The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Diabetes Disease Management Save Money and Improve Outcomes?
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE—Little is known about the impact of disease management programs on medical costs for patients with diabetes. This study compared health care costs for patients who fulfilled health employer data and information set (HEDIS) criteria for diabetes and were in a health maintenance organization (HMO)-sponsored disease management program with costs for those not in disease management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We retrospectively examined paid health care claims and other measures of health care use over 2 years among 6,799 continuously enrolled Geisinger Health Plan patients who fulfilled HEDIS criteria for diabetes. Two groups were compared: those who were enrolled in an opt-in disease management program and those who were not enrolled. We also compared HEDIS data on HbA1c testing, percent not in control, lipid testing, diabetic eye screening, and kidney disease screening. All HEDIS measures were based on a hybrid method of claims and chart audits, except for percent not in control, which was based on chart audits only. RESULTS—Of 6,799 patients fulfilling HEDIS criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes, 3,118 (45.9%) patients were enrolled in a disease management program (program), and 3,681 (54.1%) were not enrolled (nonprogram). Both groups had similar male-to-female ratios, and the program patients were 1.4 years younger than the nonprogram patients. Per member per month paid claims averaged $394.62 for program patients compared with $502.48 for nonprogram patients (P < 0.05). This difference was accompanied by lower inpatient health care use in program patients (mean of 0.12 admissions per patient per year and 0.56 inpatient days per patient per year) than in nonprogram patients (0.16 and 0.98, P < 0.05 for both measures). Program patients experienced fewer emergency room visits (0.49 per member per year) than nonprogram patients (0.56) but had a higher number of primary care visits (8.36 vs. 7.78, P < 0.05 for both measures). Except for emergency room visits, these differences remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, HMO enrollment duration, presence of a pharmacy benefit, and insurance type. Program patients also achieved higher HEDIS scores for HbA1c testing as well as for lipid, eye, and kidney screenings (96.6, 91.1, 79.1, and 68.5% among program patients versus 83.8, 77.6, 64.9, and 39.3% among nonprogram patients, P < 0.05 for all measures). Among 1,074 patients with HbA1c levels measured in a HEDIS chart audit, 35 of 526 (6.7%) program patients had a level >9.5%, as compared with 79 of 548 (14.4%) nonprogram patients. CONCLUSIONS—In this HMO, an opt-in disease management program appeared to be associated with a significant reduction in health care costs and other measures of health care use. There was also a simultaneous improvement in HEDIS measures of quality care. These data suggest that disease management may result in savings for sponsored managed care organizations and that improvements in HEDIS measures are not necessarily associated with increased medical costs.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Stratton, I. M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405 · Cited by 9,059
Reichard, P., Nilsson, B.-Y., & Rosenqvist, U. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199307293290502 · Cited by 1,202
Clarke, P., Gray, A., Adler, A., Stevens, R., Raikou, M., Cull, C., Stratton, I., & Holman, R. (2001) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s001250051617 · Cited by 99
Cited by
The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective
Swing, S. R. (2007) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590701392903 · Cited by 962
Patient Adherence Improves Glycemic Control
Rhee, M. K., Slocum, W., Ziemer, D. C., Culler, S. D., Cook, C. B., El-Kebbi, I. M., Gallina, D. L., Barnes, C., & Phillips, L. S. (2005) · The Diabetes Educator · doi:10.1177/0145721705274927 · Cited by 339
Gender-specific care of the patient with diabetes: review and recommendations
Legato, M. J., Gelzer, A., Goland, R., Ebner, S. A., Rajan, S., Villagra, V., & Kosowski, M. (2006) · Gender Medicine · doi:10.1016/s1550-8579(06)80202-0 · Cited by 225
Economic impact of integrated care models for patients with chronic diseases: a systematic review
Desmedt, M., Vertriest, S., Hellings, J., Bergs, J., Dessers, E., Vankrunkelsven, P., Vrijhoef, H., Annemans, L., Verhaeghe, N., Petrovic, M., et al. (2016) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.001 · Cited by 120
(2017) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Sidorov, J., Shull, R., Tomcavage, J., Girolami, S., Lawton, N., & Harris, R.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2002-04-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 684-689
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2181331085
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does Diabetes Disease Management Save Money and Improve Outcomes? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.25.4.684
- The paper
- Sidorov, J., Shull, R., Tomcavage, J., Girolami, S., Lawton, N., & Harris, R. (2002). Does Diabetes Disease Management Save Money and Improve Outcomes? Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.25.4.684
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.