OBJECTIVE

Preventive care services are important to prevent or delay complications associated with diabetes. We report trends in receipt of six American Diabetes Association–recommended preventive care services during 2008–2020.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used 2008–2020 data from the cross-sectional Medical Expenditures Panel Survey to calculate the proportion of U.S. adults ≥18 years of age with diagnosed diabetes who reported receiving preventive care services, overall and by subpopulation (n = 25,616). We used joinpoint regression to identify trends during 2008–2019. The six services completed in the past year included at least one dental examination, dilated-eye examination, foot examination, and cholesterol test; at least two A1C tests, and an influenza vaccine.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2020, proportions of U.S. adults with diabetes receiving any individual preventive care service ranged from 32.6% to 89.9%. From 2008 to 2019, overall trends in preventive services among these adults were flat except for an increase in influenza vaccination (average annual percent change: 2.6% [95% CI 1.1%, 4.2%]). Trend analysis of subgroups was heterogeneous: influenza vaccination and A1C testing showed improvements among several subgroups, whereas cholesterol testing (patients aged 45–64 years; less than a high school education; Medicaid insurance) and dental visits (uninsured) declined. In 2020, 8.2% (95% CI 4.5%, 11.9%) of those with diabetes received none of the recommended preventive care services.

CONCLUSIONS

Other than influenza vaccination, we observed no improvement in preventive care service use among U.S. adults with diabetes. These data highlight services and specific subgroups that could be targeted to improve preventive care among adults with diabetes.

Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects 11.3% of the adult population, or 37.1 million adults, in the United States (1). Diabetes is also costly: total direct and indirect costs in 2017 were estimated at $327 billion (2). The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is expected to increase to 60.6 million adults by the year 2060 (3). Incidence of diabetes peaked in the United States at 8.5 cases per 1,000 in 2008 and 2009 and has fallen since to 5.1 cases per 1,000 in 2021 (4,5). Whereas rates of newly diagnosed cases of diabetes have decreased, rates of hospitalization with diabetes as the primary diagnosis have been increasing since the year 2000 by ∼2.5% per year (6).

Complications of diabetes include both microvascular (retinopathy, neuropathy, and diabetic nephropathy) and macrovascular complications (coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, and stroke) (7,8). Access to preventive services to control glycemia, lipid levels, and blood pressure and enable the early identification of diabetic retinopathy and foot lesions is important to minimize diabetes-related complications and reduce rates of hospitalization (7,9,10). Other studies have reported on trends related to receipt of some preventive services in the 2000s using data from various surveys, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (1115). To our knowledge, the proportion and trend of receipt of preventive services addressed in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) have not been reported. Analysis of MEPS data provides advantages over other surveys because it is nationally representative and available yearly. Meanwhile, NHANES is not annual and has smaller sample sizes; BRFSS is administered at the state level, and the diabetes module is not available in every state in every year. We reported the proportion of and trends in the receipt of six preventive care services recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) overall and among subgroups (7). These data are valuable for identifying groups that may be underusing health care services, examining any effects the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have had on receipt of these services, and providing benchmarks for future studies.

Data Source

We used data from the 2008–2020 MEPS, a household survey of U.S. noninstitutionalized populations administered and maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality since 1996 (16). The set of households surveyed for MEPS is a subsample of those surveyed in the National Health Interview Survey. We chose the years 2008 to 2020 because of consistency of questions related to preventive care during that time period starting in 2008. Data from MEPS were collected through a combination of computer-assisted personal interviewing and pencil-and-paper surveys. In 2020, the computer-assisted personal interviews were changed from in-person to phone interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic. MEPS provides national and regional estimates of health care use, expenditures, sources of payment, and health insurance coverage. This survey also contains information on patient demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and, via the Diabetes Care Survey (DCS), information on diabetes preventive care services. The DCS is a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire that is mailed to MEPS respondents who indicate they have been told by a doctor or health care professional that they have diabetes. In this analysis, we used data from the full-year consolidated MEPS files for adults with diagnosed diabetes who responded to the DCS survey (n = 25,616). Response rates for the DCS survey ranged from 92.4% in 2008 to 57.1% in 2020.

