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
Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Impact of a Telephonic Intervention to Improve Diabetes Control on Health Care Utilization and Cost for Adults in South Bronx, New York

  1. Bahman P. Tabaei1⇑,
  2. Renata E. Howland1,
  3. Jeffrey S. Gonzalez2,3,4,
  4. Shadi Chamany1,
  5. Elizabeth A. Walker2,3,
  6. Clyde B. Schechter2,3 and
  7. Winfred Y. Wu1
  1. 1New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY
  2. 2Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
  3. 3New York Regional Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Bronx, NY
  4. 4Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY
  1. Corresponding author: Bahman P. Tabaei, btabaei{at}health.nyc.gov
Diabetes Care 2020 Apr; 43(4): 743-750. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-0954
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Self-management education and support are essential for improved diabetes control. A 1-year randomized telephonic diabetes self-management intervention (Bronx A1C) among a predominantly Latino and African American population in New York City was found effective in improving blood glucose control. To further those findings, this current study assessed the intervention’s impact in reducing health care utilization and costs over 4 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We measured inpatient (n = 816) health care utilization for Bronx A1C participants using an administrative data set containing all hospital discharges for New York State from 2006 to 2014. Multilevel mixed modeling was used to assess changes in health care utilization and costs between the telephonic diabetes intervention (Tele/Pr) arm and print-only (PrO) control arm.

RESULTS During follow-up, excess relative reductions in all-cause hospitalizations for the Tele/Pr arm compared with PrO arm were statistically significant for odds of hospital use (odds ratio [OR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82, 0.97; P < 0.01), number of hospital stays (rate ratio [RR] 0.90; 95% CI 0.81, 0.99; P = 0.04), and hospital costs (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84, 0.98; P = 0.01). Reductions in hospital use and costs were even stronger for diabetes-related hospitalizations. These outcomes were not significantly related to changes observed in hemoglobin A1c during individuals’ participation in the 1-year intervention.

CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that the impact of the Bronx A1C intervention was not just on short-term improvements in glycemic control but also on long-term health care utilization. This finding is important because it suggests the benefits of the intervention were long-lasting with the potential to not only reduce hospitalizations but also to lower hospital-associated costs.

Introduction

Diabetes is a chronic disease that requires long-term self-management education and support in order to achieve successful control (1). Diabetes self-management is a collaborative process that helps individuals gain the knowledge and skills needed to modify behavior and successfully perform routine diabetes self-care activities (1,2). Existing literature documents the benefits of engaging in self-management practices and receiving clinical services for individuals with diabetes (1,2). It is an effective strategy to improve short-term process measures, such as patient knowledge, blood glucose monitoring, hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and cholesterol screenings, and dietary patterns (3,4), as well as long-term clinical outcomes, such as reductions in lipids, reductions in A1C, blood pressure control, weight management, and quality of life (5–10). Because of the long-term economic burden of diabetes and its corresponding morbidity and mortality, there is an increasing interest in the potential for diabetes self-management programs to improve disease management, avoid complications, and reduce avoidable health care utilization and cost (2). However, limited reports have been published regarding the long-term effects of diabetes self-management interventions on health care utilization and its related costs. The overall purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a 1-year telephonic diabetes self-management intervention in reducing health care utilization and costs over a 4-year study period.

Research Design and Methods

Study Setting

The Bronx A1C (6) was a randomized controlled trial comparing the impact of a diabetes self-management print-only intervention to a telephonic self-management support intervention on diabetes control (www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00797888). The target population was adult individuals with suboptimally controlled diabetes in the South Bronx, NY, where the population is predominantly Latino or African American and poverty is highly prevalent (11,12).

