Diabetes Technology Survey and Petition

Let Your Voice Be Heard

diaTribe has been conducting a survey of its readers over the last few months to learn where people with diabetes stand on the usefulness of diabetes technology. Our idea was to put together a short report for insurance companies and diabetes- advocacy organizations based on your responses. Over 2,000 of our readers filled out the survey and signed the petition at the end. Of these respondents 41 percent have type 1 diabetes, 38 percent have type 2 diabetes, 17 percent are parents of children with diabetes, and a few are healthcare providers, family members of diabetes patients, and other concerned individuals. While we are extremely happy with the good response to our petition, we also acknowledge that there are over 17.5 million people in the U.S. diagnosed with diabetes and the more opinions we can get, the stronger our petition gets. Please pass this on to friends and family members for their valuable opinions. Here is a brief overview of what we found in our survey, and what we believe that this means for the future of diabetes technology.

The use of blood glucose monitoring (with a meter and strips) had overwhelming support from more than 90 percent of respondents. Most of these respondents believed that meter/strip glucose monitoring was the cornerstone of good diabetes management – we would certainly agree.

Just over 75 percent showed similar support for insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring technology. Of the respondents surveyed, about 46 percent were on a pump (or cared for an insulin pumper) and almost 15 percent used a continuous glucose monitor. Responses describing support for pumps reflected the strong belief that these devices are the closest things we have for simulating insulin delivery by a healthy pancreas.

Many of the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) advocates cited its ability to catch hypoglycemic incidents--especially at night--as their reason for supporting the technology. Respondents also commended CGM’s capacity to help maintain better control overall, particularly with the aid of glucose-trending information.

Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with, and to explain, their position on this statement: "Life with diabetes technology has made it much easier for people with diabetes to get and keep their diabetes in good control. We need better reimbursement for technology and ongoing help and education, however, to get in better diabetes control as a country." 98.5 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, and we’ve reprinted a few responses we received that we believe are representative of the larger group of respondents:

“Several friends of mine were diagnosed with diabetes in the 1970s. I was diagnosed in the 1990s. Treatment options and technology had vastly improved, so I could take advantage of insulin pens, portable meters etc, and did not have to rely on doctor visits for any clue as to how I was managing my diabetes. Better technology allows better, more personalized control. Insurance companies should support, not stand in the way of such progress.”

“Having diabetes is costly. We are lucky here in Australia that our Medicare system pays for our trips to the doctor for glucose monitoring, they pay completely for glucose meters and lancets and we get a reduced rate on glucose meter test strips and insulin. I am very lucky to have diabetes in Australia and not the USA.”

“It's expensive to be a diabetic - e.g., insulin, monitoring strips, healthy food, etc. The better we educate diabetics and provide reimbursement for the technologies available to them the less likely they are to need hospitalization, amputations, assisted living due to blindness, etc. which can cost insurance companies megabucks in the long run. It's the old adage...pay me now or pay me later. I believe, in this case, the "pay me later" will be a much larger burden to insurance companies than reimbursing for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the present.”

The minority of respondents who did not agree (outright) with the statement cited a variety of different reasons:

“The problem is that although it is possible to actually get one’s diabetes in good control with the technology, it is currently an extremely expensive proposition. Unless there is a mental component of freedom to test anytime, anywhere, without regard to the expense of each and every test strip, it is not easy at all—the technology is there but not nearly enough of the financial and educational support is available for the country as a whole—it all depends on your ability to pay for an adequate insurance program.”

“Technology by itself is not sufficient. Patients still need to maintain motivation to make it work. I do not believe throwing expensive technology at the disease will result in better control, per se, but those that want these tools to help them do the job should not be denied access due to cost.”

“Technology for controlling diabetes falls short of searching for a cure. Better education is more essential than more or better technology.” We appreciate all the feedback we’ve received, and we look forward to your continued participation in future surveys.

We truly appreciate all the varied feedback so far and look forward to you continued participation in our surveys.