Diabetes bill improves education

The Sept. 14 Congress Blog post “Protecting our diabetes healthcare professionals” by Darrell Rogers was unfortunately an inaccurate mischaracterization of the Access to Quality Diabetes Education Act of 2015 (H.R. 1726/S. 1345).

First, some background on this issue. 

{mosads}Congress authorized Diabetes Self-Management Training (DSMT) as a Medicare benefit in 1997, with the goal of providing a more comprehensive level of support to educate beneficiaries about diabetes and self-management techniques. Various studies have proven that diabetes education is effective: it reduces the known risks and complications of diabetes, and it reduces federal spending by reducing the long-term damage caused by diabetes such as strokes, amputations, kidney failure, blindness and other complications. In fact, a three-year retroactive claims analysis showed an average Medicare cost savings per month/per patient of $135 for those beneficiaries who complete DSMT. In-patient hospital cost savings was higher, $160/ per month/per patient.

However, due to an omission in the Medicare rules, diabetes educators, the primary providers of DSMT services, are not statutorily recognized as DSMT providers and therefore cannot be paid for providing this cost-efficient treatment. Rogers asserts falsely that the bill “would mandate that all health workers who practice diabetes management education under Medicare have a ‘Certified Diabetes Educator’ credential attached to their names.”   This is incorrect. 

Healthcare professionals who currently provide DSMT would be able to continue to practice as they do today. But for the first time, individuals who have the requisite education and training in diabetes will also be able to be recognized under the Medicare statute. The bill would not require anyone to become a Certified Diabetes Educator, nor would it limit DSMT in that fashion. It adds to the available field of DSMT providers to ensure quality and access to care. By expanding the number of professionals eligible to provide the benefit, more individuals with diabetes will receive the diabetes training they so urgently need. 

If Rogers and his coalition also seek reimbursement by Medicare for their members who are providing DSMT, we suggest that they craft their own bill rather than advocating against a measure that will expand access to much needed diabetes education.  

Let’s work together to combat the epidemic of diabetes. 

From Kurt Anderson, director of federal and state advocacy, American Association of Diabetes Educators, Chicago