Search for: All records

Use of diabetes technology (CGM, pump) is recommended for people with T1D, and early CGM initiation leads to improved glucose values. We compare %CGM and %pump use and time to initiation from T1D diagnosis in the Historical cohort, 4T Pilot, and 4T Study 1 and the associated workflow changes to increase early technology use. CGM initiation within 30 days of diagnosis increased from 2% in the historical cohort to 92% in Pilot 4T to 98% in 4T Study 1 (Table). Days to pump initiation from TID diagnosis decreased from 272 in the historical cohort to 144 days in Study 1. From 2014-2016 pumps and CGM were initiated when families expressed interest or if the provider discussed them. Families were required to attend a pre-pump class where the CDCES introduced pumps and CGMs prior to starting technology. During the 4T Pilot and 4T Study 1, CGMs were introduced and started during the first month of diagnosis. In Study 1, families were encouraged to attend pump class and initiate AID. The CDCES team does the CGM teach, CGM follow-up, pre-pump classes, and insulin pump starts for the families in preferred language. In 4T Study 2 (enrolling) standard of care is to complete a pre-pump class in the first 3 months after diagnosis. Changes in processes can lead to early implementation of diabetes technology. A structured, team-based process to introduce, reduce barriers, and encourage families to utilize diabetes technology increases early initiation. Disclosure B.P.Conrad: Advisory Panel; Edgepark medical supplies, Consultant; Abbott Diabetes. P.Prahalad: None. D.M.Maahs: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, LifeScan Diabetes Institute, MannKind Corporation, Consultant; Abbott, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. F.K.Bishop: None. J.Leverenz: None. A.Chmielewski: None. P.Sagan: None. J.Senaldi: None. A.Martinez-singh: None. S.Lin: None. I.Chan: None. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18DK122422); The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (G-2002-04251-2); International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes/JDRF (1P30DK, 11607401); Lucile Packard Child 

Objective:Develop workflows and billing processes for a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist (CDCES)-led remote patient monitoring (RPM) program to transition the Teamwork, Targets, Technology, and Tight Control (4T) Study to our clinic’s standard of care. Methods:We identified stakeholders within a pediatric endocrinology clinic (hospital compliance, billing specialists, and clinical informatics) to identify, discuss, and approve billing codes and workflow. The group evaluated billing code stipulations, such as the timing of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) interpretation, scope of work, providers’ licensing, and electronic health record (EHR) documentation to meet billing compliance standards. We developed a CDCES workflow for asynchronous CGM interpretation and intervention and initiated an RPM billing pilot. Results:We built a workflow for CGM interpretation (billing code: 95251) with the CDCES as the service provider. The workflow includes data review, patient communications, and documentation. Over the first month of the pilot, RPM billing codes were submitted for 52 patients. The average reimbursement rate was $110.33 for commercial insurance (60% of patients) and $46.95 for public insurance (40% of patients) per code occurrence. Conclusions:Continuous involvement of CDCES and hospital stakeholders was essential to operationalize all relevant aspects of clinical care, workflows, compliance, documentation, and billing. CGM interpretation with RPM billing allows CDCES to work at the top of their licensing credential, increase clinical care touch points, and provide a business case for expansion. As evidence of the clinical benefits of RPM increases, the processes developed here may facilitate broader adoption of revenue-generating CDCES-led care to fund RPM.