Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Original Research

Costs to Medicare of the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Home Telemedicine Demonstration

Findings from an independent evaluation

  1. Lorenzo Moreno, PHD1,
  2. Stacy B. Dale, MPA1,
  3. Arnold Y. Chen, MD1 and
  4. Carol A. Magee, PHD2
  1. 1Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey;
  2. 2Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland.
  1. Corresponding author: Lorenzo Moreno, lmoreno{at}mathematica-mpr.com.
Diabetes Care 2009 Jul; 32(7): 1202-1204. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-0094
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Findings from an independent evaluation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To estimate the impacts on Medicare costs of providing a particular type of home telemedicine to eligible Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Two cohorts of beneficiaries (n = 1,665 and 504, respectively) living in two medically underserved areas of New York between 2000 and 2007 were randomized to intensive nurse case management via televisits or usual care. Medicare service use and costs covering a 6-year follow-up period were drawn from claims data. Impacts were estimated using regression analyses.

RESULTS Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) did not reduce Medicare costs in either site. Total costs were between 71 and 116% higher for the treatment group than for the control group.

CONCLUSIONS Although IDEATel had modest effects on clinical outcomes (reported elsewhere), it did not reduce Medicare use or costs for health services. The intervention's costs were excessive (over $8,000 per person per year) compared with programs with similar-sized clinical impacts.

Home telemedicine delivers monitoring, educational, and therapeutic services to people through telecommunications technology. It may be a promising way to deliver such services to individuals with poor access to high-quality care due to language, culture, low educational attainment, disempowerment, and lack of social reinforcement for healthy behaviors.

The congressionally mandated Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) tested the clinical outcomes of providing a particular type of home telemedicine to Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. A consortium led by Columbia University implemented IDEATel in two 4-year phases (February 2000 to February 2008) (1).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Goals

For phase I, participants aimed to control blood glucose, high blood pressure, and abnormal lipid levels and reduce or eliminate obesity and physical inactivity. Physicians aimed to increase guideline-based diabetes care. For phase II, the consortium addressed phase I lessons learned and pursued the original goals.

Recruitment

Between December 2000 and October 2002, the Consortium recruited and randomized 1,665 cohort 1 Medicare beneficiaries (775 in New York City; 890 in upstate NY). Subsequently, between December 2004 and October 2005, the Consortium recruited and randomized 504 cohort 2 beneficiaries (174 in New York City; 330 in upstate NY). For both cohorts, eligibility was limited to beneficiaries aged ≥55 years who were being treated for diabetes by diet, oral medications, or insulin; living in a medically underserved or health professional shortage area in New York state; and English or Spanish speaking. Poor-health exclusion criteria also applied. After consenting, beneficiaries underwent an in-person baseline assessment by Consortium staff. The Consortium randomly assigned beneficiaries in both cohorts, in equal proportions, to a treatment or control group.

The intervention

After randomization, treatment and control group members continued receiving diabetes care from their primary care physicians, but treatment group members' physicians received recommendations from the IDEATel diabetologists concerning the care of participants. Treatment group members were offered installation of a home telemedicine unit (HTU) and training in its use.

For phase I, the HTU was a desktop-model PC, connected to a regular telephone line, with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse; video camera; speakers; microphone; and glucose and blood pressure meters. Participants could use the HTU components to 1) measure and monitor blood glucose and blood pressure readings; 2) interact with an IDEATel nurse case manager, in English or Spanish, through scheduled two-way video conferences; and 3) access web-based educational materials. For phase II, the Consortium redesigned the HTU to address its large size and difficulty of use.

Hypotheses

Nurse education and coaching through televisits and self-tracking of progress through other HTU functions could have improved participants' self-care behaviors, adhering to diet, exercise, foot care, and medication regimes. IDEATel's guideline-based recommendations to physicians could have promoted better prescribing patterns. These improvements could help participants avoid long-term health complications that could reduce use of acute care services, primarily hospitalizations, and Medicare costs.

Outcomes

Use of Medicare-covered services and Medicare costs by type of service, total Medicare costs for health care services, and total Medicare costs for both health care services and the intervention.

Data

The Consortium extracted Medicare claims without identifying information. Follow-up data were available for up to 6 years, from randomization through December 2006. An intention-to-treat analysis included 1,625 cohort 1 and 491 cohort 2 enrollees with complete data.

Impact estimation

Site-specific impacts were estimated with linear regression (ordinary least-squares) models that controlled for baseline sociodemographic characteristics, experience with computers, diabetes control, and a measure of the outcome in question. Outcomes were annualized and weighted by their months of enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare because no claims data exist for HMO enrollees. The reported treatment and control group means were predicted from the coefficients of the estimated models.

Demonstration costs

The budget for the demonstration's first and second phases was $28,159,066 and $28,812,419, respectively (2). Estimates of the intervention's costs are summarized in Table A4 (available in an online-only appendix at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dc09-0094/DC1).

RESULTS

In both sites, and for both cohorts, treatment and control group members were similar, on average, on all baseline characteristics, as expected under random assignment (online appendix Tables A1 and A2). However, enrollees' characteristics varied by site and cohort.

Only for cohort 1 were mean annual total Medicare Part B expenditures significantly higher (13% of the control group mean; P = 0.025) for treatment group members than for control group members in upstate New York (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Estimated annual per-person expenditures for Medicare-covered services, intervention-related costs, and costs for total services, by site, evaluation group, and cohort

Total intervention costs were $8,924 and $8,437 per person per year for phases I and II, respectively. The costs during phase II were lower than during phase I because the costs were spread over a longer period.

