The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP) has helped organizations deliver the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) lifestyle change program for over 10 years. Four delivery modes are now approved: in person, online (self-paced, asynchronous delivery), distance learning (remote, synchronous delivery), and combination (hybrid delivery using more than one delivery mode). We assessed outcomes using data from 333,715 participants who started the 12-month program between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018. The average number of sessions attended was highest for in-person participants (15.0), followed by online (12.9), distance learning (12.2), and combination (10.7). The average number of weeks in the program was highest for in-person participants (28.1), followed by distance learning (20.1), online (18.7), and combination (18.6). The average difference between the first and last reported weekly physical activity minutes reflected an increase for in person (42.0), distance learning (27.1), and combination (15.0), but a decrease for online (-19.8). Among participants retained through session 6 or longer, average weekly physical activity minutes exceeded the program goal of 150 for all delivery modes. Average weight loss (percent of body weight) was greater for in person (4.4%) and distance learning (4.7%) than for online (2.6%) or combination (2.9%). Average participant weight loss increased gradually by session for all delivery modes; among participants who remained in the program for 22 sessions, average weight loss exceeded the program goal of 5% for all delivery modes. In summary, if participants stay in the program, most have positive program outcomes regardless of delivery mode; they have some outcome improvement even if they leave early; and their outcomes improve more the longer they stay. This highlights the benefits of better retention and increased enrollment in the National DPP lifestyle change programs, as well as enhancements to online delivery.

Type 2 diabetes disproportionately affects older adults, persons from racial and ethnic minority groups, and persons of low socioeconomic status. It can be prevented or delayed through evidence-based interventions such as the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) lifestyle change program (LCP). This analysis is aimed at evaluating the outcomes (i.e., retention, physical activity, and weight loss) associated with participation in the National DPP LCP by participant characteristics and delivery mode (i.e., in-person, online, distance learning, and combination) using the 2012-2018 Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP) data. Across all delivery modes, there were generally no substantial differences in retention between male and female participants, but male participants tended to have higher physical activity and weight loss (e.g., average weight loss for in-person delivery: 5.0% for males and 4.3% for females). Older participants had better retention rates than younger participants in all delivery modes and mostly higher physical activity and weight loss except for distance learning delivery (e.g., average weight loss for in-person delivery: 5.1% for those aged 65+ and 3.3% for those aged 18-34). Among the seven racial and ethnic groups studied, retention was generally highest for non-Hispanic/Latino (NH)-White participants and lowest for Hispanic/Latino participants. Physical activity varied by racial and ethnic groups and delivery mode. NH-White participants generally had the most weight loss except for distance learning delivery, and NH-Black/African American participants had the least (e.g., average weight loss for in-person delivery: 5.1% for NH-White participants, 3.3% for both NH-Black/African American and NH-American Indian/Alaska Native participants, and other racial and ethnic minority groups ranged from 3.4% to 4.9%). Monitoring and identifying disparities across demographics and delivery modes, particularly across multiple racial and ethnic groups, provides information that can be used to improve the implementation of the National DPP LCP by tailoring the intervention to reduce disparities.

The aim of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) is to make an evidence-based lifestyle change program widely available to the more than 88 million American adults at risk for developing type 2 diabetes. The National DPP allows for program delivery using four delivery modes: in person, online, distance learning, and combination. The objective of this study was to analyze cumulative enrollment in the National DPP by delivery mode. We included all participants who enrolled in CDC-recognized organizations delivering the lifestyle change program between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019, and whose data were submitted to CDC's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program. During this time, the number of participants who enrolled was 455,954. Enrollment, by delivery mode, was 166,691 for in-person; 269,004 for online; 4,786 for distance-learning; and 15,473 for combination. In-person organizations enrolled the lowest proportion of men (19.4%) and the highest proportions of non-Hispanic Black/African American (16.1%) and older (65+ years) participants (28.2%). Online organizations enrolled the highest proportions of men (27.1%), younger (18-44 years) participants (41.5%), and non-Hispanic White participants (70.3%). Distance-learning organizations enrolled the lowest proportion of Hispanic/Latino participants (9.0%). Combination organizations enrolled the highest proportions of Hispanic/Latino participants (37.3%) and participants who had obesity (84.1%). Most in-person participants enrolled in organizations classified as community-centered entities (41.4%) or medical providers (31.2%). Online and distance-learning participants were primarily enrolled (93.3% and 70.2%, respectively) in organizations classified as for-profit businesses or insurers. Participants in combination programs were enrolled almost exclusively in organizations classified as medical providers (89%). The National DPP has reached nearly half a million participants since its inception in 2012, but continued expansion is critical to stem the tide of type 2 diabetes among the many Americans at high risk.