Outcome Measures

Among respondents with self-reported diagnosed diabetes, we selected six preventive care variables that were available in the data from 2008 to 2020. These variables are based on self-reported receipt in a given year (17): at least one dental examination (derived from total number of reported dental care visits), a dilated-eye examination, a foot examination by a health care provider, at least two A1C tests, a blood cholesterol test, and an influenza vaccine. Respondents were asked about receiving each of these services in a given year (e.g., “Did you receive an influenza vaccine in 2013?”). We also created binary variables classifying adults with diabetes who received none of the recommended preventive care services or all of the recommended services, although these results were presented only for the overall population due the unreliability of estimates of some subpopulations in some years (18).

Analysis

Our analysis accounts for the complex survey design used, including clustering and stratification, using the weights provided for the DCS (16). Reported values were age adjusted using the direct method, standardized to the 2000 U.S. population grouped by ages 18–44, 45–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years. We present these estimates for the overall population, as well as stratified by self-reported characteristics of age, sex, race, and ethnicity; highest degree of education; type of health insurance; and the ratio of family income to the poverty line (poverty income ratio). We used the package gtsummary in R statistical software (version 4.2.1) to calculate estimates (19,20).

Medical care use decreased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, starting in early 2020 (21). We excluded 2020 from the trend analysis because of the decreased medical care use associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we present the estimated proportions for 2020 in the Results to show how the onset of the pandemic affected the reported receipt of preventive services. Trends were analyzed using Joinpoint command-line software (22) with R via the R package nih.joinpoint (23). The joinpoint software was used to fit a weighted least-squares regression model to the estimated proportions on the linear scale. A maximum of three joinpoints were searched for using the grid search algorithm. As few as two observed time points were allowed between line segment. Joinpoint regression uses permutation tests to detect statistically significant changes at a prespecified α of 0.05 in direction or magnitude of trends (24). The joinpoint software also provided estimates of the annual percent change (APC), or slope, for each trend segment and the average APC (AAPC), or overall slope, for the entire trend. The test of significance for APC is an asymptotic t test. Because of the omnibus nature of the permutation test used to identify joinpoint years and the use of all the data in identifying those years, the permutation tests are more powerful (24). In some cases, joinpoint years are identified, but the corresponding intervals for the APC will overlap zero due to this power difference.

Data and Resource Availability

The data sets generated during and/or analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

All values pertaining to individual preventive practices presented here, as well as those that are not described, can be found in Supplementary Table 1. Figures 1 and 2 display trends, overall and by subgroup.

Figure 1

Age-adjusted trends in proportions of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes overall and by subgroup who reported receiving recommended medical examinations from 2008 to 2019. The dashed black line is the overall trend; dots represent percentages for 2020. Data from 2020 were not included in the trend analysis. HS, high school.

Figure 1

Age-adjusted trends in proportions of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes overall and by subgroup who reported receiving recommended medical examinations from 2008 to 2019. The dashed black line is the overall trend; dots represent percentages for 2020. Data from 2020 were not included in the trend analysis. HS, high school.

Close modal
Figure 2

Age-adjusted trends in proportions of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes overall and by subgroup who reported receiving recommended laboratory tests and vaccinations. The dashed black line is the overall trend; dots represent percentages for 2020. Data from 2020 were not included in the trend analysis. HS, high school.

Figure 2

Age-adjusted trends in proportions of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes overall and by subgroup who reported receiving recommended laboratory tests and vaccinations. The dashed black line is the overall trend; dots represent percentages for 2020. Data from 2020 were not included in the trend analysis. HS, high school.

Close modal

Dilated-Eye Examination

The overall proportion of patients receiving dilated-eye examinations was stable during 2008–2019 (Table 1, Fig. 1). This proportion averaged 55.5% (95% CI 54.0%, 57.0%) over this period. Similarly, for male patients, we observed stable trends from 2008 to 2011 but a significant decrease after 2011 (APC –1.6% [95% CI –2.9%, –0.3%]; Fig. 1). Uninsured adults with diabetes had an average annual increase from 2008 to 2019 in the receipt of dilated-eye examinations of 3.3% (95% CI 0.1%, 6.6%) (Fig. 1). Adults with diabetes in the highest income group (poverty income ratio >400%) had a flat trend in dilated-eye examinations until 2013, after which the proportion significantly decreased (APC –3.8%; 95% CI –6.8%, –0.7%).