The Bronx A1C methods and results were described in detail elsewhere (6,11). Briefly, 941 adults >18 years with diabetes and a recent A1C >7% (53 mmol/mol) residing in the South Bronx ZIP codes were recruited into the study from September 2008 to October 2010. A total of 443 participants were randomized to the telephonic diabetes intervention (Tele/Pr) arm and 498 were randomized to the print-only (PrO) control arm. All participants were mailed the same high-quality diabetes self-management print materials at baseline randomization and modest lifestyle incentives quarterly. The Tele/Pr arm participants′ telephone calls followed a curriculum developed for this study. They were delivered individually in Spanish or English by a health educator who was primarily supervised by a nurse who was a certified diabetes educator. Additionally, the Tele/Pr arm received up to four calls from health educators over 1 year if participant’s baseline A1C was 7–9%, (53–75 mmol/mol) or up to eight calls if baseline A1C was >9% (>75 mmol/mol). A total of 910 participants finished the intervention (15 participants withdrew and 16 died). Postintervention A1C results (available for 694 participants) showed that from baseline to follow-up, mean A1C decreased by 0.9% among the Tele/Pr arm compared with 0.5% among the PrO arm, which is a 0.4% difference (P = 0.01). The intervention had a significant effect when baseline A1C was >9% (>75 mmol/mol) but not when baseline A1C was between 7% (53 mmol/mol) and 9% (75 mmol/mol). In addition, the results of a cost analysis indicated that the intervention was delivered at moderate cost relative to the gains achieved (13). Total costs for the PrO and Tele/Pr arms were $109.18 and $269.79 per person, respectively. The cost specific to the telephone intervention was $187.61 per person (13).

Data Source

For this secondary analysis of Bronx A1C, we used data from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), a comprehensive New York State claims database, to measure hospital inpatient health care utilization and costs and emergency department (ED) use for Bronx A1C participants (14,15). We also used information from the New York City (NYC) A1C Registry (16) to confirm the participants’ NYC residency. The NYC A1C Registry is a laboratory-based surveillance system that was created in 2006 following an amendment to the NYC Health Code mandating laboratories to report A1C test results for NYC residents to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Study Population

Health care utilization was assessed by matching SPARCS data to the Bronx A1C participants using unique patient identifiers. Hospital and ED use were calculated for each individual participant in the Tele/Pr and PrO arms from 2006, which is up to 2 years prior to study enrollment (i.e., preintervention utilization), to 2014, which is up to 4 years after study enrollment (i.e., follow-up utilization). Data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis, meaning all individuals who participated in the Bronx A1C and were NYC residents during both the preintervention and follow-up study periods were included, regardless of the effect of the intervention or the availability of A1C outcome data. A total of 816 of the 910 who completed the Bronx A1C intervention had data within the A1C Registry and/or SPARCS inpatient database during the study period. Similarly, 839 participants had data within the A1C Registry and/or SPARCS ED database during the study period and were included in the study. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) times during the 2-year preintervention period were 18.8 (11.1–22.1) and 19.6 (12.4–22.3) months for the Tele/Pr and PrO arms, respectively (P = 0.24). The median (IQR) follow-up times during the 4-year follow-up period were 33.9 (28.6–35.6) and 33.1 (28.9–35.7) months for the Tele/Pr and PrO arms, respectively (P = 0.99).

Study Measures

We evaluated hospitalizations and ED services using the ICD-9 Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes included in primary or secondary (up to 24) fields in SPARCS. Changes in inpatient health care utilization and cost were measured for overall all-cause hospitalizations and diabetes-related complications. These were defined as 1) short-term diabetes complications, including hyperglycemia (diabetes with ketoacidosis, diabetes with hyperosmolarity, and diabetes with other coma) and hypoglycemia (diabetes with other specified manifestations) (17); 2) long-term diabetes complications including microvascular complications (diabetic nephropathy, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic neuropathy) and macrovascular conditions (diabetes with peripheral circulatory disorders, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke) (17,18); and 3) lower-extremity amputations, which included amputations of the upper leg, lower leg, ankle, foot, and toe (18). Each of these outcomes was considered to be related to diabetes if any of the listed diagnoses included diabetes (ICD-9-CM: 250) (18). Any change in ED health care utilization was measured overall, including the use of any ED services, regardless of cause. The SPARCS ED data used in this study are “treat and release,” meaning visits that do not result in a hospitalization. Inpatient costs were estimated by multiplying reported charges in SPARCS by a year- and hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratio (CCR) and diagnosis-specific adjustment factors, which were created by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project in order to account for between- and within-hospital variation in the markup of charges (19–22). The CCRs were created by comparing nationally reported charges to hospital account reports collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and they were linked with SPARCS using hospital identifiers available from the American Hospital Association Linkage Files. Diagnosis-specific adjustment factors were based on the reported diagnosis-related group code, which groups hospitalizations with similar clinical and demographic characteristics. Finally, costs were adjusted for inflation to 2014 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since CCRs do not exist for ED services, we were unable to estimate the costs for these services.