PURPOSE: To examine how health care providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices affect their referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-report data from DocStyles-a web-based survey. SETTING: USA. SAMPLE: Practicing family practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and internists, n = 1,503. MEASURES: Questions regarding health care providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices and their referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program. ANALYSIS: Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to calculate predictive margins and the average marginal effect. RESULTS: Overall, 15.2% of health care providers (n = 1,503) reported making a referral to the National Diabetes Prevention Program. Health care providers were more likely to make referrals if they were familiar with the program (average marginal effect = 36.0%, 95% CI: 29.1%, 42.8%), reported knowledge of its availability (average marginal effect=49.1%, 95% CI: 40.2%, 57.9%), believed it was important to make referrals to the program (average marginal effect = 20.7%, 95% CI: 14.4%, 27.0%), and used electronic health records to manage patients with prediabetes (average marginal effect = 9.1%, 95% CI: 5.4%, 12.7%). Health care providers' demographic characteristics had little to no association with making referrals. CONCLUSION: Making referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program was associated with health care providers' knowledge of the program and its reported availability, their attitudes, and their use of the electronic health record system to manage patients with prediabetes.

BACKGROUND: Systematic Reviews (SR), studies of studies, use a formal process to evaluate the quality of scientific literature and determine ensuing effectiveness from qualifying articles to establish consensus findings around a hypothesis. Their value is increasing as the conduct and publication of research and evaluation has expanded and the process of identifying key insights becomes more time consuming. Text analytics and machine learning (ML) techniques may help overcome this problem of scale while still maintaining the level of rigor expected of SRs. METHODS: In this article, we discuss an approach that uses existing examples of SRs to build and test a method for assisting the SR title and abstract pre-screening by reducing the initial pool of potential articles down to articles that meet inclusion criteria. Our approach differs from previous approaches to using ML as a SR tool in that it incorporates ML configurations guided by previously conducted SRs, and human confirmation on ML predictions of relevant articles during multiple iterative reviews on smaller tranches of citations. We applied the tailored method to a new SR review effort to validate performance. RESULTS: The case study test of the approach proved a sensitivity (recall) in finding relevant articles during down selection that may rival many traditional processes and show ability to overcome most type II errors. The study achieved a sensitivity of 99.5% (213 out of 214) of total relevant articles while only conducting a human review of 31% of total articles available for review. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this iterative method can help overcome bias in initial ML model training by having humans reinforce ML models with new and relevant information, and is an applied step towards transfer learning for ML in SR.

AIMS: To estimate the prevalence and medical expenditures of diabetes-related complications (DRCs) among adult Medicaid enrollees with diabetes. METHODS: We estimated the prevalence and medical expenditures for 12 diabetes-related complications by Medicaid eligibility category (disability-based vs. non-disability-based) in eight states. We used generalized linear models with log link and gamma distribution to estimate the total per-person annual medical expenditures for DRCs, controlling for demographics, and other comorbidities. RESULTS: Among non-disability-based enrollees (NDBEs), 40.1% (in California) to 47.5% (in Oklahoma) had one or more DRCs, compared to 53.6% (in Alabama) to 64.8% (in Florida) among disability-based enrollees (DBEs). The most prevalent complication was neuropathy (16.1%-27.1% for NDBEs; 20.2%-30.4% for DBEs). Lower extremity amputation (<1% for both eligibilities) was the least prevalent complication. The costliest per-person complication was dialysis (per-person excess annual expenditure of $22,481-$41,298 for NDBEs; $23,569-$51,470 for DBEs in 2012 USD). Combining prevalence and per-person excess expenditures, the three costliest complications were nephropathy, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease (IHD) for DBEs, compared to neuropathy, nephropathy, and IHD for NDBEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides data that can be used for assessing the health care resources needed for managing DRCs and evaluating cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and management DRCs.

