Digital diabetes care, worth the cost?

Peterson Health Technology Institute just published an assessment of Digital Diabetes Management Solutions.

The healthcare press headlines read “digital diabetes care is not worth the cost.” Okay, that got my attention. But let’s take a closer look at the actual report from one patient’s point of view.

Here’s my take.

The first thing to know is that 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲: 𝗧𝟮𝗗 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗴𝗹𝘂𝗰𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 — not CGMs. Their reasoning is that this is what most people with T2D are actually using. A fair assessment, I think. Something I missed in the press coverage I was able to read (‘cuz you know, paywall).

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝟭𝗖 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲. A1C doesn’t tell the whole story, but it’s widely accepted as a standard measure of improved diabetes management. So, again, fair enough.

With this narrow focus, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻-𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻. So, of course they’re not going to find dramatic results. What they’re showing is that standard care delivered in a new/novel way still works. Nothing earth-shattering.

It looks to me that what they found out was that the type digital diabetes care they evaluated performed about as well as it does when delivered in the traditional in-person clinical setting — the current standard of care. Is what’s established a great standard of care? Not really. But that’s an argument for another time and place.

So to all those diabetes digital health companies (and the VC and payers who fund them) please don’t take this report as an indictment of your work and industry and respond defensively. Take it as check point. One that says, “This is where we’re at. And the challenge is improve our offerings so that we provide better care that fulfills the promise of digital health.”