Statistical Analysis

We compared characteristics of the two study arms using two-tailed t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for parametric and nonparametric continuous variables, respectively, and χ2 and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 tests for categorical variables. We used the negative binomial distribution to account for the highly skewed, over-dispersed nature of the data, which is a common issue in health care utilization and cost studies (23,24). In addition, as expected, health care utilization and cost outcomes were related and were highly and significantly correlated. For example, for all-cause hospitalization, correlation coefficients were as follows: number of hospital stays versus number of hospital days = 0.79 (P < 0.001); number of hospital stays versus hospital cost = 0.73 (P < 0.001); number of hospital days versus hospital cost = 0.86 (P < 0.001). Hence, the joint mixed modeling approach was appropriate because it allowed for the correlation structure of different related outcomes (25,26).

Models of health care utilization and cost with joint binary outcome distribution and logit link function (hospital/ED use: yes, no), count (number of hospital stays/ED visits, number of hospital days), and semicontinuous (cost) outcomes with negative binomial distribution and log link function were estimated using repeated-measures generalized linear mixed models to account for potential correlations between related outcomes and serial correlations between repeated events (e.g., hospitalizations) within individuals. Separate models were developed for the inpatient health care utilization and ED use. We developed models that included a main effect of group (study arm), a main effect of time (utilization period), and a two-way group-by-time interaction term (study arm × utilization period) to compare differences in changes in health care utilization and costs from the preintervention to follow-up utilization periods within and between the two study arms. Since the time of events was somewhat different within and between the participants, we used the spatial power covariance structure to account for unequally spaced observations among individuals. We constructed a sample variogram to guide this decision. To further account for the duration of follow-up time intervals of different length, log mean duration of time intervals was included in the models as an offset variable. The fit of the models was examined by using mixed model diagnostic statistics, such as the likelihood ratio test and Akaike’s Information Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion measures. Results were presented as odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes and rate ratios (RR) for count and cost data and their 95% CIs. We conducted the analysis for the whole sample and for samples with baseline A1C 7–9% (53 mmol/mol) and A1C >9% (>75 mmol/mol) at randomization. We also assessed the sensitivity of our choice of negative binomial distribution by fitting additional generalized linear mixed models using several alternative distributions, such as γ and lognormal distributions, especially for cost data. Models with negative binomial distribution had a better fit.

To measure the absolute effect of the intervention, the event-based number needed to treat was computed for the two study arms by calculating their cumulative event proportions (hospitalization) using previously published methods (27–29). The corresponding event-based number needed to treat was calculated, representing the number of individuals who need to be treated for a given time period to prevent one hospitalization event in that period (30). Since this statistic is based on absolute differences, it is helpful when examining economic implications of any health policy decision (29). All statistical analyses were performed by using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The protocol was approved by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene institutional review board.

Results

Table 1 describes the characteristics of study participants at randomization included in the inpatient health care utilization and cost analysis during the preintervention period. The mean age was 57 years; 64% of participants were women; and ∼67% were Latino. The mean A1C was 9.2% (77 mmol/mol), and ∼40% of participants had an A1C of >9% (>75 mmol/mol). The median duration of diabetes was 10 (IQR 4–16) years. Overall, during the preintervention period, 197 (24%) of the participants had at least one inpatient encounter. This accounted for an average of 0.5 hospital stays and 2 hospital days with the average cost of $5,066. A total of 128 (16%) participants were hospitalized with a diabetes-related diagnosis during preintervention, accounting for an average of 0.3 hospital stays, ∼1 hospital day, and an inpatient cost of about $3,000. Preintervention utilization and costs were similar between the two study arms. Also, the characteristics of study participants included in the ED services analysis (n = 780) and the magnitude of differences were similar to the characteristics of participants included in the inpatient health care utilization analysis (data not shown).

