Review of TempraMed VIVI Cap 1: Reusable Insulin Cooler Cap

The TempraMed VIVI Cap 1 is a reusable insulin cap cooler that promises to keep your insulin safe in extreme weather – protecting it from both hot and cold. Your insulin won’t overheat, and it won’t freeze. This is a great tool for the hot summer months or the dead of the winter. Wouldn’t you like to stop worrying about your insulin and just live in the moment?

What Does It Do?

This device offers supercharged insulation for your insulin pen.

The VIVI Cap 1 is scientifically proven to keep your insulin at room temperature, which allows you to spend time in extreme weather conditions without worrying about your insulin going bad. With a built-in temperature sensor and a temperature indicator, you can rest assured that your insulin will stay cool and safe.

VIVI Cap 1 is a simple solution that is easy to use and requires no maintenance. Just discard the cap that comes with your regular insulin pen, and slide the pen into the VIVI Cap 1. It will click into place, and you’re ready to take it along as you would normally. It doesn’t require any re-charging, no water, no ice – you’re good to go! When you’re done with your pen, just slide a new one into the cap.

How Can I Get VIVI Cap 1 and How Much Does it Cost?

You can purchase TempaMed’s VIVI Insulin Cap Cooler directly off their website. You can also make use of your FSA/HSA when purchasing this product.

VIVI Cap 1 costs $95 dollars and comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee if you are not pleased. It also comes with a 3-year warranty.

The company graciously offered our readers a 15% off each purchase discount code: DDAILY

The VIVI cap is compatible with many different insulin pens:

Pre-Filled Pens

  • FlexPen
  • NovoLog | NovoLog Mix | Levemir | Victoza |  NovoRapid | Insulin Aspart | Novolin R
  • FlexTouch
  • NovoLog |  NovoRapid | Tresiba (Degludec)  | Fiasp | Levemir U-100 & U-200 | Saxenda | Ryzodeg | Xultophy | Ozempic
  • KwikPen
  • Humalog | Humalog U-100 & U-200 | Humalog Jr | Humalog Mix |  Basaglar | Humulin Mix | Humulin | Humalog R U-500 | Lyumjev U-100 & U-200 | Insulin Lispro U-100
  • Solostar
  • Apidra | Lantus | Admelog | Soliqua

Refillable Pens

  • Eli Lilly
  • Luxura | Luxura HD | Ergo II | Savvio
  • Novo Nordisk
  • NovoPen 4 | NovoPen 5 | NovoPen Echo
  • Sanofi
  • ClickSTAR
  • Medtronic / Companion Medical
  • InPen

My Review

I think VIVI Cap 1 is a great product for anyone using pens for multiple daily injections. I’ve tried other insulin insulation products, but most require ice packs, water, batteries, or cords, all minor annoyances that I’d strongly prefer to do without. This product is extremely lightweight and can easily fit into a small purse or pocket, no problem. It was easy to set up and didn’t add any fuss.

Sometimes my blood sugar is erratic, and when I troubleshoot I realize that my insulin has lost effectiveness due to extreme temperature exposure. This product can help avoid that issue and save you money and a headache as well! I highly recommend giving this product a try!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Insulin at 100, Part 3: Insulin’s Uncertain Future

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

This is Part 3 of James S. Hirsch’s exploration of the riveting history of insulin, on the occasion of its 100th birthday.

Part 1: The Discovery

Part 2: Failed Promises, Bold Breakthroughs

Insulin’s Uncertain Future

Insulin

Image source: Emily Ye, Diabetes Daily

As further refinements in insulin occurred, the insulin narrative should have become even more powerful – that insulin not only saves people, but in reaching new pharmacological heights, it is allowing patients to live healthier, better, and more productive lives. These should be insulin’s glory days – as well as days of unprecedented commercial opportunity. According to the International Diabetes Federation, in 2019, the global population of people with diabetes had increased a staggering 63 percent in just nine years – to 463 million patients.

Insulin sales should be booming, with a new generation of Elizabeth Evans Hughes and Eva Saxls to tell the story. In fact, insulin sales are declining, and insulin has no spokespeople. Reasons vary for these developments, but one fact is undeniable: insulin has lost its halo.

Insulin is still essential for any person with type 1 diabetes, though even with type 1 patients, insulin is sometimes under-prescribed as doctors fear getting sued over a severe hypoglycemic incident. The belief is that patients are responsible for high blood sugars, doctors for low blood sugars.

Where insulin has lost its appeal is with type 2 patients, which has driven the diabetes epidemic in the U.S and abroad. According to the CDC, from 2000 to 2018, America’s diabetes population surged 185 percent, from 12 million to 34.2 million, and an estimated 90 percent to 95 percent of that cohort has type 2. (The global percentage is similar.) These patients have long had options other than insulin – metformin, introduced in 1995, remains the ADA’s recommended first-line agent. But as a progressive disease, type 2 diabetes, in most cases, will eventually require a more intensive glucose-lowering therapy. Nothing achieves that objective better than insulin, but insulin is delayed or spurned entirely by many type 2 patients.

Some concerns are longstanding; namely, that insulin can lead to weight gain because patients now retain their nutrients. Some type 2 patients wrongly associate insulin with personal failure surrounding diet or exercise, so they want to avoid the perceived stigma of insulin. Some people just don’t like injections. Meanwhile, other patients associate insulin with the medication that an ailing patient takes shortly before they die: insulin as a precursor to death. Some clinicians who care for Hispanic patients refer to insulin pens as las plumas to avoid using a word that carries so much baggage.

What’s striking is how dramatically the cultural narrative has changed, from insulin the miracle drug to insulin the medical curse. And where are the commercials, the movies, the documentaries, and the splashy publicity campaigns about the wonders of insulin? They don’t exist.

The greatest impact on insulin use in type 2 diabetes has been the emergence of a dozen new classes of diabetic drugs. These include incretin-based therapies known as GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors (introduced in the 2000s) as well as SGLT-2 inhibitors (introduced in 2014). diaTribe has covered these therapies extensively, and their brands are all over TV: Trulicity, Jardiance, Invokana, and more. They all seem to have funky names, and like insulin, they can all lower blood sugars but – depending on which one is used – some have other potential advantages, such as weight loss. (Some have possible disadvantages as well, including nausea.)

The expectations for these drugs were always high, but what no one predicted was that GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of both heart and kidney disease – findings that are a boon to type 2 patients, who are at higher risk of these diseases. These findings, however, were completely accidental to the original mission of these therapies.

Insulin, the miracle drug, has been eclipsed by drugs that are even more miraculous!

Consider Eli Lilly, whose Humalog is the market-leading insulin in the United States. In 2020, Humalog sales fell 7 percent, to $2.6 billion, while Trulicity, its GLP-1 agonist, saw its sales increase by 23 percent, to $5 billion.

That’s consistent with the global insulin market. Worldwide insulin sales in 2020 declined by 4 percent, to $19.4 billion, marking the first time since 2012 that global insulin sales fell below $20 billion.

It’s quite stunning. Amid a global diabetes epidemic, and with the purity, stability, and quality of insulin better than ever, insulin sales are falling. (Pricing pressures from insurers and government payers have also taken a revenue toll.) In 2019, Sanofi announced that it was going to discontinue its research into diabetes, even though its Lantus insulin had been a blockbuster for years. More lucrative opportunities now lay elsewhere.

Falling sales may not be the insulin companies’ biggest problem. Public scorn is. Though the insulins kept getting better, the prices kept rising, forcing many patients to ration their supplies, seek cheaper alternatives in Canada or Mexico, or settle for inferior insulins. Some patients have died for lack of insulin. According to a 2019 study from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, the cost of insulin nearly doubled for type 1 patients in the United States between 2012 and 2016 – they paid, on average, $5,705 a year for insulin in 2016, compared to $2,864 in 2012.