2020 will go down in history as the year when the global community was awakened to the fragility of human health and the interdependence of the ecosystem, economy, and humanity. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerability of people with diabetes during a public health emergency became evident by their at least 2 times increased risk of severe disease or death, especially in individuals with poorly controlled diabetes, comorbidities, or both. The disease burden caused by COVID-19, exacerbated by chronic conditions like diabetes, has inflicted a heavy toll on health-care systems and the global economy. | | In this Lancet Commission on diabetes, which embodies 4 years of extensive work on data curation, synthesis, and modelling, we urge policy makers, payers, and planners to collectively change the ecosystem, build capacity, and improve the clinical practice environment. Such actions will enable practitioners to systematically collect data during routine practice and to use these data effectively to diagnose early, stratify risks, define needs, improve care, evaluate solutions, and drive changes at patient, system, and policy levels to prevent and control diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. Emerging evidence regarding the possible damaging effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on pancreatic islets implies the potential worsening of the COVID-19 pandemic and the diabetes epidemic, adding to the urgency of these collective actions. | | Prevention, early detection, prompt diagnosis, and continuing care with regular monitoring and ongoing evaluation are key elements in reducing the growing burden of diabetes. Given the silent and progressive nature of diabetes, it is epidemiological analyses that have provided a framework for identifying populations and subgroups at risk of diabetes and its complications. Although the total prevalence of diabetes reflects disease burden, incidence rates might reflect the effects of interventions among determinant factors that include, but are not limited to, political, socioeconomical, and technological changes within a population, area, or both. | | In 2019, 463 million people had diabetes worldwide, with 80% from low-income and middle-income countries. Over 70% of global deaths are due to non-communicable diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory disease. On average, diabetes reduces life expectancy in people aged 40–60 years by 4–10 years and independently increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and cancer by 1·3–3·0 times. Diabetes is among the leading causes of non-traumatic lower extremity amputation and blindness, especially in people of working age. The co-occurrence of these morbidities severely impairs quality of life, reduces productivity, and causes major suffering.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes imposes large health and financial burdens on Medicare beneficiaries. Type 2 diabetes can be prevented or delayed through lifestyle modification programs. In 2018, Medicare began to offer the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP), a lifestyle intervention, to eligible beneficiaries nationwide. The number of MDPP-eligible beneficiaries is not known, but this information is essential in efforts to expand the program and increase enrollment. This study aimed to estimate the number and spatial variation of MDPP-eligible Part B beneficiaries at the county level and by urban-rural classification. METHODS: Data from 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys and a survey-weighted logistic regression model were used to estimate proportions of prediabetes in the United States by sex, age, and race/ethnicity based on the MDPP eligibility criteria. The results from the predictive model were applied to 2015 Medicare Part B beneficiaries to estimate the number of MDPP-eligible beneficiaries. The National Center for Health Statistics' Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties from 2013 were used to define urban and rural categories. RESULTS: An estimated 5.2 million (95% CI = 3.5-7.0 million) Part B beneficiaries were eligible for the MDPP. By state, estimates ranged from 13,000 (95% CI = 8,500-18,000) in Alaska to 469,000 (95% CI = 296,000-641,000) in California. There were 2,149 counties with ≤1,000 eligible beneficiaries and 11 with >25,000. Consistent with demographic patterns, urban counties had more eligible beneficiaries than rural counties. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates could be used to plan locations for new MDPPs and reach eligible Part B beneficiaries for enrollment.