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

Characteristics of study participants at randomization and health care utilization at preintervention by study arm from Bronx A1C

Figure 1 displays the absolute mean number of hospitalizations for the two study arms during the 6-year study period. Overall, there were substantial reductions in inpatient health care utilization for the Tele/Pr arm compared with the PrO arm during the postintervention follow-up period. In general, the absolute rates of inpatient health care utilization were similar during the 2-year preintervention period. However, the differences between the two study arms started to increase at the end of the 1st year of follow-up, and they continued, but somewhat narrowed, during the 3rd and 4th years of follow-up.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Absolute mean number of all-cause hospitalizations and diabetes-related hospitalizations for the two study arms during the 6-year study period from Bronx A1C. Continuous variable time in years has a range of 2 years preintervention study period (from time −2 to time 0) to 4 years of follow-up period (from time 0 to time 4), with time 0 representing the start of the intervention.

Table 2 summarizes the results of analyses of relative differences in the change in inpatient health care utilization and cost and ED services use between the two study arms from preintervention to follow-up. Excess reductions in all-cause hospitalizations for the Tele/Pr arm relative to the PrO arm were statistically significant for the odds of hospital use (↓11%; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.82, 0.97; P < 0.01), number of inpatient stays (↓10%; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.81, 0.99; P = 0.04), and hospital costs (↓10%; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84, 0.98; P = 0.01). The decline in the number of hospital days was marginally significant. For diabetes-related hospitalizations, participating in the Tele/Pr arm as opposed to the PrO arm was associated with statistically significant excess reductions in the odds of hospitalization (↓17%; OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.75, 0.93; P < 0.001), number of inpatient stays (↓16%; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74, 0.96; P < 0.01), number of hospital days (↓14%; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77, 0.97; P < 0.01), and hospital costs (↓15%; RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.77, 0.93; P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two study arms for any measure of ED utilization. In general, the results for individuals with A1C 7–9% (53–75 mmol/mol) at randomization were similar to the overall results and show statistically significant excess reductions in hospitalization measures for the Tele/Pr arm relative to the PrO arm (Table 2). Among individuals with A1C >9% (>75 mmol/mol) at randomization, differences in the change between the two study arms were in the expected direction, but they were not statistically significant for any measures of all-cause hospitalizations and ED services. However, the results were similar to the overall results for diabetes-related hospitalizations, and they show statistically significant or marginally significant excess reductions in these measures for the Tele/Pr arm relative to the PrO arm (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Differences in inpatient health care utilization, cost, and ED services between the two study arms during the 4-year study follow-up from Bronx A1C for Tele/Pr versus PrO arms

The estimated cumulative event proportions for all-cause hospitalization during the follow-up period were 0.16 and 0.19 for the Tele/Pr and PrO arms, respectively, generating a cumulative event proportion difference of 0.03 in favor of the Tele/Pr arm. This indicates that, on average, 33 individuals need to receive the Tele/Pr intervention in order to prevent one hospitalization event over 4 years.

Sensitivity Analysis

To further access the effect of death on the results, we conducted the analysis in two ways. In the first main analysis, we included all individuals who were alive for any part of the study period. In the second analysis, the utilization and costs of those who died in the course of the follow-up study years were excluded (32 and 29 individuals in Tele/Pr and PrO arms, respectively). The results of the second analysis indicated that although the magnitude of differences in the change between the two study arms was somewhat widened, especially for the A1C >9% (>73 mmol/mol) group, the overall direction of differences in change was similar to the first analysis. Therefore, we report the results of the main, more inclusive analysis.