Many patients are outraged and have used social media to rally support – one trending hashtag was #makeinsulinaffordable. Patient advocates have traveled to Eli Lilly’s headquarters to protest. In March of this year, nine Congressional Democrats demanded that the Federal Trade Commission investigate insulin price collusion among Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, asserting they “are using their stranglehold on the market to drive up costs.” The letter notes that as many as one in four Americans who need insulin cannot afford it, and at least 13 Americans have died in recent years because of insulin rationing.

The criticism has been unsparing. In April 2019, in a hearing for the U.S. House of Representatives on insulin affordability, Democrats and Republicans alike pilloried the insulin executives. At one point, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) said to them, “I don’t know how you people sleep at night.”

Insulin is hardly the only drug whose price has soared, but as the Washington Post noted last year, insulin is “a natural poster child of pharmaceutical greed.”

In response, the insulin companies have adopted payment assistance programs to help financially strapped consumers. They also blame the middlemen in the system – the PBMs, or the Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers – for high insulin prices, who in turn blame the insulin companies, and everyone blames the insurers, who point the finger at the companies and the PBMs.

Drug pricing in America is so convoluted it’s impossible for any patient to accurately apportion blame, but the history of insulin explains in part why the companies have come under such attack. When Banting made his discovery, he sold the patent to the University of Toronto for $1. He said that insulin was a gift to humankind and should be made available to anyone who needs it. Insulin was always profitable for Eli Lilly and the few other companies who made it, and critics have complained that the companies found ways to protect their patents by making incremental improvements in the drug.

But for years, those complaints were easily dismissed. The companies were revered for their ability to mass produce – and improve – a lifesaving drug that symbolized the pinnacle of scientific discovery while doing so at prices that were affordable.

When prices became unaffordable – and regardless of blame – the companies were seen as betraying the very spirit in which insulin was discovered and produced, and their fall from grace has few equivalents in corporate history.

Is the criticism fair?

Hard to say, but even the companies would acknowledge that they’ve squandered much good will. Personally, I’m the last person to bash the insulin companies – they’ve kept me and members of family alive for quite some time. Collectively, my brother, my son, and I have been taking insulin for 117 years, so I feel more regret than anger: regret that at least one insulin executive didn’t stand up and say loudly and clearly:

“Insulin is a public good. No one who needs it will be without it. And we will make it easy for you.”

Insulin

Image source: Emily Ye, Diabetes Daily

Whatever that would cost in dollars would be made up for in good will – and such a public commitment would honor the many anonymous men, women, and children, before 1921 and after, who gave their lives to this disease.

The next chapter for insulin? It will almost certainly include continued improvements. Both Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk are trying to develop a once-a-week basal insulin to replace the current once-a-day options – that would be a major advance is reducing the hassle factor in care. Research also continues on a glucose-sensitive insulin, in which the insulin would only take effect when your blood sugar rises. That would be a breakthrough, but investigators have spent decades trying to make it work.

Since its discovery, the ultimate goal of insulin has been to make it disappear, as that would mean diabetes has been cured. It turns out that insulin therapy may indeed disappear someday, even if no cure is found. Since its discovery, the ultimate goal of insulin has been to make it disappear, as that would mean diabetes has been cured. It turns out that insulin therapy may indeed disappear someday, even if no cure is found.

Stem-cell therapy has long held promise in diabetes – specifically, making insulin-producing beta cells from stem cells, which the body would either tolerate on its own (perhaps by encapsulating the cells) or through immunosuppressant drugs. Progress has been halting but is now evident. Douglas Melton began his research in this area in 1991, and in 2014, he reported that his lab was able to turn human stem cells into functional pancreatic beta cells. The company that Melton created for the effort was acquired by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and earlier this year, Vertex announced that it had received approval to begin a clinical trial on a “stem-cell derived, fully differentiated pancreatic islet cell therapy” to treat type 1 diabetes. Another company, ViaCyte, also announced this year that it will begin phase 2 of a clinical trial using encapsulated cells in hopes that they will mature into insulin-secreting beta cells.

It may take 10 to 15 years, but leaders in the field are cautiously optimistic that a cell-based therapy will someday provide a better option than insulin.

Diabetes would survive, but the therapy once touted as its cure would be dead.

Because I have a soft spot for happy endings – and because so much of own life has been intertwined with insulin – I have my own vision for insulin’s last hurrah.

A group of researchers in Europe are conducting a clinical trial to prevent type 1 diabetes. Called the Global Platform for the Prevention of Autoimmune Diabetes, the initiative began in 2015, and researchers are testing newborns who are at risk of developing type 1 to see if prevention is possible.

And what treatment are they using?

Oral insulin.

Like the discovery of insulin itself, this effort is a longshot, but if it works, insulin will have eradicated diabetes – a fitting coda for a medical miracle.

I want to acknowledge the following people who helped me with this article: Dr. Mark Atkinson, Dr. David Harlan, Dr. Irl Hirsch, Dr. David Nathan, Dr. Jay Skyler, and Dr. Bernard Zinman. Some material in this article came from my book, “Cheating Destiny: Living with Diabetes.”

About James

James S. Hirsch, a former reporter for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, is a best-selling author who has written 10 nonfiction books. They include biographies of Willie Mays and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter; an investigation into the Tulsa race riot of 1921; and an examination of our diabetes epidemic. Hirsch has an undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri School of Journalism and a graduate degree from the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas. He lives in the Boston area with his wife, Sheryl, and they have two children, Amanda and Garrett. Jim has worked as a senior editor and columnist for diaTribe since 2006.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Insulin at 100, Part 2: Failed Promises, Bold Breakthroughs

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

By James S. Hirsch

Insulin

Image source: diaTribe

The discovery of insulin in 1921 was heralded as the cure for diabetes. The reality was different.

Insulin, to be sure, could temporarily lower blood sugars to near-normal ranges, but it could also cause hypoglycemia – blood sugars that are too low – that could lead to shakiness and confusion or, in extreme cases, seizures, loss of consciousness, or death. Insulin was a daily, self-administered drug, but if used incorrectly, it could kill a patient just as well as it could save a patient. No self-administered therapy, before or since, has quite those same attributes.

What’s more, insulin’s therapeutic powers were overestimated. Yes, insulin lowered blood sugars, but maintaining near-normal levels was still very difficult – and elevated blood glucose over time was still dangerous. As a result, by the middle of the 1930s, patients who were taking insulin began developing serious complications caused by elevated glucose levels, including damage to the eyes, kidneys, nerves, and heart. Insulin hadn’t cured anything but had turned diabetes from a deadly condition into a chronic condition, and a perilous one at that. At the dawn of the insulin age and for many decades thereafter, even those who understood the importance of maintaining near-normal blood sugars did not have the tools to do so. Blood sugar levels were measured by proxy through urine tests, in which samples had to be boiled for three minutes. Simpler methods were developed by the 1940s, but home glucose monitoring was not available until the late 1970s.

Until then, patients – unaware of their blood sugar levels – gave themselves insulin doses flying blind.

But few people outside the diabetes world knew about the daily rigors and risks of the disease – not only because it affected a relatively small percentage of people but also because the insulin narrative was too powerful.

Diabetes, after all, had been cured or at least resolved. That’s what all the pictures showed. That’s what the headlines blared. And that’s what the ads promoted.

Eli Lilly’s ads, for example, initially touted insulin as “An Epoch in the History of Medicine” and later featured a beautiful bride on her wedding day, kissing her beaming father, with the tagline, “Our favorite picture of insulin.”