Table 1

Age-adjusted trends in proportions of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes who report receiving recommended care services: at least one dental visit, one dilated eye examination, one foot examination, two or more A1C tests, cholesterol level test, and an influenza vaccine

Preventive serviceAverage (SE)*YearPercent change (95% CI)*
2008 (SE)2009 (SE)2010 (SE)2011 (SE)2012 (SE)2013 (SE)2014 (SE)2015 (SE)2016 (SE)2017 (SE)2018 (SE)2019 (SE)2020 (SE)Joinpoint yearAPC (95% CI)*§AAPC (95% CI)*ǁ
Cholesterol tested 84.4 (1.3) 82.7 (1.9) 84.3 (1.8) 87.8 (1.3) 89.0 (1.4) 84.9 (1.6) 85.9 (1.7) 85.9 (1.8) 89.9 (1.5) 89.3 (1.6) 77.0 (1.8) 79.7 (1.7) 76.8 (2.6) 71.1 (3.1) −7.1 (−14.5, 0.4)  −0.7 (−1.6, 0.2) −0.7 (−1.6, 0.2) 
Received influenza vaccine 41.8 (1.1) 33.6 (1.8) 36.5 (2.2) 40.5 (1.9) 45.4 (2.1) 47.6 (2.1) 44.7 (2.4) 41.0 (2.3) 39.4 (2.0) 43.4 (2.3) 42.2 (2.1) 43.1 (2.2) 44.4 (2.7) 42.5 (2.8) 32.4 (11.3, 53.5) 2012, 2015 9.2 (6.9, 11.6), −6.0 (−12.1, 0.6), 2.9 (0.7, 5.1) 2.6 (1.1, 4.2) 
One or more dentist visits 35.7 (0.7) 37.2 (2.0) 37.0 (2.2) 32.8 (2.0) 36.6 (2.4) 32.6 (1.8) 35.1 (2.0) 34.6 (2.1) 35.9 (2.0) 32.6 (2.1) 34.6 (2.2) 37.9 (2.3) 41.9 (2.7) 32.7 (2.9) 12.9 (−5.6, 31.3) 2017 −0.7 (−2.2, 0.9), 11.6 (−6.1, 32.7) 1.4 (−1.4, 4.3) 
Two or more A1C tests 53.0 (0.8) 53.7 (2.3) 49.1 (2.3) 51.7 (2.0) 55.4 (2.0) 50.1 (2.3) 48.8 (2.2) 52.3 (2.1) 53.6 (2.2) 54.7 (2.1) 52.7 (2.0) 55.3 (2.5) 58.3 (2.5) 59.3 (3.0) 8.7 (−4.3, 21.7)  0.8 (−0.1, 1.7) 0.8 (−0.1, 1.7) 
Dilated-eye examination 55.5 (0.7) 55.5 (2.1) 52.6 (2.3) 56.6 (2.1) 58.8 (2.4) 59.8 (2.1) 57.7 (2.2) 54.8 (2.1) 54.3 (2.1) 55.0 (2.1) 51.7 (2.2) 56.6 (2.4) 52.3 (3.0) 49.7 (2.9) −5.7 (−18.2, 6.9)  −0.4 (−1.3, 0.4) −0.4 (−1.3, 0.4) 
Foot examination 61.4 (0.7) 57.9 (2.4) 61.3 (2.2) 60.8 (2.0) 64.3 (1.8) 66.2 (2.0) 61.7 (2.4) 64.0 (2.2) 60.3 (2.1) 59.5 (2.2) 62.0 (1.9) 59.4 (2.5) 59.7 (2.5) 54.4 (2.9) 3.2 (−8.5, 14.9) 2011 3.5 (−1.1, 8.4), −1.1 (−2.1, −0.1) 0.2 (−1.0, 1.4) 
Preventive serviceAverage (SE)*YearPercent change (95% CI)*
2008 (SE)2009 (SE)2010 (SE)2011 (SE)2012 (SE)2013 (SE)2014 (SE)2015 (SE)2016 (SE)2017 (SE)2018 (SE)2019 (SE)2020 (SE)Joinpoint yearAPC (95% CI)*§AAPC (95% CI)*ǁ
Cholesterol tested 84.4 (1.3) 82.7 (1.9) 84.3 (1.8) 87.8 (1.3) 89.0 (1.4) 84.9 (1.6) 85.9 (1.7) 85.9 (1.8) 89.9 (1.5) 89.3 (1.6) 77.0 (1.8) 79.7 (1.7) 76.8 (2.6) 71.1 (3.1) −7.1 (−14.5, 0.4)  −0.7 (−1.6, 0.2) −0.7 (−1.6, 0.2) 
Received influenza vaccine 41.8 (1.1) 33.6 (1.8) 36.5 (2.2) 40.5 (1.9) 45.4 (2.1) 47.6 (2.1) 44.7 (2.4) 41.0 (2.3) 39.4 (2.0) 43.4 (2.3) 42.2 (2.1) 43.1 (2.2) 44.4 (2.7) 42.5 (2.8) 32.4 (11.3, 53.5) 2012, 2015 9.2 (6.9, 11.6), −6.0 (−12.1, 0.6), 2.9 (0.7, 5.1) 2.6 (1.1, 4.2) 
One or more dentist visits 35.7 (0.7) 37.2 (2.0) 37.0 (2.2) 32.8 (2.0) 36.6 (2.4) 32.6 (1.8) 35.1 (2.0) 34.6 (2.1) 35.9 (2.0) 32.6 (2.1) 34.6 (2.2) 37.9 (2.3) 41.9 (2.7) 32.7 (2.9) 12.9 (−5.6, 31.3) 2017 −0.7 (−2.2, 0.9), 11.6 (−6.1, 32.7) 1.4 (−1.4, 4.3) 
Two or more A1C tests 53.0 (0.8) 53.7 (2.3) 49.1 (2.3) 51.7 (2.0) 55.4 (2.0) 50.1 (2.3) 48.8 (2.2) 52.3 (2.1) 53.6 (2.2) 54.7 (2.1) 52.7 (2.0) 55.3 (2.5) 58.3 (2.5) 59.3 (3.0) 8.7 (−4.3, 21.7)  0.8 (−0.1, 1.7) 0.8 (−0.1, 1.7) 
Dilated-eye examination 55.5 (0.7) 55.5 (2.1) 52.6 (2.3) 56.6 (2.1) 58.8 (2.4) 59.8 (2.1) 57.7 (2.2) 54.8 (2.1) 54.3 (2.1) 55.0 (2.1) 51.7 (2.2) 56.6 (2.4) 52.3 (3.0) 49.7 (2.9) −5.7 (−18.2, 6.9)  −0.4 (−1.3, 0.4) −0.4 (−1.3, 0.4) 
Foot examination 61.4 (0.7) 57.9 (2.4) 61.3 (2.2) 60.8 (2.0) 64.3 (1.8) 66.2 (2.0) 61.7 (2.4) 64.0 (2.2) 60.3 (2.1) 59.5 (2.2) 62.0 (1.9) 59.4 (2.5) 59.7 (2.5) 54.4 (2.9) 3.2 (−8.5, 14.9) 2011 3.5 (−1.1, 8.4), −1.1 (−2.1, −0.1) 0.2 (−1.0, 1.4) 
*

