Continuous glucose monitors are in vogue. But do you really need to track your blood sugar?
Continuous glucose monitors, small patches that provide 24-hour insight into concentrations of sugar in the blood, could be a tool for Americans to 'take control over their own health,' Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told federal lawmakers.
'They can take responsibility,' Kennedy said. 'They can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way they live their lives.'
The devices have lifesaving benefits for people with diabetes, the disease caused when blood sugar remains high because their bodies don't make enough insulin or become resistant to it. The condition, which affects more than 38 million people in the U.S., raises the risk of serious health problems such as heart and kidney disease and vision loss.
But the devices have surged in popularity among people without diabetes. Sales have been driven by high-profile marketers such as
Casey Means
, the nominee for U.S.
surgeon general
.
There's scant evidence the monitors are useful for people with normal blood sugar levels, said Dr. Jody Dushay, an endocrine specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Healthy bodies can effectively regulate glucose after meals and provide the energy they need to function. Glucose monitors may lead people to misinterpret normal swings in blood sugar that happen after eating or activity. In addition, the devices can be
'notoriously inaccurate,'
providing
misleading readings,
she said.
'The problem with wearing these is that you can just be zooming in on and creating pathology when it's not there,' Dushay said.
Here's what you need to know about the devices:
Here's what a continuous glucose monitor does
The device is a small patch, about the size of two stacked quarters, usually placed on the upper arm or stomach. It uses a needle to painlessly pierce the skin for a tiny sensor.
The sensor measures the glucose in fluid under the skin, delivering a signal every few minutes to a phone app or a handheld display. The apps typically record blood sugar levels and help people track the foods they eat and how they impact those levels.
When healthy people eat a meal that contains carbohydrates, their blood sugar rises, peaks and falls in response to the food.
A healthy fasting blood glucose level for a person without diabetes is roughly 70 milligrams per deciliter to 99 milligrams per deciliter. A range from 100 to 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates prediabetes and above 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association.
In adults without diabetes, blood sugar levels can climb to 140 milligrams per deciliter or more within an hour of a meal, before falling back to baseline levels within two or three hours, according to the association. It's a sign the body is processing sugar normally.
Continuous glucose monitors have been available since the late 1990s
For decades, these devices were available only for people with diabetes. The monitors revolutionized care by allowing more precise adjustment of insulin used to treat diabetes and giving people the ability to modify meals and activity more accurately.
Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter monitors. Since then, many companies have emerged to market them, claiming to provide intensive, individualized health monitoring. Cost is generally about $100 a month.
They've really caught on with consumers curious about how food and activity affect their blood sugar levels. For instance, Noom, the weight-loss and fitness app, launched a blood glucose feature last year that has proven extremely popular, said Alexander Fabry, a company executive.
'Of the people who are using a CGM, the vast majority of them don't have a diabetes diagnosis,' he said.
Who can use the monitors?
The devices have been lifesaving for people with diabetes. And they can be helpful for people with risk factors for the disease, including obesity, prediabetes, a history of gestational diabetes or a family history of the condition.
The devices can allow users to see how specific food and activity choices affect their blood sugar in near real-time, said Dr. Alaina Vidmar, a pediatric obesity specialist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.
'After a large meal, you may watch your blood sugar go up and sort of learn something about yourself,' Vidmar said. 'For example, I drink a sugar-sweetened soda and my blood sugar goes up really high, really fast. And maybe I don't feel as good, right?'
What are the cautions?
People without risk factors for diabetes may turn to the monitors just because they're curious, said Dr. David Kessler. A former FDA commissioner, Kessler doesn't have diabetes, but he wore a monitor for a couple months during research for his recent book, 'Diet, Drugs and Dopamine.'
'I think it's a very interesting tool to experiment with if you're so inclined,' Kessler said.
But, he noted, the devices can't be used to diagnose or treat disease. Even experts don't agree on how to interpret or provide health advice for people without diabetes based on blood sugar data.
'No one knows what's optimal in the nondiabetic state,' he said.
Before using a monitor, Dushay asks patients to consider their motives.
'What do you think you're going to get from the data?' she said. 'What is to be gained from wearing that monitor?'