Even that picture paled in comparison to the astonishing newspaper and magazine stories about insulin, and not just those about Elizabeth Evans Hughes. Insulin was a redemptive tale about science and survival.

Eva and Victor Saxl were Czech immigrants who fled to Shanghai during World War II. There, Eva was diagnosed with diabetes, and when her insulin supplies ran short, Victor, a textile engineer, found a book that described how to make insulin and, using the animal organs from a nearby slaughterhouse, brewed up enough insulin for his wife to survive. After the war, they immigrated to the United States, and when their story was discovered, they soon found themselves on numerous radio and television shows, including Edward R. Murrow’s, and a movie was also produced – about a husband’s devotion to his wife, expressed through the salvation of insulin.

Other life-saving medical breakthroughs occurred – antibiotics in the 1940s, the polio vaccine in the 1950s – and these would treat more people than insulin. But the unique circumstances of insulin’s discovery, with the young, untested scientists finding the potion that would bring children back from the brink of death, was too dramatic to ignore. In 1988, that story was the subject of a television movie on Masterpiece Theater called “Glory Enough for All,” based on Michael Bliss’s definitive book, “The Discovery of Insulin.”

I watched the movie on PBS when it was released, and it featured the brawling Toronto researchers – Banting and Collip literally came to blows over control of the experiments. But ultimately, the movie was about the triumph of medical science in saving dying children, and among the researchers, there was “glory enough for all.”

And then the movie ended.

There was nothing about living with diabetes – about the wildly fluctuating blood sugars, about the relentless demands, about the injections and the doctor visits and the complications, about the dietary restrictions, about the stigma and the isolation and the limitations of insulin.

“Glory Enough for All” was introduced by Alistair Cooke. An American-born Brit with a silver tongue, Cooke was enthralled not only by insulin’s inspirational story but also by the phrase “islets of Langerhans,” used to describe the island of pancreatic cells discovered by Paul Langerhans. “Islets of Langerhans” just rolled off Alistair Cooke’s tongue. To him, insulin was not just a miracle. It was poetry.

The lyrical beauty of insulin was lost on patients. Many of them, in fact, were frustrated that their own stories weren’t being heard. The parents of young patients were frustrated as well.

In 1970, a professional singer in Philadelphia, Lee Ducat, had a 10-year-old boy with type 1 diabetes, and she was miffed by the breezy disregard of his doctor, who told her that “insulin was the cure.” Ducat knew that wasn’t true, so with several other parents, she formed the first chapter of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (which is now the JDRF). Other parents soon opened chapters in New York, Washington, New Jersey, and Miami, and their mission was to educate the public about the stark challenges of diabetes in hopes of raising money and finding a cure.

They had no use for the American Diabetes Association, which was founded in 1940 and for many years was little more than a social club and referral service for physicians. As far as the parents were concerned, the ADA was complicit in perpetuating the jaunty insulin narrative that had hurt the cause for decades. Unless the truth about diabetes was known, how could lawmakers, regulators, philanthropists, and journalists – not to mention clinicians – do what had to be done to improve the lives of people with diabetes?

That question was driven home when the JDF chapter in Miami bought a full-page newspaper ad in 1972 to publicize its cause. The ad featured a little boy in a crib holding a glass syringe, and it described the many complications that could arise from diabetes, including blindness and amputations. The headline read, “The Quiet Killer.”

On the day the ad appeared, Marge Kleiman, whose son has type 1, was working in the JDF office, and the phone rang.

“I’m Charles Best,” the caller said, “and I discovered insulin.”

Now retired, Best had become an icon who, after Fred Banting died in 1941, carried the mantle for the Nobel-winning team that had discovered insulin. Best had been praised by the pope, the queen of England, and other heads of state, and he had given the keynote address at the ADA’s first meeting and later served as its president. He happened to be in Miami on the day the JDF ad appeared, and he was outraged.

“What kind of propaganda are you using?” he screamed. “You’re frightening people! This is not the way it is!”

Kleiman knew better. “Dr. Best, what you did was wonderful,” she said. “It allowed people to live longer. But we’re not trying to frighten people. If you tell the truth, maybe they can avoid these complications. Please don’t tell us to keep quiet.”

The JDRF, now a massive international organization focused primarily on type 1,  has continued to tell the truth about diabetes – and fund research – ever since, but changing the insulin narrative was not going to be easy.

Patients could at least take solace that the insulins kept getting better. The first extended-action insulins were introduced in 1936 and continued with widely used NPH insulin (1946) and the Lente insulins (1951). But the real improvement came in the 1970s, spurred by concerns about actual insulin supply. Meat consumption was declining, and slaughterhouses were cutting production, while the number of people with diabetes had been rising steadily (in 1976, there were about 5 million Americans with the disease). At some point, insulin demand could outstrip the animal-based supply.

As described in the book Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize a Human Gene, by Stephen S. Hall and James D. Watson, the specter of an insulin shortage triggered a race to develop genetically engineered insulin using recombinant DNA technology. Investigators succeeded by inserting the insulin gene into bacteria, which produced insulin that was chemically identical to its naturally produced counterpart.

The first human insulins, Humulin (made by Eli Lilly) and Novolin (made by Novo Nordisk), were introduced in the 1980s. Whether they were superior to animal-based insulins is a matter of debate, but they alleviated fears about an impending global insulin shortage.

Moreover, researchers soon discovered that changing the order of two amino acids in the human insulin molecule created a faster-acting formulation, and that led to the introduction of Humalog (1996) and Novolog (1999). Known as “insulin analogs” because they are more analogous to the body’s natural release of insulin, they were considered clear advancements. Another huge leap came with long-lasting basal insulin analogs, specifically Lantus (by Sanofi in 2000) and Levemir (by Novo Nordisk in 2005). These insulins keep blood sugar levels consistent during periods of fasting and, typically taken once a day, replicate the insulin release of a healthy pancreas. They were immensely popular and also used by many type 2 patients – Lantus was a $5 billion a year drug by 2011.

The improved insulins changed how patients cared for themselves, as the new formulations led to “basal-bolus” therapy – a 24-hour insulin complemented by a mealtime insulin – and that became the standard of care for type 1 diabetes. (Insulin pumps use the same basal-bolus framework.)

A new era of diabetes care, thanks to these insulin breakthroughs, appeared to beckon.

Stay tuned for part three of this riveting story next week!

I want to acknowledge the following people who helped me with this article: Dr. Mark Atkinson, Dr. David Harlan, Dr. Irl Hirsch, Dr. David Nathan, Dr. Jay Skyler, and Dr. Bernard Zinman. Some material in this article came from my book, “Cheating Destiny: Living with Diabetes.”

About James

James S. Hirsch, a former reporter for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, is a best-selling author who has written 10 nonfiction books. They include biographies of Willie Mays and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter; an investigation into the Tulsa race riot of 1921; and an examination of our diabetes epidemic. Hirsch has an undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri School of Journalism and a graduate degree from the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas. He lives in the Boston area with his wife, Sheryl, and they have two children, Amanda and Garrett. Jim has worked as a senior editor and columnist for diaTribe since 2006.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Insulin at 100: An Inspirational but Complicated History

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

By James S. Hirsch

The discovery of insulin promised a new age for an ancient condition but introduced unexpected challenges. James S. Hirsch explores the riveting history of this miracle drug on its 100th anniversary.

PART 1: The Discovery

It was hailed as a miracle cure, a boon to the human race, an elixir that turned death into life and whose discovery was freighted with Biblical allusions. This year marks the one-hundredth anniversary of insulin, and the drug, first coaxed from the pancreas of dogs by unheralded scientists in a crude Canadian laboratory, remains one of the most remarkable feats in medical history.

