|Articles|September 17, 2015

Diabetes education bill stirs controversy

A coalition is opposing the Access to Quality Diabetes Education Act of 2015, saying it limits access to care. Here's why, and how the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) is responding.

There are differences of opinions regarding a recently introduced diabetes education Medicare bill.

The Access to Quality Diabetes Education Act of 2015 (H.R. 1726 and S.1345), introduced by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), is described as “a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to diabetes self-management training by authorizing certified diabetes educators to provide diabetes self-management training services, including as part of telehealth services, under part B of the Medicare program.”

The Diabetes Miseducation Coalition, a coalition of groups representing health coaches, nutrition specialists, and wellness experts, is opposing the Act, saying it limits access to care because the proposed restrictions outlined in the legislation could effectively cut the number of qualified diabetes educators for Medicare beneficiaries in half. The American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) supports the Act and has responded by saying that it will do just the opposite: increase access and quality of care.

“The purpose of the coalition is to prevent the control of diabetes education by a single self-interested certification organization at the expense of people with diabetes,” says coalition member Darrell Rogers, director of the International Association of Health Coaches. “We support policies that promote diversity in approaches, practitioners, and methods to assist the estimated 29.1 million people with diabetes and pre-diabetes.”

The Act does not in any way limit those who can give care to diabetes patients, and does not impact those who currently administer Diabetes Self-Management Training (DSMT) but in fact enlarges the pool of those who can be reimbursed for offering DSMT, according to Kurt Anderson, director of Federal and State Advocacy, AADE.

“The Act is a common sense response to the underutilization of DSMT, and would merely serve to increase quality and access to DSMT care, not ‘cut providers in half’ which would run contrary to the intent of this extremely bipartisan, non-controversial bill,” Anderson says.

Internal server error