Values in these columns were estimated excluding data from 2020.

The percent change in the proportion from 2008 to 2019.

Years identified as joinpoint years.

§

The slope of the line in each period demarcated by a joinpoint year. If two joinpoint years are identified, there will be three different APCs. Joinpoint years are identified by permutation test, whereas the test of significance for APC is an asymptotic t test. Because of the omnibus nature of the permutation test and the use of all the data in identifying the joinpoints, the permutation tests are more powerful. In some cases, joinpoint years are identified but the corresponding intervals for the APC will overlap zero because of this power difference.

ǁ

The slope of the line over the entire study period.

Foot Examination

The average proportion of U.S. adults with diabetes receiving a foot examination over the study period was 61.4% (95% CI 60.0%, 62.8%) (Table 1). The trend for foot examinations for the overall adult population with diabetes was flat until 2011, after which it decreased (APC –1.1% [95% CI –2.1%, –0.1%]; Table 1, Fig. 1). We found an increase in foot examinations among adults aged 65–74 years with diabetes until 2014 (APC 1.9%; 95% CI 0.5%, 3.4%), and the trend was flat thereafter (Fig. 1).

One or More Dentist Visits

The trend for dentist visits for the overall adult population with diabetes was stable over the study period, averaging 35.7% (95% CI 34.2%, 37.2%) (Table 1). Adults aged 65–74 and ≥75 years had average annual percent increases of 3.1% (95% CI 2.1%, 4.1%) and 1.4% (95% CI 0.1%, 2.7%), respectively. Non-Hispanic White adults with diabetes had an average annual percent increase of 1.8% (95% CI 0.5%, 3.1%). Among those with private insurance, we found decreasing proportions visiting the dentist during 2008–2015 (APC –2.6%; 95% CI –4.3%, –0.9%), followed by an increase after 2015 (APC 5.6%; 95% CI 1.4%, 9.9%). The trends for adults with diabetes in the poverty income ratio group <100% and those with a high school education had multiple changes upward and downward during the study period.

