.

    “For these individuals, clinicians should routinely review their access to glucagon, as appropriate glucagon prescribing is very low in current practice (140-142).”

    From 6. Glycemic Goals, Hypoglycemia, and Hyperglycemic Crises: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026. (2026) · cites this paper as [141]

    The Conclusions report concerningly low glucagon fill rates, including among patients at high risk, and call for increased prescribing. However, the authors state that prescription data were unavailable; low fills do not establish how often clinicians prescribed glucagon appropriately. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Appropriate glucagon prescribing is low.

    “Clinicians should routinely review the individual's access to glucagon, as appropriate glucagon prescribing is low (191)(192)(193).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 28

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]24. National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Infor- mation Set (HEDIS) Comprehensive Diabetes Care. Washington, DC, National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2015, pp. 74-98

Authors
Herges, J. R., Galindo, R. J., Neumiller, J. J., Heien, H. C., Umpierrez, G. E., & McCoy, R. G.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Washington State University Spokane (US)
Corresponding author
Herges, Joseph R.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2023-01-11
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
620-627
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W4315631766
Cited by
28
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK114497)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
glucagon, diabetes mellitus, prescribing trends, severe hypoglycemia, type 1 diabetes, short-acting insulin, health care costs, out-of-pocket costs, Medicare Advantage, private insurance, racial and ethnic disparities, income inequality, temporal trends
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glucagon, Medicare, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, United States, Insulin, Short-Acting

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