Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
HbA1c conversion table
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Brunneria" data-source="post: 2149632" data-attributes="member: 41816"><p>There are a lot more factors in play than what is best for the patient.</p><p></p><p>I have always thought that the lower threshold for identifying pre-D is a double edged sword.</p><p></p><p>No matter what the threshold, few patients actually make the sustained lifestyle changes needed to avert T2 in those who will develop it.</p><p></p><p>Where the level is lower (e.g below 42mmol/l) many patients become labelled with a health condition and medication when in fact they won’t go on to develop T2 (not everyone does). Plus, of course, in a healthcare system based on insurance, it is in the interests of pharma and business to get people registered T2 and on lifetime medication regimes as soon as possible.</p><p></p><p>In contrast, a higher threshold (e.g. above 37mmol/l) for declaring pre-D significantly reduces the number of people diagnosed, simultaneously reducing the burden of cost on the healthcare system, while also giving patients an increased medical monitoring regime and a greater chance of making changes to their lifestyle.</p><p></p><p>Here in the UK if the criteria were lowered to the American levels the National Health Service would suddenly gain massive numbers of new Pre-Ds, without the staff and resources to cope with them. Diabetes is already presented in the media as a terrible ‘burden’ and at risk of ‘bankrupting’ the NHS in future. Instantly adding millions of new pre-Ds would knock the NHS’s budgets to the core.</p><p></p><p>I can remember reading a fascinating article by Jenny Ruhl ( <a href="http://www.bllodsugar101.com" target="_blank">www.bloodsugar101.com</a> ) discussing how diagnostic criteria are decided. She made it clear that the decisions are made by committee, informed by selected evidence, on the basis of various cost benefit analyses and resource availability. They look at overall population benefit v cost/implementation. The individual patient’s benefit is not a priority, especially since decisions like this are massively influenced by administrators, budget holders, politicians and industry representatives rather than practicing clinicians.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brunneria, post: 2149632, member: 41816"] There are a lot more factors in play than what is best for the patient. I have always thought that the lower threshold for identifying pre-D is a double edged sword. No matter what the threshold, few patients actually make the sustained lifestyle changes needed to avert T2 in those who will develop it. Where the level is lower (e.g below 42mmol/l) many patients become labelled with a health condition and medication when in fact they won’t go on to develop T2 (not everyone does). Plus, of course, in a healthcare system based on insurance, it is in the interests of pharma and business to get people registered T2 and on lifetime medication regimes as soon as possible. In contrast, a higher threshold (e.g. above 37mmol/l) for declaring pre-D significantly reduces the number of people diagnosed, simultaneously reducing the burden of cost on the healthcare system, while also giving patients an increased medical monitoring regime and a greater chance of making changes to their lifestyle. Here in the UK if the criteria were lowered to the American levels the National Health Service would suddenly gain massive numbers of new Pre-Ds, without the staff and resources to cope with them. Diabetes is already presented in the media as a terrible ‘burden’ and at risk of ‘bankrupting’ the NHS in future. Instantly adding millions of new pre-Ds would knock the NHS’s budgets to the core. I can remember reading a fascinating article by Jenny Ruhl ( [URL='http://www.bllodsugar101.com']www.bloodsugar101.com[/URL] ) discussing how diagnostic criteria are decided. She made it clear that the decisions are made by committee, informed by selected evidence, on the basis of various cost benefit analyses and resource availability. They look at overall population benefit v cost/implementation. The individual patient’s benefit is not a priority, especially since decisions like this are massively influenced by administrators, budget holders, politicians and industry representatives rather than practicing clinicians. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
HbA1c conversion table
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…