TABLE 1A.

Policy level

THEME	DESCRIPTION	QUOTE	STAKEHOLDER GROUP
ACCESS FOR ALL	The philosophical concept that all people should have access to diabetes technology regardless of ability of pay and across all insurances	I feel sorry for the people who—can’t do it—my age who can’t afford it. It’s the stupidest thing because having the MiniMed and not having—I mean the—I don’t understand the insurance the Medicare because the cost advantage of keeping us outside of emergency rooms, and keeping—for the stupid little device it’s just unbelievable to me. I got all the way to a—I’ve won the appeal three times and the insurance company is still fighting me. I’ve got the administrative judge to rule in my favor, and now the insurance company is completely inept. It’s something they call the Medicare something Board. They give me free Subway cards for $25, but they won’t pay for my sensors. I mean it’s just absurd. They’d rather—I mean it’s just absurd. It’s so stupid. I keep winning and they keep appealing. Eventually, January, I have to start paying myself for all this stuff. It’s their final appeal. Just dumb.	Adult
		The biggest barrier would be finding access. You know I think that—I was listening to some of the comments this weekend about which device to use. Some people have a choice and some don’t really have a choice. We didn’t have choice—we didn’t have our own four choices from our insurance and then some there is a process that I am not aware—our doctor was just so great that we didn’t have problems; we just got it. She did whatever she was supposed to. I heard there had to be certain letters written and things like that, so—it needs to be more equitable first of all by way of financing accessibility should be a factor and then the big picture of no one should be without healthcare and whatever they need. Okay so that is the big picture, so this coming on the market, it needs to be accessible to everybody. That’s it.	Parent
ADVANCEMENT AND EVOLUTION	The notion that science, research and progress all contribute to better technology and care and this, in turn, promotes access and affordability	We need to see what the morbidity rates look like on this. What is the health cost over 20 years going to be with comparison to the benefits that are going to play out? That is how they look at it. And I am not faulting them for this. It is a business, right? But they don’t have Type 1 diabetics as owners or CEOs of those companies. If they did, those benefits would be different.	Adult
		As far as the development into the technology of combining a CGM and a pump together, I believe that’s already been done, not in one device, just separately using a pump and then using a CGM. That’s already been done and people use that. I think it sounds expensive. It sounds very expensive for a technology that would be involved in both, and especially one that would be able to even have its own ability to correct itself, to change things, so a basic—I think if this were to be implemented in a future technology, something that has an algorithm for the way it reads data and applies a solution to it, and then, more algorithms that can correct that one. So, something of that much—essentially like the brain of a computer, that advanced of technology. I think that that sounds very expensive. It sounds very helpful.	Teen
PREVENTION COST LESS	Mention that if money was spent on prevention (i.e. diabetes technology), then it is overall less costly than end-stage ramifications	We just need to convince the government that in the long term there would be fewer people being really sick or in hospital. And I don’t think they’re going to believe us really.	Adult
		I don’t think the NHS is very good at viewing things in the long term; so, I don’t know because I think the NHS looks at everything from the short term cost and gain and whatever. So, if it costs a lot of money I don’t know if they would view it favorably, but once a chance my case is put forward to it, and the evidence is there from what it can save in the long term and potentially even the short term in terms of shorter term issues, I don’t know.	Parent
		Yeah, we had to apply for funding. So, we had to sort of give a reason why we were sort of more fit for funding than anyone else really. And we actually got a 100% funding, which was absolutely amazing. And I think they’d probably do it the same way, because there are certain people that their control is just so good that they just wouldn’t need the system. If they’re on a pump and whatever, and it comes to the point where you just simply don’t need it. For people like me where I’m really really active, obviously I have the hypos in the night which is something that I’m quite insecure about, I would hope that they wouldn’t turn a blind eye to that, and they would maybe give some funding towards it. And obviously I know diabetes costs the NHS so much money, so they could sort of cut the cost of diabetes then—I know that would make a massive difference as well. I think in the long term, it probably would be cheaper for the NHS. So not actually do it anyway, so yeah.	Teen