Fact Check: Are cgms covered by insurance?

Published May 8, 2025
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Are Continuous Glucose Monitors Covered by Insurance? ## Introduction The claim that continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are covered by insurance is...

Are Continuous Glucose Monitors Covered by Insurance?

Introduction

The claim that continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are covered by insurance is a topic of significant interest for individuals managing diabetes. CGMs are devices that allow for real-time monitoring of blood glucose levels, which can improve diabetes management. However, the extent of insurance coverage for these devices can vary widely based on factors such as the type of diabetes, the specific insurance plan, and the medical necessity criteria set by insurers.

What We Know

  1. Medicare Coverage: Medicare provides coverage for therapeutic CGMs, but specific eligibility requirements must be met. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), individuals must have type 1 diabetes and demonstrate routine blood glucose monitoring through fingerstick tests to qualify for coverage 29.

  2. Insurance Variability: Many health insurance plans, including private insurers, may cover CGMs, but coverage is not universal. GoodRx notes that coverage can depend on the specific plan and whether the device is deemed medically necessary 34.

  3. Eligibility Criteria: According to a study published in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, eligibility for CGM coverage often includes documentation of frequent blood glucose testing and a diagnosis of diabetes 1.

  4. Cost Considerations: Even with insurance, CGMs can be expensive. GoodRx highlights that out-of-pocket costs can still be significant, depending on the insurance plan and any deductibles or copayments that apply 5.

  5. Navigating Coverage: Resources such as the American Diabetes Association and various legal clarity organizations provide guidance on how to navigate insurance coverage for CGMs, indicating that understanding the specific criteria and processes is crucial for obtaining coverage 478.

Analysis

The evidence surrounding CGM insurance coverage is mixed and varies significantly based on the source.

  • Credibility of Sources: The sources cited include government websites (Medicare), health organizations (American Diabetes Association), and consumer health platforms (GoodRx). Government sources like Medicare are generally reliable as they provide official guidelines and updates. However, consumer health platforms may have biases based on their target audience or potential partnerships with healthcare providers or manufacturers.

  • Potential Bias: GoodRx and similar platforms may have a vested interest in promoting CGMs, as they often provide pricing information and may benefit from increased sales of these devices. This could lead to a bias in how they present coverage information.

  • Methodological Concerns: The variability in coverage is often attributed to differing eligibility criteria among insurers. For example, while Medicare has specific requirements, private insurers may have different standards that are not as clearly defined. This lack of uniformity complicates the ability to make broad claims about CGM coverage.

  • Conflicts of Interest: Some sources, particularly those affiliated with manufacturers of CGMs, may present information that favors the use of their products. For example, the FreeStyle Libre website discusses affordability but may not provide a comprehensive view of all costs associated with CGM use 10.

Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The claim that continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are covered by insurance is partially true. Evidence indicates that Medicare does provide coverage for CGMs under specific conditions, particularly for individuals with type 1 diabetes who meet certain eligibility criteria. Additionally, many private insurance plans may also cover CGMs, but this coverage is not guaranteed and varies significantly based on the individual plan and medical necessity determinations.

However, the nuances of insurance coverage, including the variability in eligibility criteria and potential out-of-pocket costs, complicate the assertion that CGMs are universally covered. The evidence suggests that while some individuals may have access to coverage, others may face significant barriers, including high costs and differing requirements among insurers.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations in the available evidence, as much of it is based on varying interpretations of insurance policies and the specific circumstances of individual patients. The lack of uniformity in coverage across different insurers adds to the uncertainty surrounding this issue.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding CGM coverage and consult with their healthcare providers and insurance representatives to understand their specific coverage options and requirements.

Sources

  1. Anderson, J. E. (2020). Current Eligibility Requirements for CGM Coverage Are ... Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. Retrieved from PMC
  2. Medicare. (n.d.). Therapeutic Continuous Glucose Monitors Coverage. Retrieved from Medicare.gov
  3. GoodRx. (n.d.). Does Insurance Cover Diabetes Monitoring Devices? Retrieved from GoodRx
  4. Legal Clarity. (n.d.). How to Get Continuous Glucose Monitors Covered by Insurance. Retrieved from Legal Clarity
  5. GoodRx. (n.d.). How Much Does a Continuous Glucose Monitor Cost? Retrieved from GoodRx
  6. Legal Clarity. (2025). Does Insurance Cover Continuous Glucose Monitors? Retrieved from Legal Clarity
  7. Beyond Type 1. (n.d.). Why Won't My Insurance Cover a Continuous Glucose Monitor? Retrieved from Beyond Type 1
  8. American Diabetes Association. (n.d.). CGM Insurance Coverage Look-Up Tool. Retrieved from ADCES
  9. American Diabetes Association. (2023). FAQs on CGM Coverage Criteria Changes in Medicare. Retrieved from ADA
  10. FreeStyle. (n.d.). Cost and Insurance Coverage | FreeStyle Libre US. Retrieved from FreeStyle

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are cgms covered by insurance?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are cgms covered by insurance?

May 2, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is QC Kinetix covered by insurance?
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Is QC Kinetix covered by insurance?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is QC Kinetix covered by insurance?

Jun 30, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are cgms accurate?
Partially True

Fact Check: Are cgms accurate?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are cgms accurate?

May 8, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are cgms accurate?
Partially True

Fact Check: Are cgms accurate?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are cgms accurate?

May 2, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Biden's former aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline.
Partially True

Fact Check: Biden's former aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Biden's former aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline.

Jul 9, 2025
Read more →