Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionDiabetes disparities exist based on socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. The aim of this study is to compare two cohorts with diabetes from California and Florida to better elucidate how health outcomes are stratified within underserved communities according to state location, race, and ethnicity.Research design and methodsTwo cohorts were recruited for comparison from 20 Federally Qualified Health Centers as part of a larger ECHO Diabetes program. Participant-level data included surveys and HbA1c collection. Center-level data included Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set metrics. Demographic characteristics were summarized overall and stratified by state (frequencies, percentages, means (95% CIs)). Generalized linear mixed models were used to compute and compare model-estimated rates and means.ResultsParticipant-level cohort: 582 adults with diabetes were recruited (33.0% type 1 diabetes (T1D), 67.0% type 2 diabetes (T2D)). Mean age was 51.1 years (95% CI 49.5, 52.6); 80.7% publicly insured or uninsured; 43.7% non-Hispanic white (NHW), 31.6% Hispanic, 7.9% non-Hispanic black (NHB) and 16.8% other. Center-level cohort: 32 796 adults with diabetes were represented (3.4% with T1D, 96.6% with T2D; 72.7% publicly insured or uninsured). Florida had higher rates of uninsured (p<0.0001), lower continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use (18.3% Florida; 35.9% California, p<0.0001), and pump use (10.2% Florida; 26.5% California, p<0.0001), and higher proportions of people with T1D/T2D>9% HbA1c (p<0.001). Risk was stratified within states with NHB participants having higher HbA1c (mean 9.5 (95% CI 8.9, 10.0) compared with NHW with a mean of 8.4 (95% CI 7.8, 9.0), p=0.0058), lower pump use (p=0.0426) and CGM use (p=0.0192). People who prefer to speak English were more likely to use a CGM (p=0.0386).ConclusionsCharacteristics of medically underserved communities with diabetes vary by state and by race and ethnicity. Florida’s lack of Medicaid expansion could be a factor in worsened risks for vulnerable communities with diabetes.

Introduction Project ECHO Diabetes is a tele-education learning model for primary care providers (PCPs) seeking to improve care for patients with diabetes from marginalized communities. Project ECHO Diabetes utilized expert “hub” teams comprising endocrinologists, dieticians, nurses, psychologists, and social workers and “spokes” consisting of PCPs and their patients with diabetes. This Project ECHO Diabetes model provided diabetes support coaches to provide additional support to patients. We sought to estimate the costs of operating a Project ECHO Diabetes hub, inclusive of diabetes support coach costs. Methods Data from Project ECHO Diabetes from June 2021 to June 2022 and wages from national databases were used to estimate hub and diabetes support coach costs to operate a 6-month, 24-session Project ECHO Diabetes program at hubs (University of Florida and Stanford University) and spokes (PCP clinic sites in Florida and California). Results Hub costs for delivering a 6-month Project ECHO Diabetes program to five spoke clinics were $96,873. Personnel costs were the principal driver. Mean cost was $19,673 per spoke clinic and $11.37 per spoke clinic patient. Diabetes support coach costs were estimated per spoke clinic and considered scalable in that they would increase proportionately with the number of spoke clinics in a Project ECHO Diabetes cohort. Mean diabetes support coach costs were $6,506 per spoke clinic and $3.72 per patient. Total program costs per hub were $129,404. Mean cost per clinic was $25,881. Mean cost per patient was $15.03. Conclusion Herein, we document real-world costs to operate a Project ECHO Diabetes hub and diabetes support coaches. Future analysis of Project ECHO Diabetes will include estimates of spoke participation costs and changes in health care costs and savings. As state agencies, insurers, and philanthropies consider the replication of Project ECHO Diabetes, this analysis provides important initial information regarding primary operating costs.