Objective: Diabetes disproportionately affects low income individuals, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Comorbidities and complications of diabetes can lead to chronic pain; however, little is known about opioid use patterns among Medicaid enrollees with diabetes. This study examined opioid dispensing among Medicaid enrollees by diabetes status.Methods: Medicaid claims data from 2014 were used to examine opioid dispensing by diabetes status among 622,992 adult enrollees aged 19-64 years. A logistic model adjusting for demographics and comorbidities was used to examine the association between diabetes and opioid dispensing among enrollees. Analyses were completed in 2019.Results: Overall, 61.6% of enrollees with diabetes filled at least one opioid prescription compared to 31.8% of enrollees without diabetes. A higher proportion of enrollees with diabetes had long-term opioid prescriptions (>90 days' supply) (with diabetes: 51.0% vs. without: 32.1%, p < 0.001). Characteristics of individual prescriptions, including daily morphine milligram equivalents (45.9 vs. 49.4), formulation (percent short-acting: 91.5% vs. 90.7%), and type of opioids (i.e. percent hydrocodone: 46.7 vs. 45.3), were similar for those with and without diabetes. After adjustment, enrollees with diabetes were 1.43 times more likely to receive an opioid prescription compared to those without (OR 1.43, 95% CI =1.40-1.46).Conclusions: Medicaid enrollees with diabetes were prescribed opioids more frequently and were more likely to have longer opioid supply than enrollees without diabetes. For practitioners who care for patients with diabetes, aligning pain management approaches with evidence-based resources, like the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, can encourage safer opioid prescribing practices.

OBJECTIVE To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Weconducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: Cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (£$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not costeffective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ‡30 kg/m2). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared withnostatin therapy for individualswithT2Dandhistoryof cardiovascular disease,4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ‡50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

OBJECTIVE Weconducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) among high-risk individuals and whole populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Interventions targeting high-risk individuals are those that identify people at high risk of developing T2D and then treat them with either lifestyle or metformin interventions. Population-based prevention strategies are those that focus on the whole population regardless of the level of risk, creating public health impact through policy implementation, campaigns, and other environmental strategies. We systematically searched seven electronic databases for studies published in English between 2008 and 2017. We grouped lifestyle interventions targeting highrisk individuals by delivery method and personnel type. We used the median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or cost saved to measure the CE of interventions. We used the $50,000/QALY threshold to determine whether an intervention was cost-effective or not. ICERs are reported in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Our review included 39 studies: 28 on interventions targeting high-risk individuals and 11 targeting whole populations. Both lifestyle and metformin interventions in high-risk individuals were cost-effective from a health care system or a societal perspective, with median ICERs of $12,510/QALY and $17,089/QALY, respectively, compared with no intervention. Among lifestyle interventions, those that followed a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) curriculum had a median ICER of $6,212/QALY, while those that did not follow a DPP curriculum had a median ICER of $13,228/QALY. Compared with lifestyle interventions delivered one-on-one or by a health professional, those offered in a group setting or provided by a combination of health professionals and lay health workers had lower ICERs. Among populationbased interventions, taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was cost-saving from both the health care system and governmental perspectives. Evaluations of other population-based interventionsdincluding fruit and vegetable subsidies, community-based education programs, and modifications to the built environmentd showed inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS Most of the T2D prevention interventions included in our review were found to be either cost-effective or cost-saving. Our findings may help decision makers set priorities and allocate resources for T2D prevention in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess retention in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle change program, which seeks to prevent type 2 diabetes in adults at high risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed retention among 41,203 individuals who enrolled in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recognized in-person lifestyle change programs at organizations that submitted data to CDC's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program during January 2012-February 2017. RESULTS: Weekly attrition rates were typically <1-2% but were between 3.5% and 5% at week 2 and at weeks 17 and 18, where session frequency typically transitions from weekly to monthly. The percent of participants retained through 18 weeks varied by age (45.9% for 18-29 year olds, 53.4% for 30-44 year olds, 60.2% for 45-54 year olds, 66.7% for 55-64 year olds, and 67.6% for >/=65 year olds), race/ethnicity (70.5% for non-Hispanic whites, 60.5% for non-Hispanic blacks, 52.6% for Hispanics, and 50.6% for other), mean weekly percentage of body weight lost (41.0% for </=0% lost, 66.2% for >0 to <0.25% lost, 72.9% for 0.25 to <0.5% lost, and 73.9% for >/=0.5% lost), and mean weekly physical activity minutes (12.8% for 0 min, 56.1% for >0 to <60 min, 74.8% for 60 to <150 min, and 82.8% for >/=150 min) but not by sex (63.0% for men and 63.1% for women). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the need to identify strategies to improve retention, especially among individuals who are younger or are members of racial/ethnic minority populations and among those who report less physical activity or less early weight loss. Strategies that address retention after the first session and during the transition from weekly to monthly sessions offer the greatest opportunity for impact.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs. METHODS: We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI >/=25 kg/m(2) and HbA1c >/= 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose >/= 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective. RESULTS: In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal. CONCLUSIONS: In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.