The savings in total Medicare expenditures in any site or cohort were either nonexistent or too small to offset the high costs of the intervention. Total per-person costs were between $9,500 and $9,800 higher for treatment group than for control group members for cohort 1 and $6,200 to $8,700 for cohort 2 (P < 0.001).

The study is limited because it cannot definitively attribute impacts to telemedicine, case management, or both. Several sensitivity tests were conducted, with no change in findings.

CONCLUSIONS

IDEATel's intervention-related costs were excessive because of the size of the budget allocated to its operations and the costly HTUs. The demonstration's costs were higher than the costs of comparable telemedicine programs ($415 to $1,830 per participant per year) that served people with diabetes, used televisits with nurse case managers and in-home visits, and had the “potential to effect costs savings” (3,4).

Given the absence of effects on service use (2), finding no effects on Medicare costs was not surprising. The higher Medicare expenditures for the treatment group may have been due to chance or because IDEATel identified the need for some health services among medically underserved beneficiaries.

For IDEATel to be cost-effective, the intervention-related costs would have to be drastically reduced, while maintaining clinical impacts. Less expensive telephonic interventions (5,6) and diabetes case-management programs have yielded comparable improvements in beneficiaries' clinical outcomes to IDEATel's impacts (7). Even if intervention costs were halved and the program reduced hospitalizations by 50%, both unlikely scenarios, the program would still increase costs to the government.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded under contract between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) (contract no. HHSM-500-2004-00022C). There were no industry sponsors of this study. The authors are either salaried employees of Mathematica Policy Research (L.M., S.B.D., A.Y.C.) or of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (C.A.M.) and received no compensation from any other source. They do not own stock in the program being evaluated or stand to profit in any way, directly or indirectly, from particular findings in this article.

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Randall Brown from MPR provided useful suggestions and Jeffrey Holt, Matthew Jacobus, and Amy Zambrowksi, also from MPR, provided excellent computer support. Two anonymous reviewers gave insightful observations.

Footnotes

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Received January 18, 2009.
    • Accepted March 30, 2009.
  • Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

  • © 2009 by the American Diabetes Association.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Shea S,
    2. Weinstock RS,
    3. Starren J,
    4. Teresi J,
    5. Palmas W,
    6. Field L,
    7. Morin P,
    8. Goland R,
    9. Izquierdo RE,
    10. Wolff LT,
    11. Ashraf M,
    12. Hilliman C,
    13. Silver S,
    14. Meyer S,
    15. Holmes D,
    16. Petkova E,
    17. Capps L,
    18. Lantigua RA
    : A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Med Informat Assoc 2006; 13: 40– 51
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Moreno L,
    2. Shapiro R,
    3. Dale SB,
    4. Foster L,
    5. Chen A
    : Final Report to Congress on the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Demonstration, Phases I and II. Princeton, NJ, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2008
  3. ↵
    1. Dansky K,
    2. Palmer L,
    3. Shea D,
    4. Bowles KH
    : Cost analysis of Telehomecare. Telem J E-Health 2001; 7: 225– 232
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Johnston B,
    2. Wheelter L,
    3. Dueser J,
    4. Sousa K
    : Outcomes of the Kaiser Permanente Tele-Home Health Research Project. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 40– 45
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Piette JD,
    2. Weinberger M,
    3. McPhee SJ,
    4. Mah CA,
    5. Kraemer FB,
    6. Crapo LM
    : Can automated calls with nurse follow-up improve self-care and glycemic control among vulnerable patients with diabetes? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Med 2000; 108: 20– 17
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Piette JD,
    2. Weinberger M,
    3. Kraemer FB,
    4. McFee SJ
    : Impact of automated calls with nurse follow-up on diabetes treatment outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs health care system: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 202– 208
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Gilmer TP,
    2. Roze S,
    3. Valentine WJ,
    4. Emy-Albrecht K,
    5. Ray JA,
    6. Cobden D,
    7. Nicklasson L,
    8. Philis-Tsimikas A,
    9. Palmer AJ
    : Cost-effectiveness of diabetes case management for low-income populations. Health Serv Res 2007; 42: 1943– 1959
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 32 (7)

In this Issue

July 2009, 32(7)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Costs to Medicare of the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Home Telemedicine Demonstration
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Costs to Medicare of the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Home Telemedicine Demonstration
Lorenzo Moreno, Stacy B. Dale, Arnold Y. Chen, Carol A. Magee
Diabetes Care Jul 2009, 32 (7) 1202-1204; DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0094

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Costs to Medicare of the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Home Telemedicine Demonstration
Lorenzo Moreno, Stacy B. Dale, Arnold Y. Chen, Carol A. Magee
Diabetes Care Jul 2009, 32 (7) 1202-1204; DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0094
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Original Research

  • n-3 Fatty Acid Biomarkers and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: An Individual Participant-Level Pooling Project of 20 Prospective Cohort Studies
  • Cardiovascular and Renal Disease Burden in Type 1 Compared With Type 2 Diabetes: A Two-Country Nationwide Observational Study
  • Glycemic Outcome Associated With Insulin Pump and Glucose Sensor Use in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes. Data From the International Pediatric Registry SWEET
Show more Original Research

Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research

  • Association of Oily and Nonoily Fish Consumption and Fish Oil Supplements With Incident Type 2 Diabetes: A Large Population-Based Prospective Study
  • Changes in Plant-Based Diet Indices and Subsequent Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Women and Men: Three U.S. Prospective Cohorts
  • Not Only Diabetes but Also Prediabetes Leads to Functional Decline and Disability in Older Adults
Show more Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.