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
More than 20 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over Planned Parenthood funding cuts
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- More than 20 mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its efforts to cut Medicaid payments to the nation's largest abortion provider — Planned Parenthood. The move comes in response to the package of tax breaks and spending cuts Trump signed earlier this month. A portion of the new cuts are focused on services such as cancer screenings and tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted infections — by ending Medicaid reimbursements for a year for major providers of family planning services. The cuts apply to groups that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The goal was to target Planned Parenthood, but the legislation also affected a major medical provider in Maine. California, New York, Connecticut, other states and Washington, D.C. argue in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts that the provision's language is unclear about which groups it applies to. They also say it retaliates against Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion access, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The states are asking that the portion of the law be blocked and deemed unconstitutional. The cuts threaten health care access for many low-income Americans, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference. 'This attack isn't just about abortion,' the Democrat said. 'It's about denying vulnerable communities access to care they rely on every day.' But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named a defendant in the suit, defended the provision. 'States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,' spokesperson Andrew G. Nixon said in an email. 'It is a shame that these democrat attorney generals seek to undermine state flexibility and disregard longstanding concerns about accountability.' Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics offering a range of services across the state, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed separate lawsuits earlier this year challenging the cuts. Planned Parenthood said although it is not specifically named in the law, the provision was meant to affect its nearly 600 centers in 48 states. About a third of those clinics risk closure because of the legislation, which would strip care from more than 1 million patients, the group argues. A federal judge on Monday ruled Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to receive Medicaid reimbursements. Maine Family Planning said it had enough in its reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursements only through October. About half of the group's patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid. The states' suit filed Tuesday argues that by pushing Planned Parenthood clinics to close or cut services, it could increase the states' medical care costs in the long term. Otherwise the cuts will make states use their own funds to keep health centers open. 'Either we have to comply and violate Planned Parenthood's constitutional rights and then push people to alternative providers that don't exist, who don't have the capacity to pick up the slack, or we have to spend upwards of $6 million or more to cover (those services),' said William Tong, Connecticut's Democratic attorney general. Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but some conservatives argue abortion providers use Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion. ___
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Medicaid At 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes A Gamble
Medicaid at 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes a Gamble getty Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was signed into law as part of a sweeping vision to expand health security to the most vulnerable Americans. What began in 1965 as a modest insurance program for low-income families has grown into a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system—serving as the financial backbone of hospitals, nursing homes, and community clinics across the country. But even as the country marks this milestone, that original promise is quietly being rewritten. Congress recently passed the ' One Big Beautiful Bill Act ,' a sweeping piece of legislation that imposes significant Medicaid cuts and eligibility restrictions. In Washington, the bill was framed as fiscal discipline. On the ground, it marked a turning point, redefining Medicaid not as a safety net that rises with need, but as a fixed line item shaped by cost ceilings and conditional access. What follows is a closer look at what happens when that guarantee begins to unravel and when the risk of getting sick becomes something people are forced to calculate for themselves. Medicaid has always done more than cover medical bills. It has been a quiet promise stitched into the fabric of American life—a recognition that the risk of getting sick is not something most families can plan for, much less afford. When that promise is pulled back, as it was last week with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , health care stops feeling like a guarantee and starts feeling like a bet. And for millions, it's a bet they will decide they cannot take. The Promise That Became a Lifeline For nearly six decades, Medicaid operated as an invisible safety net, rising automatically when the economy faltered or when a diagnosis arrived unannounced. It was a hedge against both poverty and uncertainty, a system designed to catch people before a crisis became a catastrophe. Yet the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , formally known as H.R. 1, has fundamentally altered that arrangement. Lawmakers framed the bill as an overdue act of discipline: a way to cap Medicaid's costs, impose work requirements, and make states more accountable for their share of spending. On a balance sheet, the reforms look precise—federal liabilities are clearer, projections are neater, and the fiscal horizon is less volatile. But