Cholesterol Testing

During 2008–2019, we found no significant change in the percentage of adults with diabetes who received cholesterol tests, which averaged 84.4% (95% CI 81.8%, 87.0%) during this period (Table 1). For adults aged 45–64 years, cholesterol testing was flat from 2008 to 2015 and showed a significant decrease starting in 2016 (APC –4.8% [95% CI –7.3%, –2.4%]; AAPC –1.3% [95% CI –2.0%, –0.6%]). We found significant decreases starting in 2016 in the percentage of male patients (APC –6.9%; 95% CI –11.7%, –1.8%) and adults with less than a high school education (APC –10.4% [95% CI –15.8%, –4.6%]; AAPC –2.3% [95% CI –3.8%, –0.6%]) who received cholesterol testing. Adults with Medicaid had an AAPC of –2.3% (95% CI –3.6%, –1.0%).

Influenza Vaccine

From 2008 to 2019, receipt of influenza vaccines increased at an AAPC of 2.6% (95% CI 1.1%, 4.2%) (Table 1, Fig. 2). The average proportion of adults with diabetes receiving an influenza vaccine over the study period was 41.8% (95% CI 39.6%, 44.0%). Specifically, we noted significant increases during 2008–2012 (APC 9.2%; 95% CI 6.9%, 11.6%), AAPC 2.6%; 95% CI 1.1%, 4.2%), and after 2015 (APC 2.9%; 95% CI 0.7%, 5.1%) (Table 1). The influenza vaccine trend for non-Hispanic White adults followed a similar pattern (AAPC 3.7%; 95% CI 1.5%, 5.9%), although only the period from 2008 to 2012 had a significant increase (APC 12.2%; 95% CI 8.9%, 15.7%). Receipt of influenza vaccines increased among female patients over the entire study period (AAPC 2.0%; 95% CI 0.4%, 3.7%). Adult men, adults in the poverty income ratio group 200–399% and >400%, and adults with private insurance showed an increase in the receipt of influenza vaccines in the early part of the study period, but the trend was flat thereafter. Receipt of influenza vaccines increased slightly for adults on Medicare (AAPC 1.0%; 95% CI 0.1%, 1.9%).

A1C Tests

We observed no significant changes in the overall trend in the proportion of adults receiving two or more A1C tests in a year, which averaged 53.0% (95% CI 51.4%, 54.5%) over the study period (Table 1). Proportions increased annually by 1.2% (95% CI 0.6%, 1.7%), 1.8% (95% CI 0.8%, 2.9%), and 2.2% (95% CI 0.7%, 3.8%) for those aged 45–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years, respectively. We also found increases in A1C testing for Hispanic adults (AAPC 6.8%; 95% CI2.0%, 11.8%), non-Hispanic White adults (AAPC 1.2%; 95% CI 0.5%, 1.9%), those with Medicare only (AAPC 1.6%; 95% CI 0.4%, 2.9%), and those in the highest poverty income ratio group (>400%) (AAPC 1.1%; 95% CI 0.5%, 1.8%).

Aggregate Preventive Care Services

For adults with diabetes who reported receiving none of the six recommended preventive services and adults reporting receiving all of them, trends were flat from 2008 to 2019 (zero services: 3.1% [95% CI –4.5%, 11.3%]; all services: 1.4% [95% CI –0.9%, 3.7%]; Supplementary Table 2). In 2008, 5.1% (95% CI 2.7%, 7.5%) of adults with diabetes reported receiving none of the six recommended care services (Supplementary Table 2). In 2019, this estimate was 6.1% (95% CI 3.7%, 8.5%) and in 2020 it was 8.2% (95% CI 4.5%, 11.9%; Supplementary Table 2). The percentage of adults that reported receiving all six preventive services in 2008 was 7.1% (95% CI 4.5%, 9.6%), 10.8% (95% CI 7.4%, 14.1%) in 2019, and 7.9% (95% CI 5.3%, 10.5%) in 2020 (Supplementary Table 2).