But the history of insulin is not one of unalloyed celebration. It has moments of triumph as well as grievance. Like diabetes itself, it’s complicated.

***

It’s easy to lose sight of what insulin’s discovery represented in 1921. As the historian John Barry notes, the previous 2,500 years had seen virtually no progress in the treatment of patients, and the world had just emerged from the Spanish flu, which killed more than 50 million people and was ultimately subdued not by medical science but by the immune system’s adapting to the virus.

In other words, doctors in 1921 were all but impotent against any serious disease, including diabetes.

Then came insulin.

Anyone today who uses insulin does not need to be told of its life-saving power, and I am hardly an impartial observer, as it has kept me alive for the past 44 years.

Insulin today, however, bears little resemblance to what it was when I was diagnosed, let alone to what it was in its early decades. Patients then relied on imposing glass syringes whose thick needles had to be sharpened on whet stones and boiled for reuse. Nowadays, the ultrafine needles are disposable; smart insulin pens communicate with the cloud; and sleek insulin pumps are connected to continuous glucose meters. The insulin itself has been transformed – from impure concoctions derived from the smashed, blood-soaked pancreases of pigs or cows to laboratory-created, gene-splitting analogs with an array of pharmacokinetic properties. Inhalable insulin, long promised and finally delivered, represents a vaporous new-age alternative.

Research on insulin has attracted some of the world’s most brilliant scientists, as Nobel prizes have been given for insulin-related research in four separate decades. The work conducted on human insulin in the 1970s and ’80s, involving recombinant DNA, helped give birth to the modern biotechnology industry, including such pillars as Genentech and Biogen.

But there is more to this history than scientific breakthroughs and professional laurels.

Insulin has been misrepresented and misunderstood, even by some of its most important standard bearers, to the detriment of patients. For many years, the miraculous power of insulin, promoted in marketing efforts and publicity stunts, misled the public about the real-life experiences of those actually living with diabetes. In more recent years, insulin has been shunned by type 2 patients who could be using it or has been underused by type 1 patients. We are in the midst of a global diabetes epidemic, but insulin use has actually been declining because better therapies for type 2 diabetes have usurped insulin’s preeminence. And as insulin prices have soared, the insulin companies themselves, in a stunning reversal, have been transformed in some eyes from saviors to villains.

Meanwhile, the future of insulin itself is not certain, as better therapies could someday make obsolete the miracle drug of 1921.

***

Insulin was not technically “discovered” in 1921. Its role in the body was already known, its connection to diabetes already established.

The disease was first identified in 1500 BC, and in 250 BC, the disorder was named “diabetes” from the Greek word syphon, as its victims suffered from excessive urination. (One researcher later described diabetes as “the pissing evil.”) Researchers’ understanding of the disease advanced in 1869, when a German medical student named Paul Langerhans discovered “islands of cells” in the pancreas; and over the next three decades, investigators identified these cells as regulating glucose metabolism and directly associating them with diabetes. By 1916, the word “insulin” had been coined to describe that pancreatic substance.

But after more than 3,000 years, there was still no effective treatment for the disease. Researchers, however, did recognize that carbohydrates accelerated a patient’s decline, so the best treatment, developed in the early 1900s, was to withhold food – also known as the starvation diet, which allowed patients to extend their lives in sinister emaciation. Most of these patients were children, so grieving parents had to watch their children waste away – sometimes clustered together in hospital wards – and die either from starvation or diabetic ketoacidosis.

That made the search for insulin even more desperate, as investigators around the world sought to discover a “pancreatic extract” to save these dying children against the ravages of an ancient disease.

Research

Image source: iStock Photo

The breakthrough happened in Toronto in 1921, led by a prickly researcher who was a mere five years out of medical school. Frederick Banting had tried his hand as a surgeon but couldn’t earn a living, so he turned to teaching. He had no research experience and knew little about diabetes; but he had read a paper on it, and he later said that he had a dream about discovering insulin. In a longshot bid, Banting began his work in May at the University of Toronto, and he was assisted by a young medical student named Charles Best. They removed the pancreases from dogs to make them diabetic and then developed pancreatic extracts to try to lower the blood sugars. It was bloody, messy, difficult work – seven dogs died the first two weeks – but by August, one of the extracts, delivered by intravenous injections, proved successful. A biochemist, James Collip, was summoned to try to purify it for human use – he later called it “bathroom chemistry” – and on January 11, 1922, a 14-year-old boy, Leonard Thompson, received the first injection of insulin.

It was described as a “murky, light brown liquid containing much sediment,” it was given to him over several weeks, and it worked: the sugar and ketones in the boy’s urine disappeared.

“Diabetes, Dread Disease, Yields to New Gland Cure,” the New York Times announced.Tweet this“Diabetes, Dread Disease, Yields to New Gland Cure,” the New York Times announced.

The Toronto researchers couldn’t mass produce insulin, but Eli Lilly could, at least in the United States. (Other companies did in Europe.) Eli Lilly is headquartered in Indianapolis and, at the time, was in convenient proximity to many stockyards. The company stored a million pounds of frozen pancreases from pigs and cows to keep up with demand – there were an estimated one million Americans who needed insulin – and the company’s scientists, managers, and laborers were every bit the heroes as the Toronto researchers.

This new miracle drug did not disappoint.

Frederick Allen, one of America’s leading diabetologists, said his patients, upon receiving insulin, “looked like an old Flemish painter’s depiction of a resurrection after famine. It was a resurrection, a crawling stirring, as of some vague springtime.”

Elliott Joslin, America’s preeminent diabetes clinician, described his patients who took insulin as the “erstwhile dead” and invoked Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of the dry bones, in which God says, “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.”

The photographs told an even more dramatic story: In one famous picture, a naked 3-year-old boy who weighs 15 pounds clings to his mother, his face grimacing, his ribs exposed. After taking insulin for only three months, a head shot shows the boy with full cheeks, alert brown eyes, and dark locks of hair. He looks normal – and cured.

If there were any doubt about insulin’s curative powers, Elizabeth Evans Hughes removed them. Her father, Charles Evans Hughes, had been the governor of New York, a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, a candidate for president, and in 1922, was the U.S. Secretary of State. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with diabetes in 1919, so when she took her first dose of insulin in 1922, she became the poster child for this new drug.

After more than three millennia, it appeared that medical science had defeated diabetes.Tweet this“Hughes’ Daughter ‘Cured’ of Diabetes” declared one unidentified newspaper. After more than three millennia, it appeared that medical science had defeated diabetes.

Stay tuned for parts two and three of this riveting story over the next two weeks!

I want to acknowledge the following people who helped me with this article: Dr. Mark Atkinson, Dr. David Harlan, Dr. Irl Hirsch, Dr. David Nathan, Dr. Jay Skyler, and Dr. Bernard Zinman. Some material in this article came from my book, “Cheating Destiny: Living with Diabetes.”

About James

James S. Hirsch, a former reporter for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, is a best-selling author who has written 10 nonfiction books. They include biographies of Willie Mays and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter; an investigation into the Tulsa race riot of 1921; and an examination of our diabetes epidemic. Hirsch has an undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri School of Journalism and a graduate degree from the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas. He lives in the Boston area with his wife, Sheryl, and they have two children, Amanda and Garrett. Jim has worked as a senior editor and columnist for diaTribe since 2006.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Why #insulin4all Advocates Targeted Beyond Type 1

Beyond Type 1, the diabetes nonprofit, found itself in hot water recently after the organization sent a letter stating its apparent opposition to LD673, a proposed bill for an insulin safety net program in Maine. The Maine bill is modeled after Minnesota’s popular Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act, and guarantees that people with diabetes can access inexpensive insulin in an emergency.