BACKGROUND: The literature lacks information about the use and cost of prescribed antihypertensive medications, especially by the type and class of medication prescribed. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the uses and expenses of antihypertensive medications among hypertensive adults in the United States. METHODS: Using the 2014-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, adult men and nonpregnant women aged 18 or older who had a diagnosis code of hypertension and used any prescribed antihypertensive medication were included in the study (n=10,971). Adults with hypertension who were using a single antihypertensive medication were defined as single medication users, and those using two or more medications were defined as multiple medication users. Medications were classified into angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), thiazide-type diuretics (TDs), beta-blockers (BBs), and others. The average annual total antihypertensive medication expenses and the expenditures of each medication class were estimated by using generalized linear models with a log link and gamma distribution and were adjusted to 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: Among 10,971 hypertensive adults, 4759 (44.1%) were single medication users, and 6212 (55.9%) were multiple medication users. The average annual total cost for antihypertensive medications was $336 per person (95% confidence interval [CI]=$319-$353); $199 (95% CI=$177-$221) for single medication users and $436 (95% CI=$413-$459) for multiple medication users. The average annual costs for each medication class were estimated at $438 (95% CI=$384-$492) for ARBs and $49 for TDs (95% CI=$44-$55). CONCLUSIONS: Users of multiple medications incurred more than twice the expense than single medication users. When comparing classes of medications, the cost for ARBs was the highest, whereas the cost for TDs was the lowest. This information can be used in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of antihypertension therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Little information is available on state-specific financial burdens of diabetes in the Medicaid population, yet such information is essential for state Medicaid programs to plan diabetes care and evaluate the benefits of diabetes prevention. We estimated medical expenditures associated with diabetes among adult Medicaid enrollees in 8 states. METHODS: We analyzed the latest available 2012 CMS Medicaid claims data for 1,193,811 adult enrollees aged 19-64 years in 8 states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, and Oklahoma. For each state, we stratified the study population by Medicaid eligibility criteria: disability and nondisability. For each group, we estimated per capita annual medical expenditures on outpatient care, inpatient care, and prescription drugs by using a 2-part model, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidities. We calculated the expenditures associated with diabetes as the difference in predicted expenditures for enrollees with and without diabetes. Analyses were done in 2017. RESULTS: For disability-based enrollees, the estimated total per capita annual diabetes expenditures ranged from $6,183 in Alabama to $15,319 in New York (all P < .001). For nondisability-based enrollees, the corresponding estimates ranged from $4,985 in Alabama to $15,366 in New York (all P < .001). The proportion of individual components varied by state and eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Medical expenditures associated with diabetes among adults on Medicaid were substantial and varied across studied states. Our estimates can be used by the 8 state Medicaid programs to prepare health care resources needed for diabetes care and assess the financial benefits of diabetes prevention programs.