TABLE 1.
Provider/Practice Demographics (N = 123)
| Replies Received, n | Results | |
|---|---|---|
| Location | 123 | |
| California | 68 (55.3) | |
| Florida | 55 (44.7) | |
| Years in practice | 116 | 18.6 ± 11.3 (1.0, 45.0) |
| Type of practice | 119 | |
| Solo | 24 (20.2) | |
| Multispecialty group | 42 (35.3) | |
| Single-specialty group | 27 (22.7) | |
| Hospital (or hospital system–owned) | 13 (10.9) | |
| Other | 13 (10.9) | |
| Multiple site locations | 121 | 53 (43.8) |
| Number of providers at primary site | 117 | |
| 1–3 | 17 (14.5) | |
| 4–10 | 41 (35.0) | |
| 11–20 | 19 (16.2) | |
| ≥21 | 40 (34.2) | |
| Mean number of patients seen per week | 117 | 391 ± 604 (8.0, 5,000.00)† |
| Median number of patients with diabetes seen | ||
| Patients 0–21 years of age with type 1 diabetes | 102 | 2.0 (0.0, 10.0)† |
| Patients 0–21 years of age with type 2 diabetes | 100 | 2.0 (0.0, 10.0)† |
| Patients >21 years of age with type 1 diabetes | 97 | 15.0 (2.0, 50.0)† |
| Patients >21 years of age with type 2 diabetes | 99 | 200.0 (85.0, 600.0)† |
| Percentage of practice pediatric patients (<21 years of age) | 118 | 26.2 ± 29.8 (0.0, 100.0) |
| Average percentage distribution of insurance payer type* | 119 | |
| Private | 30.7 ± 25.6 (0.0, 90.0) | |
| Public (Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program) | 33.1 ± 27.4 (0.0, 100.0) | |
| Public, >65 years of age | 25.0 ± 19.8 (0.0, 80.0) | |
| Self-pay | 6.3 ± 7.2 (0.0, 60.0) | |
| No insurance | 7.3 ± 13.8 (0.0, 95.0) | |
| Other | 5.1 ± 18.0 (0.0, 100.0) | |
| Practices currently participating in a telemedicine program | 121 | 33 (27.3) |
| Distance from practice location to pediatric endocrinologist, miles | 85 | 42.8 ± 57.4 (0.0, 350.0) |
| Distance from practice location to adult endocrinologist, miles | 85 | 23.8 ± 30.8 (0.0, 200.0) |
Data are mean ± SD (minimum, maximum), n (%), or median (interquartile range).
Participants left blank insurance types that were not used in their clinic; thus, each individual insurance type has a different n. Of the 123 participants, only 8 had total distributions that did not sum across the six insurance types to 100% (total percentages for those eight respondents were 95, 95, 96, 102, 105, 110, 110, and 115%). Four respondents did not answer at all, so a total of 119 practices reported the insurance distribution of their clinic.
One respondent reported on six clinics with a total of 800 providers who saw a total of 71,000 patients/week. This outlier observation was excluded from subsequent results marked with † because of its extreme impact.