the trade-offs are not just financial. They are psychological and behavioral, etched into the quiet decisions families make when coverage ends. Behavioral economics helps explain why these decisions rarely unfold as policy architects imagine. A New Law Redefines the Rules Medicaid was always meant to be open-ended. Its funding model guaranteed that if more people lost jobs or fell into poverty, more federal dollars would follow. This arrangement recognized that health care is inherently unpredictable, that no family can perfectly forecast when a child will need an inhaler or a parent will need surgery. By removing that guarantee, the new law transfers uncertainty away from the federal treasury and onto households already living close to the edge. For many, the first moment of impact is deceptively mundane: a letter in the mailbox stating that their coverage is ending. What comes next is shaped by powerful, almost universal forces. When Health Insurance Feels Like a Losing Bet Present bias tells people to value today's savings over tomorrow's risks. A monthly premium feels like a luxury when the refrigerator is half empty and rent is overdue. Even if they understand the danger of going without insurance, uncertainty makes the alternatives—searching for plans, calculating probabilities, comparing deductibles—feel too daunting to confront. Some will try to find new coverage. Others will quietly decide to take their chances. This isn't simply a matter of calculation. It is the predictable result of systems designed without regard for how people actually behave when the floor beneath them shifts. The Quiet Calculus Behind Walking Away Even for those who recognize the risk, the next step is often the hardest. Medicaid, for all its bureaucracy, offers clarity: you are covered. When that certainty vanishes, people must decide whether to buy coverage themselves, estimate the odds of serious illness, and navigate the complexity of health plans. The discomfort of this ambiguity often leads to avoidance. Rather than confront the possibilities, many choose to delay the decision, telling themselves they will sort it out later. Why Coverage Starts to Look Too Expensive to Keep Compounding the problem is loss aversion, the reality that losing something once held feels far worse than never having it at all. For those who have relied on Medicaid for years, the experience of being cut off is not a budget adjustment but a rupture of trust. Even when subsidies exist, many will not take the next step. Familiar ground feels safer, even when it means going uninsured and hoping the worst does not come. These psychological forces do not show up in budget projections. They appear later, in emergency rooms and bankruptcy filings, in the small tragedies of untreated illness and debt that follows people for years. The Subtle Trade-Offs That Tip the Scales Supporters of the law often point to the success of managed care as proof that fixed payments can control costs. But that comparison misses a critical distinction. Managed care transferred risk from governments to insurers, but the federal commitment to match funding remained intact. This legislation severs that link. It turns Medicaid from a guarantee into a capped liability, decoupled from the unpredictable reality of illness and economic hardship. More than sixty percent of Medicaid enrollees are children, older adults, or people living with disabilities. Communities of color rely on it disproportionately, a reflection of generational inequities in income and employment. When the program contracts, it does not simply save money. It reallocates uncertainty downward, to those least able to absorb it, and it multiplies the strain that comes with knowing a single accident or diagnosis could change everything. On the Ground: An ER Surgeon's View Dr. Kimberly Joseph, a retired trauma and emergency surgeon and former Division Chair for Trauma Critical Care and Prevention in the Department of Trauma at the Stroger Hospital of Cook County in Chicago, explains that gaps in Medicaid coverage rarely influence whether trauma patients seek emergency care, but they frequently shape what happens next. 'Problems with insurance coverage could affect the discharge process—lack of insurance or Medicaid coverage could result in delays in getting patients to inpatient rehabilitation.' The complications don't end there. She notes recurring delays in accessing home health services, wound care, or even basic medical equipment like wheelchairs and canes. These disruptions ripple far beyond the patient's bedside. 'We often had patients discharged from other hospitals and told to 'go to County' because they were uninsured ,' she says. 'That created challenges for integrating care, tracking medications, and navigating systems that weren't built to share information.' Dr. Joseph's perspective is a reminder that the consequences of cutting Medicaid are rarely immediate and never contained. They don't stay confined to policy memos or budget reports. They appear in crowded hospital corridors, in the moments when a preventable condition becomes an emergency, and in the quiet calculus that forces families to decide whether health is a risk they are willing—or able—to take. A Commitment Receding Into Memory The savings Congress projects will appear clearly on ledgers. The costs, however, surface in other ways: delayed checkups, untreated diabetes, and emergency care that arrives too late. They show up in lost wages, missed school days, and families who decide—quietly, and often without telling anyone—that health insurance is a bet they can no longer afford to make. Medicaid is not merely a welfare program. It is a promise that in an uncertain world, some risks will be shared, not carried alone. As that promise recedes, the country must confront a simple question: does it still believe that no American should be one diagnosis away from financial ruin—or is health just another wager, left to those willing to take their chances?
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard was planning to distribute 100 air conditioners to Boston residents. Then came the Trump funding freeze.
