Health for life

Its such a no-brainer, right?  If persons at risk for diabetes would only eat right and exercise more, theyd avoid the disease.  And for those who develop diabetes, diet and exercise will reduce death rates and complications.

Yes and no, say Elizabeth Sumamo Schellenberg and colleagues at the University of Alberta.  Their review of the mixed published scientific evidence on the topic appears in the October 15 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.  The purpose of their study was to ascertain the impact of diet and exercise on the prevention of "Type 2 diabetes," as well as lowering complications among persons with who had established Type 2 diabetes. 

To be included, studies had to be prospective and compare the outcomes from an intervention versus a randomly selected control group. The study could only be included if it examined the impact of exercise plus diet and "one other component," such as "counseling, smoking cessation and behavior modification."  The outcomes had to include the development of Type 2 diabetes (in the prevention trials) or complications (in the treatment trials).

1289 candidate studies were found but only 20 made the grade. Nine were prevention trials and 11 were treatment trials.

For the prevention trials:

The interventions lasted from 6 to 72 months, with follow-up going for 3 to 20 years for between 39 to 3234 participants.  The counseling varied and included group and/or individual with or without tobacco cessation, telephony, goal setting, cooking classes or pills involving a range of physician and non-physician professionals.

Results?

Seven of the nine studies showed that diabetes can be delayed. When the results were pooled, compared to the control patients, the risk of developing diabetes over 10 years was only a third and the difference was statistically significant.

But, there was no detectable impact on cardiovascular disease events or on eye, kidney or nerve damage. That may have been due to not all the studies including these outcomes as well as the time it takes for these complications to occur once diabetes develops.  With more patients or more time, a difference could have become apparent.
 
For the treatment trials:

The interventions lasted from 6 to 48 months with follow-up for 6 to 93 months. The counseling was as varied as the prevention trials but included glucose and blood pressure monitoring as well as stress management and, in one instance, a three day residential retreat. There was likewise the range of professionals who provided the interventions.

Results? 

Compared to the control patients, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality.  Some individual studies had beneficial outcomes involving cardiovascular events or diabetes complications, but they included the aggressive use of medications.  There were no sustained impacts on weight or dietary intake.  And if pills were not included, there was also no real improvement in measures of blood glucose control.

The Disease Management Care Blogs take?

The good news is that there is good evidence that exercise and diet can prevent diabetes.  The bad news is that it takes years for that "return on investment" to declare itself and typically involves interventions that fall outside the traditional health care delivery system.  Its unlikely, thinks the DMCB, that current iterations of payment orm (value based purchasing, bundled payments or upside risk) can be marshaled to make this a reality.  That being said, population health management (PHM) companies like Omada Health are making their evidence-based services available to, for example, employers who have a longer term commitment to the well being of their "human capital" outside of the traditional insurance market.

The bad news is that once diabetes declares itself, diet and exercise dont result in life extension, and control of complications as well as overall blood sugar levels is more a function of pills than lifestyle. Accordingly, expectations need to be realisitically shared with patients and PHM should emphasize taking the pills as prescribed.

Image from Wikipedia

1. Using traditional research to detect a "statistically significant" decrease in insurance claims expense is notoriously difficult.

2. Theres scientific statistical proof and then there is a reasonable business assurance.  The latter may be enough for business-minded health insurers.

3. The conclusion is based on published research.  Unpublished "in house" data have convinced many insurers to include the medical home in their covered benefit.  They know something AHRQ doesnt.

4. While medical homes alone may be insufficient to save money, that doesnt mean that medical homes that are part of a package of interventions (value-based purchasing, P4P, vendor-based population health management or an ACO) are unnecessary.

5. While there is no evidence of savings, there is also no consistent evidence of increased cost. That means the quality associated with the medical home represents high value.

That being said, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence Report Technology Assessment on the Patient Centered Medical Home says:

"Based on a combination of good- and fair-quality studies, there is a low strength of evidence that PCMH implementation may lead to lower utilization (inpatient and emergency department) for some subgroups of patients, but this effect was not uniform. Moreover, total costs were not lowered in the reviewed studies.

However, three observational studies specifically designed to test PCMH do report lower inpatient and emergency department utilization among patients in the PCMH program. However, total costs were not statistically different for PCMH and non-PCMH patients in the three studies. None of the clinical trials of functional PCMH interventions had statistically significant differences between intervention and control arms for inpatient or emergency department utilization.

No studies reported statistically significant cost savings among PCMH patients. In fact, when taking into account program costs, two studies, one good-quality trial and one fair-quality observational study, reported greater total costs among intervention patients."

 Image from Wikipedia

You sure about that?

According to the White House, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is obviously responsible for the significant decrease in health care cost inflation over the last three years.
The respected health economist Victor Fuchs, writing in the New England Journal, disagrees.  He points out:

1) there is a strong relationship between growth in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and growth in health care spending: for the last 60 years, when one goes up, the other follows suit.  While the prevalence of illness drives the consumption of health care, it turns out that the prevalence of illness plus a rising income is a stronger driver of health care consumption*.

Its far more likely that the lackluster economy has been responsible for the low rate of inflation.

2) Two to three years is not enough time to guage the impact of any single intervention on health care spending. In his NEJM article, Dr. Fuchs presents a graph showing the relationship between a two year period of spending and what follows over the next twenty years.  It turns out its a very poor predictor.

So, even if the ACA could have an impact, its far too early to tell.

In the meantime, skeptics like Bob Laszewski, are pointing to richer mandated insurance benefits and are confidently predicting that health care costs are destined to increase.  Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin worries young healthy adults wont sign up, which could further fuel health insurance premium increases.

Who to believe?  A partisan White House?  Skeptics who want a return to market-based insurance?  The DMCBs solution is to believe Dr. Fuchs and confidently state it doesnt know which way things are going to go.

*The only exception to the association between GDP and health care costs was during the mid-1990s when managed care had its stranglehold on the delivery system

Image from Wikipedia