The letter stated that LD673 would “create not only administrative burdens to the Maine government and pharmacies in the state, but also unintended additional out-of-pocket expenses to people living with diabetes.” The organization seemed to argue that its own GetInsulin.org program, a partnership with the major insulin manufacturers, rendered further legislation “duplicative” and unnecessary. 

Some diabetes advocates were outraged at Beyond Type 1’s stance, and accused the nonprofit of favoring the big pharmaceutical companies over people with diabetes.

Late last week, the organization appeared to modify its stance with a new letter, this one explicitly supporting Maine’s new bill. Was it all just a misunderstanding, or did rowdy online activism cause Beyond Type 1 to change its tune?

LD673

Alec Smith, the Minnesota bill’s namesake, died of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in 2017, at the age of 26. At the time, he had recently aged out of his parents’ health insurance plan, and the cost of his insulin had skyrocketed to about $1,300 a month, around half of his total earnings. 

Smith’s mother believes that he died because he could not afford to pay for the insulin that he needed to live. She has become a noted insulin activist, and helped turn his death into a major rallying cry for people protesting the nation’s outrageously high insulin prices.

Minnesota signed the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act in April 2020, to widespread acclaim in the diabetes community. 

The new bill in Maine, named An Act To Create the Insulin Safety Net Program, would similarly aim to provide cheap, emergency insulin to those with an urgent need. The emergency insulin would carry a maximum cost of $35 for one month’s supply. The bill also mandates standards for the insulin manufacturers’s otherwise voluntary patient assistance programs (PAPs).

The Letter

In the letter that would cause an uproar, Beyond Type 1 never explicitly stated opposition to the new legislation. Whatever its intentions, however, it’s fair to say that the organization strongly implied its opposition.

The letter argues that state-level legislation such as LD673 is no longer necessary, because nationwide circumstances have changed dramatically since the Alec Smith act was passed in Minnesota:

At the time of its passage, GetInsulin.org did not exist, nor did the urgent need programs offered by the manufacturer. Additional insulin copay, cash pay, and patient assistance programs became available after the Minnesota bill became law that insulin manufacturers’ patient assistance programs (PAPs) are enough to fill the gap in assistance, and that the state statute is not needed. 

While insulin is still disgracefully expensive in most of the US, it is true that there are now more avenues for patients in need than there were only a few years ago. Part of that is due to the success of advocacy efforts, such as the one that coalesced around Alec Smith’s death, that turned insulin affordability into a political hot topic. The Covid-19 pandemic has also shined a spotlight on healthcare inequities, pushing the insulin manufacturers to expand their affordability programs in the last year.

The Beyond Type 1 letter also concentrates heavily on extolling the GetInsulin.org website. GetInsulin.org is essentially a user-friendly portal for the PAPs, aggregating the information from all three major insulin manufacturers in a single space. The website was created in partnership with the big pharmaceutical companies and is at least partly funded by them, facts that raise the suspicions of many people with diabetes, who are often inclined to see Big Pharma as an adversary rather than a partner. 

Are PAPs Really Good Enough?

Patient assistance programs can be valuable and even life-saving resources for people struggling to afford insulin. In some cases, PAPs may even provide more generous support for patients in an emergency than that mandated by the Alec Smith Act and Maine’s proposed law. And because these patient support programs have a reputation for being difficult to access and navigate, there’s no reason to doubt that GetInsulin.org provides a valuable public service.

For insulin affordability advocates, that’s not nearly good enough. The Shot, a weekly digest of insulin affordability news, put the case plainly:

While it’s true that patient assistance programs have become more robust … the programs, like Beyond Type 1’s GetInsulin.org, are voluntarily offered by the companies — often at no cost to them as PAPs are generally tax deductible. The Maine bill, like the Minnesota one that precedes it, locks the companies into providing assistance that patients would otherwise have no guarantee will exist tomorrow.

The PAPs are only reliable as long as the manufacturers don’t dilute them in the future (or disband them entirely). Given that many Americans now feel that insulin is practically a byword for medical exploitation, one can hardly be surprised when people with diabetes regard these programs with suspicion.

The big three – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi – are reliable opponents of government efforts to cap insulin prices. And it would seem that PAPs owe their recent expansion more to the immense public relations pressure that manufacturers have lately had to endure than to any one corporation’s sense of generosity or public service.

Experts do agree that insulin manufacturers do not alone bear the blame for high insulin prices. Manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, and pharmacies all benefit from high insulin prices, and our byzantine healthcare market incentivizes all of them to push for price increases. Patients can’t easily vote with their wallets, and are therefore left with little recourse to effect meaningful change.

Insulin affordability continues to be a disaster in the diabetes community. Insulin rationing due to high cost is widespread in the United States, a situation that has probably only gotten worse since the dawn of the pandemic and the economic devastation that has followed. 

The upshot of Beyond Type 1’s argument to the Maine legislative committee was that the PAPs, as accessed through GetInsulin.org, are pretty much good enough. If this wasn’t what the organization intended to communicate with its letter, it made a bad mistake – and on an electric issue.

Online Reaction

Insulin access advocates discovered the letter online, and were outraged. Several accused the organization of corruption and betrayal:

Twitter personality Miss Diabetes illustrated a particularly devastating comic, featuring a caricature of Beyond Type 1 co-founder Nick Jonas:

source: @miss__diabetes

A little context: when Beyond Type 1 was founded in 2015, the organization avowed a principled refusal to accept money from the pharmaceutical industry. Things have changed. Now, according to their website, “Beyond Type 1 partners with pharmaceutical companies, including insulin manufacturers, when the organization finds that doing so furthers mission and impact.” 

This isn’t unusual. Most other prominent diabetes nonprofits also accept Big Pharma money (#insulin4all campaigner T1International is one notable exception). Nevertheless, Beyond Type 1’s position on this issue seemed unusual. The American Diabetes Association, for example, took the opposite stance and penned a letter in support of the bill. 

BT1’s About-Face

Despite the controversy, Beyond Type 1 kept silent for weeks, further disappointing some in the diabetes online community.

In response to a request for comment, a Beyond Type 1 spokesman told Diabetes Daily that the original letter was written not to oppose the legislation but “with the intent of providing information to legislators about existing programs and tools for people with diabetes who are insulin-dependent.” 

Additionally, the spokesman said, “Our team has followed the community response closely, and we know some have interpreted our testimony as one of opposition.”

Soon thereafter, the organization sent a new public letter to Maine’s legislative committee, claiming that it did support LD673, and that it always had:

We’re writing today to clarify and state unambiguously that Beyond Type 1 does support the passage of this legislation. This legislation will help individuals in Maine who may be struggling under urgent or ongoing circumstances to access affordable insulin due to high list prices. Our hope is that people with diabetes who need financial assistance to pay for this life-essential drug may find it through existing programs or potentially those created through Maine’s efforts.

After news of the new letter broke, Hilary Koch, a Maine resident and a Policy Manager for T1International, declared victory on Twitter – but also qualified her celebration with a reminder of how much work needs to be done to achieve universal affordable insulin access.

One can only guess as to the effect that Beyond Type 1’s clarification might have the bill’s chances. Lawmakers may well have already been inclined to support the bill. Just last year, Maine passed more sweeping legislation capping insulin costs for those with state-regulated insurance.

 

Source: diabetesdaily.com

How Insulin Rebates Work

This content originally appeared on Beyond Type 1. Republished with permission.

By Lala Jackson

A major contributor to high insulin list prices that is often misunderstood – because it is designed to be complex and opaque – is the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) and rebate system. Rebates are a percentage of the list price of a medication, given by a drug manufacturer to a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM), in order to be listed on the health insurance plan formulary or placed in a pharmacy.