Comparisons Among Subgroups

The youngest adults (aged 18–44 years) often reported lower rates of dilated-eye examinations, foot examinations, cholesterol testing, and influenza vaccination. Uninsured adults often reported the lowest rates of preventive care for dilated-eye examinations, foot examinations, cholesterol testing, and A1C testing. Adults with less than a high school education were less likely to visit the dentist in most years, although they were only statistically significantly less likely to visit the dentist in 2008–2010, 2013–2014, and 2020.

Influenza vaccination was the only preventive service that increased significantly during 2008–2019 overall. Among most subgroups, influenza vaccine uptake, A1C testing, and dental visits tended to improve. However, foot examinations, cholesterol testing, and dental visits among the uninsured tended to decline. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and subsequent Medicaid expansion has been seen as a mechanism to increase the receipt of preventive services (12); however, we found no significant change over time in five of the six preventive care services for the overall U.S. adult population with diagnosed diabetes from 2008 to 2019. Although the passing of the Affordable Care Act led to an increase in the number of adults with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes who have health insurance, and to an increase in their access to health care (25,26), detecting corresponding increases in the receipt of preventive care has proved more elusive. As of 2019, 6.1% of adults with diabetes had not received any of the six preventive services, and this percentage was 8.2% in 2020 during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Continued monitoring will help us understand the extent to which the pandemic interrupted preventive care service use.

Two studies that used data from BRFSS found no changes overall in the receipt of preventive care for adults with diabetes resulting from Medicaid expansion between 2014 and 2019 (11,12). Similarly, the majority of subgroups in these studies exhibited no change in or decreased receipt of these six preventive services. The subgroup trends we observed suggest disparities in diabetes care that have been shown in other research. Consistent with our findings, studies using NHANES data for 2005–2018 as well as BRFSS for 2004–2014 found that younger adults with diabetes were less likely to report receiving various recommended preventive care services (13,27). Additionally, lack of insurance was a barrier to preventive care, because uninsured adults also reported lower rates of preventive care in these studies (13,27). In our study, dental visits decreased over the study period but dilated-eye examinations increased among the uninsured. Education has also been linked to meeting recommendations for preventive care; adults with a lower level of education consistently report lower rates of receiving prevention services (13,15). We found that adults with less than a high school education had decreasing trends in cholesterol testing and frequently were less likely to report visiting the dentist at least once than did adults with more education, although this difference was not always statistically significant. Researchers may wish to examine those adults with diabetes who reported receiving none of the six preventive care services, and factors contributing to this lack of care. Although the CIs for the estimates from 2008 and 2019/2020 overlap, the increase highlights the sustained suboptimal preventive care for a subset of adults with diabetes.

A1C testing and influenza vaccinations were the only two preventive services that showed increases either among the overall population or various subgroups that may be linked with the increase in health care service use (25). A1C increased among adults aged 45–65, 65–74, or >75 years; Hispanic adults; non-Hispanic White adults; adults receiving Medicare only; and adults in the >400% poverty income ratio group. Influenza vaccination increased among non-Hispanic White adults, adult women, adult men, adults in the 200–399% poverty income ratio group, and adults in the >400% poverty income ratio group. These services can be administered at the point of care during regular physician visits, whereas a dilated-eye examination or dental visit requires separate appointments. Lack of access to specialists, limited provider acceptance of public insurance options like Medicare, and inadequate care coordination may further complicate access to dilated-eye examinations or dentist visits and may explain why, for most groups, we observed no change or a decrease in the receipt of these services (15,28,29).

Other studies on trends in preventive care using different data sources report some conflicting findings. A study using NHANES data from 2005 to 2018 found increases in the proportion of adults with diabetes who reported all of the following: having a primary care doctor, receiving an annual check-up with a physician, having had at least two A1C tests in a year, having their cholesterol levels tested, and having an annual foot examination by a doctor (13). However, when evaluated individually, only A1C testing increased, which is similar to our findings. Another study that reported on data from NHANES, National Health Interview Survey, and BRFSS found that foot examinations, influenza vaccinations, and two or more A1C tests in a year increased from 1999 to 2016, although dilated-eye examinations stayed roughly constant (14). Data from BRFSS showed that adults with diabetes had reported decreasing dentist visits from 2004 to 2014 (27), whereas patient-reported dilated-eye examinations increased briefly following Medicaid expansion in 2014 and then decreased (28). In contrast, a study using NHANES data found that dilated-eye examinations for adults with diabetes did not increase from 2005 to 2016 (15). A study using National Health Interview Survey data reported no change in influenza vaccination rates from 2007 to 2018 for the overall population of adults with diabetes (30). Our finding that A1C testing increased is consistent with what has been reported in other studies. Discrepancies with other survey results may be due to differences in how questions are phrased, differences in the population being surveyed, and trend analysis of time periods of different length. Caution should be used when interpreting these differences; when possible, trends should be compared over similar and longer time periods (31,32).