We also conducted a secondary analysis to see if the differences in health care utilization and costs observed in this study related to better glycemic control. We restricted the data set to those individuals in the cohort who had a postintervention A1C measurement at the end of the original Bronx A1C study (n = 621). For those individuals who met this criteria, we included an effect for A1C change from baseline randomization to 12 months follow-up and an interaction effect of A1C change by study arm in the health care utilization and cost models adjusting for the baseline A1C groups (7–9% [53–75 mmol/mol] and >9% [>75 mmol/mol]). We then looked at whether this accounted for any of the observed between-groups differences in health care and utilization outcomes. The result showed, however, that the difference in A1C change as observed in the original Bronx A1C study did not significantly predict any future between-group differences in change in the health care utilization and cost outcomes.

Conclusions

This study extends previous research by examining the effectiveness of diabetes self-management behavioral interventions in reducing inpatient health care utilization and costs. Our results demonstrate that individuals with diabetes who received a health educator–delivered telephonic intervention had significant reductions in inpatient health care utilization and hospital-associated costs compared with those receiving only print-based self-management support. Specifically, participating in the telephonic intervention was associated with greater reductions in diabetes-related hospitalizations and their relative costs.

The results of this study support existing literature demonstrating the benefits of diabetes self-management programs on inpatient health care utilization and costs. Only a few studies have directly assessed associations between diabetes self-management interventions and inpatient hospital and ED services and their related health care costs. Several intervention trials have found that diabetes self-management was associated with decreased hospital admissions in managed care organization and mixed-income primary care system settings (31). Formal diabetes self-management education was also independently associated with a lower frequency of hospital readmissions among individuals with poor glycemic control (32). One randomized study showed that nurse-directed diabetes self-management in a majority Latino population resulted in less use of urgent care as well as fewer hospitalizations for preventable metabolic (diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia) and infectious (cellulitis, foot ulcer, osteomyelitis, fungal infection, and urinary tract infection) diabetes-related conditions (33). In a large cohort of low-income primary care patients with diabetes, any type of diabetes self-management visit was associated with lower hospitalization rates and charges (34). The results of that study further indicated that even attending at least one, as opposed to zero, diabetes education visit devoted specifically to diabetes self-management was associated with a significantly lower number of hospitalizations. Another study evaluated a mobile phone–based program that provided automated self-management support and facilitated team-based care for low-income diabetes patients enrolled in an academic medical center’s employee health plan (35). The results showed evidence of improved clinical outcomes, greater patient satisfaction, and lower health care utilization and related costs. Although these interventions have been shown to support individuals with diabetes to reduce hospital admissions and costs, in general, they were expensive and labor-intensive because they required professional support staff with more advanced training and credentials, such as nutritionists, nurses, and certified diabetes educators, to conduct the intervention. In contrast, the results of the Bronx A1C study show that a more informal and flexible means of providing support through nonclinical health educators conducting a telephonic intervention under the supervision of a certified diabetes educator could potentially provide similar benefits at a relatively lower cost.

We did not find any statistically significant differences between the two study arms for any measures of ED utilization. Similarly, a recent observational study that assessed 1-year effectiveness of a diabetes self-management training among Medicare beneficiaries showed that individuals with any diabetes self-management education had a 14% significant reduction in the odds of hospitalization in the follow-up year compared with those with no training, but the odds of any ED visits were not statistically significant (3). Duncan et al. (36) also examined the value of an intervention performed by diabetes educators in an accredited diabetes self-management training program. Using a large database of payer-derived claims for services incurred, they examined the source of differences between costs of patients who used diabetes self-management training versus those who did not. The results indicated that differences in average costs were largely because of lower inpatient costs, with the individuals who did not receive diabetes education being heavier utilizers of inpatient services. In contrast, outpatient and pharmacy costs were higher for patients who used diabetes self-management training, indicating that these patients were seeking out and receiving more primary, preventive care and less inpatient care.