Essentially, rebates function a bit like a “broker’s fee” of sorts and can account for 30-70% of the cost a person has to pay at the counter for insulin if they don’t have insurance, or if they are paying the full cost of insulin until they hit their insurance deductible. The PBM takes a portion of the rebate as their own profit, then gives the remainder to their client, which can be the federal government (Medicare), an employer’s health plan, or a standalone health insurer.

Insulin manufacturers choose to participate in this system that drives list prices up because it benefits their business – by giving PBMs a large cut of their profits, their products get placed on insurance formularies more often, leading to more sales. This system creates up to 70% of the current list price of insulin in the US, and it doesn’t have to be this way.

Rebates – They Don’t Mean What They Sound Like

The math is infuriating, but here’s the heavily-simplified basics of how rebates work – if you made a product for $5 and wanted to sell it, you may set the price at $10, to create a $5 profit. With that $5 profit, you can invest back in your company to create better products, pay yourself – whatever you want to do with your $5.

But let’s say you want your product to be in more places and available to more people. You might hire a middle person to place your product in new stores across the country, and they’ll charge a fee, which is reasonable.

When you begin, their fee is $1. So that you can keep your $5 profit, you raise your price to $11. Still reasonable. But over time, your middle person makes themselves indispensable and knows it. You’re making way more money because of how many products you’re able to sell, so you’re not about to drop your middle person.

And oh oops – you also signed a contract with your middle person to ensure you’ll always get your product placed in these nation-wide stores, so you’re locked in. And part of that contract was a promise that you won’t lower your price, since that would impact your middle-person’s profit.

And oh oops – your middle person also has contracts with your competitors, and the contracts signed with those competitors make it so that if your competitor gives the middle person a little bit more of their profits, your middle person won’t sell your product in certain stores for a year. You can fix this by raising your own price to give the middle person more profits, so you can kick your competitor out of a store the next year.

So now, your product costs $50. It’s the same product – you’ve never improved it. Your customers are receiving no more value than when the product costs just $10. Over time, you wanted to make more money from it, so your profit is now $10.

It’s still $5 to make your product.

You get $10 profit, doubled from your original earnings.

And your middle person? They’re making $35, 70% of the list price, off a product they don’t make or even touch.

But you’re definitely not going to get rid of your middle person, because they’re the reason you’re able to sell so many products and make the money that you do.

For a regular product like a water bottle, no worries, your customer will just go somewhere else.

But what if your product was water, and your customer needed it to survive?

The Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMS)

PBMs are third-party intermediaries who negotiate prices and drug placements on insurance formularies between pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. Sometimes they are standalone companies, other times they are attached to national pharmacies or insurance companies.

For their negotiating services, they take a share of the profits from prescriptions. This share is known as ‘rebates.’ They also profit from “administrative fees” for each unit of drug sold, which can be up to 5% of the list price.

Speculated about for some time but difficult to prove because of private contracts (fully legal through the US system, which is notoriously bad at regulating drug pricing) is the sheer amount of cash being collected by PBMs. Originally created to help get needed drugs to patients more efficiently, PBMs have unfortunately become a key agitator to high out-of-pocket drug costs.

From a January 2021 Senate Finance Committee report, we now definitively know that “…drug manufacturers increased insulin WAC [wholesale cost], in part to give them room to offer larger rebates to PBM and health insurers, all in the hopes that their product would receive preferred formulary placement. This pricing strategy translated into higher sales volumes and revenue for manufacturers.”

The big legislative stumbling block we now face is just how reliant on PBMs the US healthcare system has become. In a more simple system, a pharmaceutical manufacturer could provide their medications to a pharmacy for direct disbursement to patients who require them. But in a system with a shaky foundation to start with and many players in the space, across private and public entities, the water gets significantly muddied.

To keep PBMs happy, ensuring they negotiate the placement of each manufacturer’s insulin on insurance formularies, rebates for insulins have increased exponentially, particularly since 2013.

In July 2013, Sanofi offered rebates between 2% and 4% for preferred placement on a formulary. The same product in 2018 provided a 56% rebate. That’s more than half of the out-of-pocket cost of insulin being handed to companies that don’t make the insulin.

This is one example, but every single insulin manufacturer does this. As the report states, “What is clear is that the money that flows through PBMs is nothing short of enormous. As discussed throughout this report, rebates have grown at a rapid pace in the insulin market in recent years, which is not true in all therapeutic markets.”

The Bigger the PBM, the Greater the Power

The three largest PBMs – CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx – wield significant power in the market commanding large rebates. Lilly documents show that they offered a 22% rebate to a small PBM, but offered Optum Rx a 68% rebate for the same products in order to get placement in Medicare’s Part D prescription plan. As noted in the report, this robust ability to negotiate has led to “…some PBMs securing rebates as high as 70% in recent years.”

Manufacturer contracts with PBMs, previously confidential but exposed by the Senate Finance Committee report, are written in percentages. This means that it is to the PBMs’ benefit to encourage list price increases, making their portion of payout larger.

PBMs actively encourage manufacturers to raise the list price so that they may receive more money, and use threats of removing insulins from insurance formularies as leverage. The bundling of multiple products (increasing one product’s rebate amount to get other products included) is also a tactic used in PBM and manufacturer negotiations, especially in exclusivity contracts.

“As Eli Lilly explained to its investors in 2019, failing to secure formulary placement can “lead to reduced usage of the drug for the relevant patient population due to coverage restrictions such as prior authorization in formulary exclusions, or due to reimbursement limitations which result in higher consumer out-of-pocket cost, such as non-preferred co-pay tiers, increased co-insurance levels, and higher deductibles.”

The Bottom Line

The US healthcare system is deeply broken, and insulin pricing is one of the clearest examples that an unregulated drug pricing system motivated by profit will always put cash flow over patient lives. PBMs and the rebate system exacerbate the problem, but every participant within the system is at blame. Each entity has chosen profit over people.

Significant rebate reform and an overhaul or removal of the PBM system could slash the list price of insulin by up to 70% and would impact not just insulin, but many medications and devices that are subject to the rebate system. Robust federal healthcare reform could create a system where drug prices could be negotiated on a federal level, and current proposals like rolling back prices to more reasonable levels could be a step.

A deeply broken system requires layered solutions. Without a full overhaul, we risk fixing the insulin pricing issue with a bandaid, while driving up prices and limiting access to other life sustaining medications and life changing technology.

Substantial healthcare policy change takes the voice of many, and individual advocates make a resounding and impactful difference. If you are looking to get involved with diabetes access advocacy, start here. Reach out and get to know your state’s congressional representatives in the House and Senate. Make sure they know your personal experience and how issues of healthcare, drug pricing, and access impact you.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

New Dexcom Update: Your G7 Questions Answered

Last month, we chatted with Jake Leach, Dexcom’s chief technology officer (CTO) to get the latest scoop on the release timeline and new features of the Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM), a highly-anticipated diabetes technology that will be released in 2021. Many follow-up questions from our readers prompted us to follow-up further.

Without further adieu, here are your questions about the G7 answered:

There is no calibration, correct?

“This is correct.”

What about pharmacy vs. supplier distribution for the G7?

“We continue to focus on making CGM more accessible and easier to obtain for patients. Pharmacy is our preferred distribution channel and we have expanded pharmacy access for Dexcom CGM by nearly 80% since December 2018. This strategy will not change for G7.”

Now that the product is disposable, would this no longer be considered durable medical equipment (DME) and thus covered differently by insurance companies?

“The disposable aspect of the product has no impact on reimbursement.”

Do you anticipate working on integration with all the major pump companies?