Limitations

The responses from MEPS were self-reported, which may introduce bias. The study group was also cross-sectional and does not provide insight into how past receipt of preventive services may affect future receipt. In 2013, MEPS implemented efforts to improve collection of complete information by using field interviewers, with the goal of improving under-reporting. This effort may have improved data quality after 2014 and could have affected our trend analyses.

We are unable to identify factors that are causally linked to the changes in trends. Additionally, there has been a steadily declining response rate for both MEPS and DCS. During the studied time period, MEPS and DCS response rates peaked in 2008 at 59.3% and 92.4%, respectively; fell to 39.5% and 65.8%, respectively, in 2019; and fell further to 27.6% and 57.1%, respectively, in 2020. Although weights for these data were adjusted for nonresponse, the direction of bias due to nonresponse cannot be known. Furthermore, we were unable to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in these data. Because of the greater proportion of type 2 diabetes (90–95%), the trends we report likely are more reflective of type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes.

Conclusion

In summary, with the exception of influenza vaccination, the overall receipt of preventive care for diabetes from 2008 to 2019 was flat. The trend pattern in subgroups was heterogeneous. This work highlights services and subgroups with low or declining receipt of these services that could be targeted to improve preventive care. Declining trends in preventive care may lead to increased diabetes complications, thereby increasing morbidity as well as cost of diabetes care.

This article contains supplementary material online at https://doi.org/10.2337/figshare.24194397.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This article is featured in podcasts available at diabetesjournals.org/journals/pages/diabetes-core-update-podcasts.