One implicit hypothesis behind diabetes self-management behavioral interventions is the assumption that a change in A1C is an important mechanism for effects on health outcomes. The result of our sensitivity analysis showed that the difference in A1C change in the original Bronx A1C study between the two study arms (from baseline randomization to 12 months) did not account for the future differences in any of the health care utilization and cost outcomes. This is not surprising given the similarities in health care utilization and cost observed here for baseline A1C >9% (>75 mmol/mol) vs. 7–9% (53–75 mmol/mol), despite clear differences in A1C value in the original Bronx A1C study, i.e., the intervention had a significant effect when baseline A1C was >9% (>75 mmol/mol) but not when baseline A1C was 7–9% (53–75 mmol/mol). This suggests that in a multicomponent intervention, other effects beyond potential improvement in A1C can decrease hospitalizations. It is possible, however, that our evaluation of the role of change in A1C in predicting these outcomes was limited by not including longer-term follow-up of A1C change, which may have continued beyond the assessment of the intervention’s primary 1-year A1C outcome. This may also be related to a smaller sample size in the >9% (>75 mmol/mol) subgroup. Nevertheless, our results are informative in terms of how future interventions should consider the A1C-specific versus the more general effects of a diabetes self-management behavioral intervention.

We found that, on average, 33 individuals need to receive the Tele/Pr intervention in order to prevent one hospitalization event over 4 years. With a total cost of intervention at $269.79 per person, the cost of providing this intervention to 33 individuals would be about $8,903. The estimated median cost of overall hospitalization among those hospitalized over the 4-year follow-up period was ∼$10,703. This indicates a cost benefit of $1,800, which can be added to the cost benefit considered in the original Bronx A1C study cost analysis (13).

Our study has several limitations. First, our data did not indicate for certain when people “came into” NYC and how much time they stayed away. Therefore, there may be gaps in health care utilization data. We tried to control for this by using our inclusion criteria to ensure that people were residents of NYC at some point during both preintervention and follow-up periods. Second, the study population was almost 70% foreign-born and may have used health care services while visiting their country of origin, artificially reducing utilization and cost estimates. However, we have no reason to believe there were differences between groups in seeking care outside of the U.S. Another limitation is that health care costs included in the current study approximate facility-level costs and do not include physician costs or other outpatient or indirect costs attributed to diabetes. In addition, we could not compare the two study arms based on ambulatory surgery and outpatient clinic visits because SPARCS data were not available at the time of the analysis. Finally, the primary Bronx A1C intervention concluded about 8 years ago and many improvements have been made to diabetes care, especially in diabetes depression or distress assessment and management, which could affect the applicability and generalizability of our results to the present diabetes population. A primary strength of our study is the longitudinal measurement of health care utilization and cost over a 6-year period in a diverse sample. In addition, this study was based on an earlier randomized controlled trial that included stringent quality control of both intervention implementation and data collection.

In conclusion, our results indicate that a telephonic self-management diabetes intervention delivered by health educators trained and supervised by a certified diabetes educator in this predominantly Latino and African American population resulted in fewer hospitalizations and hospital-associated costs. The intervention had even stronger effects for diabetes-related conditions. These longer-term outcomes may be more related to patients and health care system characteristics than to changes observed in A1C during the shorter-term 12-month intervention. Our results offer additional evidence that participation in a 1-year diabetes self-management program is relatively cost-effective in the context of programmatic costs and is associated with significant improvements in important clinical outcomes and reductions in long-term inpatient health care utilization and costs.

Article Information

Funding. This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18-DK-078077), Einstein–Mount Sinai Diabetes Research Center (P30-DK-020541), and the New York Regional Center for Diabetes Translation Research (P30-DK-111022). J.S.G. is supported by the National Institutes of Health grants R01-DK-104845, R18-DK-098742, R01-DK-121298, and R01-DK-121896.

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

Author Contributions. B.P.T. conducted the literature search, analyzed data, interpreted the findings, and wrote the manuscript. R.E.H. calculated the estimated inpatient costs and contributed to writing and revisions of the manuscript. J.S.G., S.C., E.A.W., C.B.S., and W.Y.W. contributed to the data interpretation and revision of the manuscript and approved the final draft. B.P.T. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • Clinical trial reg. no. NCT00797888, clinicaltrials.gov

  • This article is featured in a podcast available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/diabetes-core-update-podcasts.

