TY - JOUR
T1 - Disparities in diabetes management among medicaid recipients with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD)
T2 - Evidence from five U.S. states
AU - Lu, Zengqi
AU - Cogan, Lindsay
AU - McDermott, Suzanne
AU - Lauer, Emily
AU - Lindner, Stephan
AU - Tracy, Kyle
AU - Momany, Elizabeth T.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities under Grant # 5 NU27DD000011 , Improving the Health of People with Mobility Limitations and Intellectual Disabilities through State-based Public Health Programs . The contents of this report are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Department of Health and Human Services. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the New York State Department of Health. Examples of Analysis performed within this publication are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world analytic products. These are not official findings of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Background: Diabetes is one of the most common chronic conditions among adults. Little is known about the quality of diabetes care received by adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Objective: To determine the extent to which the diabetes care needs are met for a population with both IDD and diabetes who are solely insured by Medicaid in five states (Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and South Carolina). Methods: Medicaid administrative data in 2012 were used to identify Medicaid members (excluding dual eligibles) with diabetes and IDD in five states. Four diabetes care measures were compared between members with and without IDD using bivariate analyses. For those with diabetes and IDD, a logistic regression model was fitted for each state with the following predictors: age, sex, IDD subgroup, and occurrence of a specialist visit in the current or past year. A meta-analysis was then conducted to synthesize cross-state results. Results: Across the five states, 6229 (2%) of the 308,804 non-dual adult Medicaid members 18–64 years old with diabetes in 2012 also had IDD. Comparing those with IDD to their non-IDD peers on receipt of all four diabetes care measures showed differences by state, but state rates of overall adherence were very low, ranging from 16.6% to 28.5% of the population. Conclusions: Meta-analysis results identified specialist visits as a strong predictor of adults with diabetes and IDD receiving all four components of diabetes care. This important information should be considered in efforts to improve quality care for this population.
AB - Background: Diabetes is one of the most common chronic conditions among adults. Little is known about the quality of diabetes care received by adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Objective: To determine the extent to which the diabetes care needs are met for a population with both IDD and diabetes who are solely insured by Medicaid in five states (Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and South Carolina). Methods: Medicaid administrative data in 2012 were used to identify Medicaid members (excluding dual eligibles) with diabetes and IDD in five states. Four diabetes care measures were compared between members with and without IDD using bivariate analyses. For those with diabetes and IDD, a logistic regression model was fitted for each state with the following predictors: age, sex, IDD subgroup, and occurrence of a specialist visit in the current or past year. A meta-analysis was then conducted to synthesize cross-state results. Results: Across the five states, 6229 (2%) of the 308,804 non-dual adult Medicaid members 18–64 years old with diabetes in 2012 also had IDD. Comparing those with IDD to their non-IDD peers on receipt of all four diabetes care measures showed differences by state, but state rates of overall adherence were very low, ranging from 16.6% to 28.5% of the population. Conclusions: Meta-analysis results identified specialist visits as a strong predictor of adults with diabetes and IDD receiving all four components of diabetes care. This important information should be considered in efforts to improve quality care for this population.
KW - Diabetes
KW - IDD
KW - Medicaid
KW - Quality measure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077158971&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85077158971&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100880
DO - 10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100880
M3 - Article
C2 - 31870791
AN - SCOPUS:85077158971
SN - 1936-6574
VL - 13
JO - Disability and Health Journal
JF - Disability and Health Journal
IS - 2
M1 - 100880
ER -