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. All authors conceptualized the study and contributed to discussion. J.T.W. curated and analyzed data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. K.M.B. and S.R.B. reviewed the manuscript, and all authors edited the manuscript. J.T.W. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
National Diabetes Statistics Report
.
2022
.
2.
American Diabetes Association
.
Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017
.
Diabetes Care
2018
;
41
:
917
928
3.
Lin
J
,
Thompson
TJ
,
Cheng
YJ
, et al
.
Projection of the future diabetes burden in the United States through 2060
.
Popul Health Metr
2018
;
16
:
9
4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
United States Diabetes Surveillance System
.
2022
.
Accessed 31 January 2023. Available from https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/diabetes/diabetesatlas.html
5.
Magliano
DJ
,
Islam
RM
,
Barr
ELM
, et al
.
Trends in incidence of total or type 2 diabetes: systematic review
.
BMJ
2019
;
366
:
l5003
6.
Zhang
Y
,
Bullard
KM
,
Imperatore
G
,
Holliday
CS
,
Benoit
SR
.
Proportions and trends of adult hospitalizations with diabetes, United States, 2000-2018
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2022
;
187
:
109862
7.
ElSayed
NA
,
Aleppo
G
,
Aroda
VR
, et al.;
on behalf of the American Diabetes Association
.
Introduction and methodology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023
.
Diabetes Care
2023
;
46
(
Suppl. 1
):
S1
S4
8.
Fowler
MJ
.
Microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes
.
Clin Diabetes
2008
;
26
:
77
82
9.
Kent
D
,
D’Eramo Melkus
G
,
Stuart
PMW
, et al
.
Reducing the risks of diabetes complications through diabetes self-management education and support
.
Popul Health Manag
2013
;
16
:
74
81
10.
Gregg
EW
,
Li
Y
,
Wang
J
, et al
.
Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010
.
N Engl J Med
2014
;
370
:
1514
1523
11.
Monnette
A
,
Stoecker
C
,
Nauman
E
,
Shi
L
.
The impact of Medicaid expansion on access to care and preventive care for adults with diabetes and depression
.
J Diabetes Complications
2020
;
34
:
107663
12.
Luo
H
,
Chen
ZA
,
Xu
L
,
Bell
RA
.
Health care access and receipt of clinical diabetes preventive care for working-age adults with diabetes in states with and without Medicaid expansion: results from the 2013 and 2015 BRFSS
.
J Public Health Manag Pract
2019
;
25
:
E34
E43
13.
Shin
JI
,
Wang
D
,
Fernandes
G
, et al
.
Trends in receipt of American Diabetes Association guideline-recommended care among U.S. adults with diabetes: NHANES 2005-2018
.
Diabetes Care
2021
;
44
:
1300
1308
14.
Fang
M
.
Trends in diabetes management among US adults: 1999-2016
.
J Gen Intern Med
2020
;
35
:
1427
1434
15.
Eppley
SE
,
Mansberger
SL
,
Ramanathan
S
,
Lowry
EA
.
Characteristics associated with adherence to annual dilated eye examinations among US patients with diagnosed diabetes
.
Ophthalmology
2019
;
126
:
1492
1499
16.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
.
Medicare Expenditure Panel Survey
.
2022
.
17.
American Diabetes Association
.
4. Comprehensive medical evaluation and assessment of comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021
.
Diabetes Care
2022
;
44
(
Suppl. 1
):
S40
S52
18.
Parker
J
,
Talih
M
,
Malec
DJ
, et al
.
National Center for Health Statistics Data Presentation Standards for Proportions Data Evaluation and Methods Research
.
National Center for Health Statistics. Series 2, No. 175, 2017. Accessed 12 June 2023. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf
19.
Sjoberg
DD
,
Whiting
K
,
Curry
M
,
Lavery
JA
,
Larmarange
J
.
Reproducible summary tables with the gtsummary package
.
R J
2021
;
13
:
570
580
20.
R Core Team
.
R: A language and environment for statistical computing
.
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Accessed 1 November 2022. Available from https://www.R-project.org/
21.
Cantor
J
,
Sood
N
,
Bravata
DM
,
Pera
M
,
Whaley
C
.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and policy response on health care utilization: evidence from county-level medical claims and cellphone data
.
J Health Econ
2022
;
82
:
102581
22.
Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 5.0.2 - May 2023; Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute
.
Accessed 15 May 2023
. .
23.
Chaltiel
D
.
DanChaltiel/nih.joinpoint
.
2022
.
Accessed 10 December 2022. Available from https://github.com/DanChaltiel/nih.joinpoint/
24.
Kim
HJ
,
Fay
MP
,
Feuer
EJ
,
Midthune
DN
.
Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates
.
Stat Med
2000
;
19
:
335
351
25.
Myerson
R
,
Romley
J
,
Chiou
T
,
Peters
AL
,
Goldman
D
.
The Affordable Care Act and health insurance coverage among people with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
e179
e180
26.
Simon
K
,
Soni
A
,
Cawley
J
.
The impact of health insurance on preventive care and health behaviors: evidence from the first two years of the ACA Medicaid expansions
.
J Policy Anal Manage
2017
;
36
:
390
417
27.
Luo
H
,
Bell
RA
,
Wright
W
,
Wu
Q
,
Wu
B
.
Trends in annual dental visits among US dentate adults with and without self-reported diabetes and prediabetes, 2004-2014
.
J Am Dent Assoc
2018
;
149
:
460
469
28.
Chen
EM
,
Armstrong
GW
,
Cox
JT
, et al
.
Association of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion with dilated eye examinations among the United States population with diabetes
.
Ophthalmology
2020
;
127
:
920
928
29.
Fathy
C
,
Patel
S
,
Sternberg
P
Jr
,
Kohanim
S
.
Disparities in adherence to screening guidelines for diabetic retinopathy in the United States: a comprehensive review and guide for future directions
.
Semin Ophthalmol
2016
;
31
:
364
377
30.
Hung
MC
,
Lu
PJ
,
Srivastav
A
,
Cheng
YJ
,
Williams
WW
.
Influenza vaccination coverage among adults with diabetes, United States, 2007-08 through 2017-18 seasons
.
Vaccine
2020
;
38
:
6545
6552
31.
Cusser
S
,
Helms
J
4th
,
Bahlai
CA
,
Haddad
NM
.
How long do population level field experiments need to be? Utilising data from the 40-year-old LTER network
.
Ecol Lett
2021
;
24
:
1103
1111
32.
Bahlai
CA
,
White
ER
,
Perrone
JD
,
Cusser
S
,
Stack Whitney
K
.
The broken window: an algorithm for quantifying and characterizing misleading trajectories in ecological processes
.
Ecol Inform
2021
;
64
:
101336
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/journals/pages/license.