  • Received May 10, 2019.
  • Accepted January 4, 2020.
  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

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. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 4. Lifestyle management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S38–S50
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Powers MA,
    2. Bardsley J,
    3. Cypress M, et al
    . Diabetes self-management education and support in type 2 diabetes: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Diabetes Care 2015;38:1372–1382
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Strawbridge LM,
    2. Lloyd JT,
    3. Meadow A,
    4. Riley GF,
    5. Howell BL
    . One-year outcomes of diabetes self-management training among Medicare beneficiaries newly diagnosed with diabetes. Med Care 2017;55:391–397
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Shah M,
    2. Kaselitz E,
    3. Heisler M
    . The role of community health workers in diabetes: update on current literature. Curr Diab Rep 2013;13:163–171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Haas L,
    2. Maryniuk M,
    3. Beck J, et al.; 2012 Standards Revision Task Force
    . National standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Care 2014;37(Suppl. 1):S144–S153
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Chamany S,
    2. Walker EA,
    3. Schechter CB, et al
    . Telephone intervention to improve diabetes control: a randomized trial in the New York City A1c Registry. Am J Prev Med 2015;49:832–841
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Frosch DL,
    2. Uy V,
    3. Ochoa S,
    4. Mangione CM
    . Evaluation of a behavior support intervention for patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:2011–2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Deakin T,
    2. McShane CE,
    3. Cade JE,
    4. Williams RD
    . Group based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;2:CD003417
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Cochran J,
    2. Conn VS
    . Meta-analysis of quality of life outcomes following diabetes self-management training. Diabetes Educ 2008;34:815–823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Banister NA,
    2. Jastrow ST,
    3. Hodges V,
    4. Loop R,
    5. Gillham MB
    . Diabetes self-management training program in a community clinic improves patient outcomes at modest cost. J Am Diet Assoc 2004;104:807–810
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Walker EA,
    2. Silver LD,
    3. Chamany S, et al
    . Baseline characteristics and Latino versus non-Latino contrasts among Bronx A1C study participants. West J Nurs Res 2014;36:1030–1051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, NYC
    . Epiquery: NYC Interactive Health Data System - Community Health Survey [Internet], 2017. Available from www.nyc.gov/health/epiquery. Accessed 28 February 2019
  10. ↵
    1. Schechter CB,
    2. Walker EA,
    3. Ortega FM,
    4. Chamany S,
    5. Silver LD
    . Costs and effects of a telephonic diabetes self-management support intervention using health educators. J Diabetes Complications 2016;30:300–305
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Quan JM
    . SPARCS: the New York State health care data system. J Clin Comput 1980;8:255–263
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Department of Health, New York State. Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) [Internet]
    . Available from https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/sparcs/. Accessed 31 May 2017
  13. ↵
    1. Chamany S,
    2. Silver LD,
    3. Bassett MT, et al
    . Tracking diabetes: New York City’s A1C Registry. Milbank Q 2009;87:547–570
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Chung N,
    2. Rascati K,
    3. Lopez D,
    4. Jokerst J,
    5. Garza A
    . Impact of a clinical pharmacy program on changes in hemoglobin A1c, diabetes-related hospitalizations, and diabetes-related emergency department visits for patients with diabetes in an underserved population. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2014;20:914–919
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Gregg EW,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Wang J, et al
    . Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1514–1523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Cost-to-charge ratio files [Internet]
    , 2016. Available from https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/costtocharge.jsp. Accessed 15 November 2017
    1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). American Hospital Association Linkage Files [Internet]
    . Available from https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/ahalinkage/aha_linkage.jsp. Accessed 15 November 2017
    1. Sun Y,
    2. Friedman B
    . Tools for More Accurate Inpatient Cost Estimates with HCUP Databases 2009. Errata added October 25, 2012. Rockville, MD, U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012 (HCUP Methods Series Report #2011-04)
  17. ↵
    1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index - all urban consumers [Internet]
    , 2017. Available from https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu. Accessed 15 November 2017
  18. ↵
    1. Diehr P,
    2. Yanez D,
    3. Ash A,
    4. Hornbrook M,
    5. Lin DY
    . Methods for analyzing health care utilization and costs. Annu Rev Public Health 1999;20:125–144
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Mihaylova B,
    2. Briggs A,
    3. O’Hagan A,
    4. Thompson SG
    . Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ 2011;20:897–916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Gardiner JC
    . Joint modeling of mixed outcomes in health services research. SAS Global Forum [Internet]. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc., 2013. Available from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.380.3342&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 31 May 2018
  21. ↵
    1. SAS Institute
    . Joint modeling of binary and count data. SAS/STAT 14.3 user’s guide 2017 [Internet]. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc. Available from https://documentation.sas.com/?docsetId=statug&docsetTarget=statug_glimmix_examples08.htm&docsetVersion=14.3&locale=en. Accessed 31 May 2018
  22. ↵
    1. Suissa D,
    2. Brassard P,
    3. Smiechowski B,
    4. Suissa S
    . Number needed to treat is incorrect without proper time-related considerations. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:42–46
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Stang A,
    2. Poole C,
    3. Bender R
    . Common problems related to the use of number needed to treat. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:820–825
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Cook RJ
    . Number needed to treat for recurrent events. J Biomet Biostat 2013;4:167
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Mendes D,
    2. Alves C,
    3. Batel-Marques F
    . Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal. BMC Med 2017;15:112
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Greisinger AJ,
    2. Balkrishnan R,
    3. Shenolikar RA,
    4. Wehmanen OA,
    5. Muhammad S,
    6. Champion PK
    . Diabetes care management participation in a primary care setting and subsequent hospitalization risk. Dis Manag 2004;7:325–332
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Healy SJ,
    2. Black D,
    3. Harris C,
    4. Lorenz A,
    5. Dungan KM
    . Inpatient diabetes education is associated with less frequent hospital readmission among patients with poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2960–2967
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Davidson MB,
    2. Ansari A,
    3. Karlan VJ
    . Effect of a nurse-directed diabetes disease management program on urgent care/emergency room visits and hospitalizations in a minority population. Diabetes Care 2007;30:224–227
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Robbins JM,
    2. Thatcher GE,
    3. Webb DA,
    4. Valdmanis VG
    . Nutritionist visits, diabetes classes, and hospitalization rates and charges: the Urban Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 2008;31:655–660
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Nundy S,
    2. Dick JJ,
    3. Chou CH,
    4. Nocon RS,
    5. Chin MH,
    6. Peek ME
    . Mobile phone diabetes project led to improved glycemic control and net savings for Chicago plan participants. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33:265–272
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Duncan I,
    2. Ahmed T,
    3. Li QE, et al
    . Assessing the value of the diabetes educator. Diabetes Educ 2011;37:638–657
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 43 (4)