“As the first iCGM on the market, and still the only one indicated for use with automated insulin delivery systems, Dexcom G6 is the forerunner in the category of interoperability and are advocates of patient choice in insulin delivery. G7 will be no different. With Insulet’s Omnipod 5 preparing for a first half of 2021 launch, we feel that our leadership in this category will result in us having integrations with the leading tethered pump on the market in Tandem’s Control.IQ, and the leading tubeless pump in Omnipod 5.

We are also very excited about the development progress that Lilly and Novo Nordisk are making in their Bluetooth connected smart pen technology and we continue to believe that the solutions we’re working on with those two teams will enable significant improvements in the user experience and ease the burden of diabetes in the MDI population, which represents the vast majority of intensive insulin users across the world.

Two years ago we stated that we believe that by 2023, 50% of our insulin intensive customer base will be using a connected insulin delivery device in combination with our CGM, and we believe that we are on track to hit that mark. Connected systems are truly the future of diabetes technology and we are working to extend our leadership in the category with these key partners and the tools that we have created to support these integrations, including our Dexcom artificial pancreas algorithm technology.”

Is there any evolution with the readout frequency (to be more frequent than every 5 minutes)?

“Patients and [providers] both tell us there isn’t a need for CGM systems to provide a glucose readout more frequently than every five minutes. This is especially true since Dexcom CGM has an Urgent Low Soon predictive alert that can warn users 20 minutes in advance of a severe hypoglycemic event (55 mg/dL), which helps give them time to take appropriate action before an event occurs.

Will G7 be approved for different wear locations (besides the abdomen)?

“We are conducting pivotal trials with the G7 in multiple wear locations, including abdomen and upper arm.”

Dexcom G7

Image source: Dexcom

In addition, Jake Leach had the following to say, highlighting his enthusiasm for the new developments:

“With G7, we’ve taken all of the great features that we’ve established with G6, features that have resulted in market-leading patient satisfaction scores, and have made them even better. G7 is a real time, factory calibrated continuous glucose monitor with iCGM level performance, a simplified application and start-up process, and a faster sensor warm-up time. We’ve packaged all of this into a fully disposable form-factor that is 60% smaller than our current G6 wearable and introduces significant cost reductions across the manufacturing process. This G7 wearable technology is paired with a brand-new app experience that includes real time glucose information combined with personalized insights designed to further enhance the unique value users get from Dexcom CGM. Take all of these features together and you can understand why we are so excited about G7 as a key driver of the growth story that we’ve laid out today.”

Are you excited to test drive the G7 CGM? Please share your thoughts in the comments!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Diabetes Life Hacks: Tools to Help You Thrive

Living with diabetes is a full-time job and one we never applied for. It can be mentally exhausting and emotionally and physically draining. I know I am always looking for any tips or tip-offs that can help me with my diabetes management–whether it be technology, travel perks, or even a new app that tells me to get my act together.

I asked the diabetes online community to share any and all fun tips and tip-offs that can help make our lives a little bit easier and enjoyable.

Here are the top 9 diabetes hacks that the diabetes online community shared:

Dexcom G6 Sensor

1. Restarting Dexcom Sensors

Did you know that you can extend your Dexcom G6 sensors beyond the 10-day cut off? There are quite a few ways to go about it depending on your transmitter code. You can find the right method to use here. This will save you a few pricks and pokes and some money too.

2. Free Admission to National Parks

People living with diabetes (or any other condition that falls under disability) can apply for free lifetime access to US national parks. You can obtain your pass through the mail which involves a $10 dollar processing fee, or you can get it in person to avoid the extra charge. This is a great perk that everyone should take advantage of at some point in their lifetime!

Sulli the Diabetes Guru

3. Sulli the Diabetes Guru

Roche Diabetes Care created a voice-activated assistant in the homes of people living with diabetes. This virtual source of support and information is available around the clock and free of charge on Amazon Alexa and on Google Assistant. Sulli the Diabetes Guru responds to important questions like “What is high blood sugar?”, “Is it okay to eat before my blood test?” as well as sets reminders to take medication and can even tell you where to find the closest blood monitor retailer!

Medal from Lilly Diabetes

Photo credit: Clare Fishman

4. Lilly Diabetes Journey Awards

Did you know you could receive a medal for your valiant effort of managing your diabetes? This program recognizes people who have managed their type 1 diabetes successfully with insulin for 10, 25, 50 and 75 years. Each recipient receives a beautiful award, engraved with their name, along with a signed letter from Lilly’s CEO, Dave Ricks, acknowledging and encouraging their continued dedication. This program helps celebrate each other’s victories and hopes to inspire others living with diabetes.

People living with type 1 diabetes or parents of children with type 1 diabetes in the United States can complete and submit the Lilly Diabetes Journey Awards application here. If you are outside the United States and are interested in learning more about Lilly programs in your country, please contact your local Lilly affiliate for more information.

Lilly also offers other programs such as their Lilly Camp Care Package program, which provides diabetes educational kits, inspirational speakers, insulin, and other supplies to camps for children with diabetes. Lilly also offers college resources after partnering with The College Diabetes Network. CDN realizes that campus life and independence can be hard enough without diabetes. They created a community for young adults living with diabetes through its national network of campus-based chapters and their resources available on their website.

5. Ask Siri for Your Glucose Reading

If you are using a Dexcom CGM, you can take advantage of Siri and ask her any time of the day, “What is my blood sugar?” and she will take the reading from your Dexcom and say it out loud. This has become incredibly useful when I’m driving or don’t have the time to unlock my phone and go to the Dexcom app.

6. Happy Bob App

This app takes mundane diabetes data and turns it into an engaging and positive experience for the user. You can switch between Happy Bob and Snarky Bob to get a different dose of entertainment. Both of which will help ease the stress of this disease and leave you with a smile!

7. Dexcom Overlay

Did you know that Dexcom offers free over-patches to help reinforce the adhesive? There are plenty of great companies out there that offer this as well but be sure to take advantage of this free offer and see how it works for you and/or your child. You can submit a request using this form.

8. Preboarding Before a Flight

As people living with diabetes, we are allowed to preboard all flights. This is helpful to get your luggage in a safe space and make sure you have time to access any supplies or snacks before the plane gets crowded and it’s more difficult to move around. This will help set you up for a comfortable and relaxing flight. Read here for more information on air travel and what you need to know.

9. Sugarmate App

Sugarmate is a companion app for those using Dexcom G5/G6 and boasts many great features such as apple watch integration, will call you if your CGM goes low, and is ignored, even if it is in the Do Not Disturb mode. The newest feature if you own a car with CarPlay and connect your phone, your blood sugar will automatically display on your screen.

Make sure to take advantage of these above diabetes hacks to make living life with diabetes a little easier. Many of the above tips can help change your mindset, improve your mood, and give you a little motivation to keep on thriving.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Can You Manage Diabetes Well Without Lots of Money?

If you live in a country like the United States, where the majority of health insurance is privatized and there is no strong social safety net, it can feel as though managing a chronic disease like diabetes requires nothing but lots of money. And it does. As of 2017, diabetes cost the United States a staggering $327 billion dollars per year on direct health care costs, and people with diabetes average 2.3x higher health care costs per year than people living without the disease.

Diabetes is also devastatingly expensive personally: the cost of insulin has risen over 1200% in the past few decades, with no change to the chemical formula. In 1996, when Eli Lilly’s Humalog was first released, the price for a vial of insulin was $21. In 2019, that same vial costs around $275. Studies show that 1 in 4 people ration insulin simply due to cost. Diabetes Daily recently conducted a survey study, with almost 2,000 participants, of which an overwhelming 44% reported  struggling to afford their insulin.

So where does this leave patients who don’t have tons of money to spend on insulin and supplies, or who don’t have adequate health insurance coverage for the technology to help prevent complications? Can you manage diabetes well without lots of money? The short answer is yes. The long answer is a bit more complicated.