For someone like Brown, who suffers from a lung disease that makes it hard to breathe, it's more than just miserable; it's also a health risk. Advertisement One hundred Boston residents were supposed to receive a window unit as early as June as part of a Harvard University study of making air conditioning more widely accessible, especially to those with medical conditions, as summers grow hotter and more humid. But as part of its far-reaching assault on the university, the Trump administration rescinded the money for the project. As a result, some residents, including Brown, received their units late, while others won't get them at all. Related : 'It really breaks my heart that yesterday was the day that folks could have really benefited from already having an air conditioner,' Gary Adamkiewicz, the project's leader and an associate professor of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in June, one day after temperatures hit 102 degrees. 'I was praying that the first heatwave in Boston would hold off until mid-July.' Advertisement As the Trump administration erased $3 billion in federal funding to Harvard this year as punishment for what it calls liberal bias and an alleged failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitism, the public health school was especially hard hit. The school depends on the federal government for 40 percent of its budget, and Washington's actions have upended the work of researchers, slowing or stopping projects that reach into the day-to-day lives of Americans trying to improve their situation in the most basic ways. 'People think of research as this ivory tower thing, just to learn for the sake of learning,' said Jonathan Levy, chair of the environmental health department at the Boston University School of Public Health, who was not involved in the Harvard study. 'But these are practical projects to help the most vulnerable in society.' Harvard has sued the Trump administration over the funding cuts, and a decision in the case is pending after oral arguments last week. Should the decision favor Harvard, the Trump administration likely will appeal. Other studies focused on the health of Bostonians were also hit. Dr. Mary Rice, a pulmonologist and director of the public health school's Center for Climate Health, and the Global Environment lost $750,000 for the final year of a five-year grant to study Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD. She enrolled 180 residents in the Boston area with COPD in a randomized clinical trial testing whether air purifiers protect them from harmful pollution, which can cause fatal asthma-like attacks in people with the illness. Advertisement The elaborate project included installing real air purifiers in half the homes and sham ones in the other half to allow for a robust comparison. Rice was not going to give up easily. She raised enough through bridge grants offered by Harvard to finish the study, but still does not have enough money to analyze blood and nasal fluid samples from participants to look for biomarkers of pollution exposure and inflammatory responses. She will store the samples in a freezer while she tries to raise additional funds. 'I have put so much energy into this study,' she said. 'I am trying to find a way.' Adamkiewicz's air conditioner study was part of a $3.75-million three-year grant that also included two other heat-related projects. The plan is for half of the participants to get air conditioning units this summer and half next summer, allowing researchers to compare the two groups. Participants, who must be ages 55 to 95, will fill out questionnaires about their health, documenting symptoms and doctors visits, and sensors will record the temperature and humidity in their homes. After several delays, Adamkiewicz scraped together enough money to move forward with a scaled back version of the project for 60 city residents, some of whom live in public housing, others in private residences. But the two other heat-related projects were canceled entirely: one to paint the roofs of 32 homes in South Africa white to see if that lowers indoor temperatures and improves residents' health; the second in Madagascar to open cooling centers that include freezers for fish, a diet staple that spoils faster in extreme temperatures. Given Boston's older housing stock, many people live without central air conditioning, and that is especially true for subsidized housing, most of which was built between the 1930s and 1960s. Of the roughly 10,000 units owned by the Boston Housing Authority, just 250 have ductless mini-splits that provide heating and cooling. Advertisement Brian Jordan, spokesman for the BHA, said Mayor Wu's administration is moving to install mini-splits in units as it upgrades properties over time. But this costly undertaking will take years. Meanwhile, he said, all the agency's developments for the elderly and the disabled have air-conditioned community rooms. Residents are responsible for buying their own window units. Jordan said the agency doesn't track how many residents have air conditioners, but said the vast majority do. Brown, who lives the Franklin Fields complex, said some of his neighbors do not have air conditioning . Lawrence Brown's window unit. David L Ryan/ Globe Staff 'Some people are suffering,' said Brown, wiping his forehead with a t-shirt as he sat in a nearby park, the day before his unit was installed. Brown said he could not afford to buy his own air conditioner and that he has dealt with high temperatures by taking four or five showers a day, staying with his girlfriend in her air-conditioned apartment, and wading in the ocean near Savin Hill Park. Brown, who has COPD, uses his inhaler more often in extreme heat. 'There are times when I feel like I'm suffocating,' he said. 'I can't breathe, so I would try to come outside where maybe there was a cool breeze or something.' At the Boston Housing Authority's Heritage development in East Boston, many of the elderly and disabled residents cannot afford air conditioning units, said Adam Amodeo, whose 68-year-old uncle lives there. 'It boils down to how much money you have,' he said. Advertisement Affordability is a key aspect of Adamkiewicz's study. Those who get their units this year and live in private housing will receive a $100 subsidy for electricity; next summer there will be no subsidy. Public housing residents don't pay for their own electricity. Researchers plan to compare air conditioner use among the different groups to see if the cost of electricity is an obstacle, or whether the cost and difficult installation is the main problem. 'We're trying to build the knowledge base so we could do something bigger going forward,' Adamkiewicz said. On July 17, Brown became one of the lucky residents to receive a window air conditioning unit in his apartment But 40 other vulnerable residents will have lost the chance to join the study. On Monday, another hot, humid day, Brown was asked how he was doing in his newly outfitted apartment. 'Are you kidding me?' he replied. 'I am in Disney Land.' Globe correspondent Jade Lozada contributed reporting. Liz Kowalczyk can be reached at