In this Issue

April 2020, 43(4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
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.
Impact of a Telephonic Intervention to Improve Diabetes Control on Health Care Utilization and Cost for Adults in South Bronx, New York
(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
Impact of a Telephonic Intervention to Improve Diabetes Control on Health Care Utilization and Cost for Adults in South Bronx, New York
Bahman P. Tabaei, Renata E. Howland, Jeffrey S. Gonzalez, Shadi Chamany, Elizabeth A. Walker, Clyde B. Schechter, Winfred Y. Wu
Diabetes Care Apr 2020, 43 (4) 743-750; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0954

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

Impact of a Telephonic Intervention to Improve Diabetes Control on Health Care Utilization and Cost for Adults in South Bronx, New York
Bahman P. Tabaei, Renata E. Howland, Jeffrey S. Gonzalez, Shadi Chamany, Elizabeth A. Walker, Clyde B. Schechter, Winfred Y. Wu
Diabetes Care Apr 2020, 43 (4) 743-750; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0954
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
    • Introduction
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Productivity Benefits of Preventing Type 2 Diabetes in Australia: A 10-Year Analysis
  • Temporal Trends in Incident Hospitalization for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcer in Type 2 Diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study
  • Insulinemic and Inflammatory Dietary Patterns Show Enhanced Predictive Potential for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in Postmenopausal Women
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Diabetes Education

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.