County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, A Healthier Nation, County by County

The County Health Rankings models and measures

Our Approach

The County Health Rankings model of population health

What can I do?

Action Center

Explore guides and tools for improving health.

What Works for Health

Explore programs and policies that work!

What can I learn from others?


Key findings from the last four years of County Health Rankings and other national reports.

County-by-County Blog

Project updates, commentaries, events and news about health across the nation from the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps team.

Diabetes monitoring

Diabetes Monitoring is the percentage of diabetic fee-for-service Medicare patients ages 65-75 whose blood sugar control was monitored in the past year using a test of their glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.

Measure Tabs


Reason for Ranking

Regular HbA1c monitoring among diabetic patients is considered the standard of care. It helps assess the management of diabetes over the long term by providing an estimate of how well a patient has managed his or her diabetes over the past two to three months. When hyperglycemia is addressed and controlled, complications from diabetes can be delayed or prevented.

Measurement Strengths and Limitations

Evidence suggests that implementing disease management programs that target multiple components of chronic diseases can improve quality of care.[1] The use of HbA1c testing to measure glycated hemoglobin for long-term monitoring of diabetes is widely accepted as one component of a comprehensive disease management program.[2] HbA1c testing is recommended for all patients  as part of the initial assessment after a diabetes diagnosis, and then on a routine basis as a part of the patient’s comprehensive diabetes care plan.[3] Widespread acceptance of the HbA1c test as a standard component of competent diabetes care makes it an ideal indicator to estimate quality of care.

A weakness of the measure is that it uses Medicare claims data, which limits the population evaluated to individuals age 65 and older. This measure, therefore, may potentially miss trends and disparities among younger age groups.

Explore the Data