Best Practices for Managing with Less

If you have insurance coverage, but are unable to afford a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or insulin pump, it’s advisable to follow best practices for optimal diabetes management. According to the Mayo Clinic, one should test their blood sugar:

  • Upon waking
  • Before meals and snacks
  • Before and after exercise
  • Before bed
  • More often during illness
  • More often when traveling or changing a daily routine
  • More often if on a new medication

One study has even shown that following a lower carbohydrate diet can improve health outcomes, reduce complications, and cut down on medication costs for people living with diabetes.

The study goes on to say that, “…insulin dependent diabetics can expect to half or third their insulin requirements. Less insulin injected results in more predictable blood sugars and less hypoglycemia.” However, no patient should ever feel pressured to follow a low carbohydrate diet solely to control the cost of their medications. There can be more effective ways to manage the cost of medications and supplies.

Photo credit: Adobe Stock

No Matter What You Think, Get Coverage

People with diabetes need health insurance coverage. In the short term, this makes sense, as insulin and things like insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, syringes, and test strips are expensive. But it also makes sense long term as well. People with diabetes can face serious complications as they age: diabetes is the leading cause of adult blindness and amputations, and is a leading cause of stroke, kidney failure, heart disease and premature death in its sufferers. Having health insurance helps pay for things like surgery, preventive screenings, doctors’ appointments and follow-up care, and any additional medicine and needs that’s needed.

It may seem cheaper to forego coverage, but don’t. Check to see if you’re eligible for Medicaid in your state. If you are, this comprehensive coverage will help you access affordable medication, doctors’ visits, emergency and preventive care. If Medicaid is not an option, see if you qualify for a tax subsidy on the federal or your state’s health exchange. There, you can find a range of affordable options that will cover your diabetes care and (especially) insulin prescriptions.

Get Help Paying for Insulin

Even if you have health insurance coverage, the cost of your insulin may be prohibitively high. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2017, the percentage of adults aged 18-64 enrolled in a high deductible health plan rose from 10.6% to 24.5%. These plans have a high dollar amount that consumers must meet before their plan kicks in to help pay for things like prescriptions or hospital stays. Some high deductible health plans have deductibles as high as $10,000. This means that someone with diabetes could potentially pay the full $275 a vial for their insulin, every time they fill their prescription, until they reach their $10,000 deductible. These types of plans are cheaper monthly (have lower premiums), but don’t offer great coverage.

If you need help paying for your insulin, you can get low cost insulin through these assistance programs:

  • Eli Lilly’s $35 Co-Pay Program: Launched in early April in response to the COVID-19 crisis, Eli Lilly is introducing their Lilly Insulin Value Program, which allows anyone with commercial insurance and anyone without insurance to fill their monthly prescriptions of insulin for $35.
  • Novo Nordisk: Novo Nordisk has recently launched a $99 program, where people needing insulin assistance can purchase up to three vials or two packs of FlexPen®/FlexTouch®/Penfill® pens or any combination of insulins from Novo Nordisk Inc. for $99.
  • Sanofi: Launched in 2019, Sanofi’s program allows people living with diabetes in the United States to pay $99 for their Sanofi insulins (with a valid prescription), for up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10 mL vials per month.
  • Medicare: Medicare recently unveiled a pilot program that would cap the cost of insulin. The Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model would cap insulin co-payments to $35 per month, starting in January 2021. Seniors must sign up for a plan that will qualify under the pilot during the open enrollment period, which is October 15 through December 7.
  • Buy a State-Regulated Health Plan: If you live in Colorado ($100 per prescription per month), Illinois ($100 per 30 day supply), Delaware ($100 per 30 day supply), New York ($100 per 30 day supply), Utah ($30 per 30 day supply), West Virginia ($100 per 30 day supply), Maine ($35 per 30 day supply), New Mexico ($25 per 30 day supply), Virginia ($50 per 30 day supply), Washington ($100 per 30 day supply), or New Hampshire ($30 per 30 day supply) and you buy a state-regulated health plan, you are eligible for a copayment cap on insulin (implementation dates pending, but Colorado was the first bill to be implemented and it went into effect January 1st, 2020).

Check the fine print of any health insurance plans on the federal or your state’s exchange to see if they are eligible for the copayment cap. More states are introducing legislation in 2021, so keep an eye out for a bill proposing some similar changes in your state!

Get Help Paying for Supplies

Several companies have launched affordability programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A few new programs are:

  • Dexcom: Is offering up to two shipments of 90-days of Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring System supplies, with each shipment consisting of one transmitter and three boxes of three sensors for $45 per 90-day supply shipment. For existing customers only, if you qualify.
  • Omnipod: Is offering a six-month supply of products (60 pods) free of charge. The program is focused on current US customers who have lost jobs and health insurance as a result of the pandemic.
  • One Drop: This online subscription package charges the consumer a monthly fee, and you get access to cheaper test strips, online personal health coaching, and a mobile app to track your progress. If your health insurance doesn’t adequately cover test strips, this can be an affordable and effective way to go.
diabetes advocacy

Photo credit: T1International Instagram

Advocate for Change

If you see or are experiencing injustice, you should always try and advocate for change. This means writing letters to your elected officials, calling your members of Congress, petitioning your health insurer, testifying for bills that support better health care coverage, and raising your voice to improve policies that will benefit all people living with diabetes. Get involved in the diabetes online community on Facebook or Twitter. Sign up to become an advocate with T1International. Donate to your favorite diabetes charity who’s working to make things better.

Show up at your state capitol and talk to people about what it’s like to live with diabetes, how expensive it is, and how crucial good coverage and affordable medications really are. You can live a great life with diabetes, but coverage, laws, regulations, and policies can always be better. And things won’t improve until we have everyone at the table, advocating for change.

How are you able to manage well with less to spend? What policies or changes would you like to see in the US healthcare system that would make management easier for you? Share this post and your story, below!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

FDA Approves Lyumjev – A New Rapid-Acting Mealtime Insulin

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

By Frida Velcani

Lyumjev reduces blood glucose spikes and can be taken at the beginning of a meal, or even 20 minutes into the meal; available through Lilly’s insulin affordability program

A new rapid-acting mealtime insulin has been approved by the FDA to reduce high blood sugar after meals and keep blood glucose levels in-range. The insulin is rapid-acting, meaning that it is absorbed into the bloodstream and the body more quickly. This approval provides another important mealtime insulin option for adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Lilly’s Lyumjev was approved in Japan and Europe in March 2020, and the company is working to make Lyumjev available to people in the United States as quickly as possible.

Lyumjev will be offered at the same price as Humalog. Lilly will also offer Lyumjev through its newly launched Insulin Value Program, which makes the therapy available at $35 per month for people who are uninsured or have commercial insurance. The $35 cap applies regardless of the number of insulin doses required.

This approval was granted based on the results from the 2019 phase 3 PRONTO-T1D and PRONTO-T2D trials. The data showed that, compared to Humalog, Lyumjev reduced blood glucose spikes (hyperglycemia) one hour and two hours after a meal in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The drug did not affect A1C reduction. In people with type 1 diabetes, Lyumjev reduced hypoglycemia four hours after meals, whereas in people with type 2 diabetes, the insulin slightly increased hypoglycemia both one to two hours and two to four hours after a meal.

Lyumjev can be taken at the beginning of a meal or 20 minutes after starting it. This flexibility is due to the faster onset and offset of the insulin. That said, it is still strongly recommended that whenever possible, people should take Lyumjev before the start of the meal.  Lyumjev by Lilly joins Fiasp by Novo Nordisk as the two faster acting insulins available giving people with diabetes more flexibility in mealtime insulin dosing.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

1 2

Search

+