Staying Sane with Your CGM

You may be reading the title of this blog and thinking it's contradictory.

I need my CGM to stay sane, you mumble to yourself. What is this girl getting on about?

First of all, if you're on a CGM and don't get obsessive with your data, kudos. If you don't let the steady stream of numbers wear on your self-perception and sanity, I'm impressed. I'm also skeptical. Because how could we not become obsessive? The data is always there. At any given moment, we can see what's going on with our blood sugar trends and levels. As someone who's lived for over 20 years without this insight, I must say it's like finally being given the gift of sight.

So if you think you're not over-dependent on your CGM, ask yourself these questions just to check where you're at:

• Can you eat a meal/go to the bathroom/go on a date without having your phone or your receiver by your side?
• Do you catch yourself having a knee-jerk reaction to up or down arrows, and then going high or low due to over-correcting?
• Do you have a significant increase in worry during the warm-up period when you start a new sensor and you don't have access to continuous readings?

I can tell you personally that since starting CGM use, at least one of these has always been a "yes" for me. And that's okay - the CGM is a great tool and we should use the data. But sometimes the constant checking and over-correcting can do more harm than good.

So, to keep myself sane, these are some hacks I've implemented:

• Turn off the "Quick Glance" feature. Quick glance can be a blessing and a curse. It's super helpful for things like work and driving. However, during downtime it's easy to tap your phone awake every 30 seconds to check the BG that's fixed to your screen. I take little vacations from quick glance and usually notice a healthy decrease in how often I check my phone. 

• Use your receiver at night. By now you've probably heard about the impact technology can have on restful sleep. If not, here's the quick & dirty: the closer to bedtime your screen time is, the more interference in getting good Zs. Most experts say to power down an hour before bed. So what I've started doing is powering on that little receiver that many of us have long forgotten, and keeping it on my bedside table. This way I can check my number if needed without getting roped in by Facebook notifications and text messages.

• Set parameters for yourself. Significant change can often come from small steps, if you follow them faithfully and make room for them to become habit. Setting firm, specific rules for yourself can be helpful. For example, "checking my phone less" is too vague; whereas "checking my phone every 1 mile during my run (thanks John from Type One Run Podcast for this tip)" will likely yield more success.

When I'm feeling particularly frazzled by my sugars and staring at the little dots on my Dexcom graph, waiting impatiently for the next one to appear, I remind myself this: there were not always CGMs. There was a time (a long time) where we ate, tested, gave insulin, and let Jesus take the wheel. We tested again when we were symptomatic or eating again. It's possible to survive without the CGM. We can stand to not know our blood sugars every 5 minutes. This re-framing and self-talk helps me work myself out of a data frenzy. Use the CGM tool as a shield, not a sword that you keep falling on.

Another angry blog post about insurance

...Because what else is new, right?

But seriously, what I want to vent about is insurance deciding what is or isn't medically necessary. Let's break this down: 

You go to your physician, who attended upwards of 8 years of schooling to become a MD. They evaluate you, hopefully take your input as a patient, form a medical opinion and a plan of care, write a prescription or two and send you on your way. You go to your pharmacy to pickup your medication, only to find that your insurance company has denied coverage of this prescription. They feel it is not medically necessary, or they have a "preferred alternative" that they do cover.

This is something we've unfortunately all grown used to. But let's just pause a moment. And let that sink in.

First of all, preferred by who? Not by me, the person who's going to be ingesting/injecting/applying the medication. Not by my doctor, who prescribed medication in the first place. But I mean, what value are our measly preferences in this situation, right?

Second of all, our insurance company is determining what our medical needs are. So what, then, is the point of seeing a physician in the first place? Why not just go directly to the insurance company and seek their medical opinion? Oh, that's right. Because they're not physicians.

To play devil's advocate, doctors are employed by insurance companies to conduct clinical reviews of prescriptions. However, are these doctors the most appropriate people to be doing this review? In short, no. When my Fiasp was up for review to determine what level of coverage it would receive, the review was conducted by a PhD. No shade to PhD's, but if someone's reviewing my insulin needs, I think it should be, maybe, I don't know, an endocrinologist? Perhaps my endocrinologist? One who isn't employed by a company that profits from denying coverage of the medication I'm seeking? I mean, we are literally asking people to make a determination that will either harm their own company, or harm us. And they've never met us. Which way are they more likely to go? Does conflict of interest not play a role here?

It's a very backwards system, to say the least. We go to doctors to get appropriate care. But then we're met with roadblocks to actually receive that care. For people with chronic illness, dealing with this for a lifetime is draining and aggravating. We should explore a system that makes it easier for people to live their best, most healthy lifestyle. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we keep people healthy, we avoid future hospitalizations and prolonged illnesses. And in turn, avoid future expenses our insurance will have to cover. So what is the end game for them? Are they just stuck in that phase of childhood development in which they have no ability to engage in delayed gratification?

End rant.

(For now).