# Control too good for CGM

**URL:** <https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/control-too-good-for-cgm/2650>\
**Category:** C/GM\
**Tags:** cgm, dexcom\
**Created:** [November 16, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/control-too-good-for-cgm/2650 "2017-11-16T14:24:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jag1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jag1](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/u/jag1)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/control-too-good-for-cgm/2650/13 "2017-11-16T23:39:38Z")

</div>

> [@Chris](#):
>
> It isn’t a huge stretch to make this argument to an insurance reviewer on an appeal, especially if the person was hypoglycemic unaware.

If someone is hypoglycemic unaware, then that should be sufficient to claim the need for a CGM regardless of whether they drive. And in fact that is similar to what the OP wrote he was asked to do - provide some evidence (that the OP said he couldn’t supply) that his BG was volatile to dangerous levels. Which is also what John said he did in order to get covered for his CGM:

> [@John58](#):
>
> These criteria were: “Unexplained large fluctuations in daily pre-prandial glucose values… Unexplained frequent hypoglycemic attacks” among other things. I sent them a boatload of BG meter logs, noted low BG in the letter and highlighted on the logs, and was approved.

And back to what you wrote:

> [@Chris](#):
>
> Just because Type 1’s have been driving without CGM’s doesn’t mean that there is not room for improvement. Especially if the patient desires it.

This sounds to me like a slippery slope. Would you support the idea that only Type1’s who wear CGMs should be allowed to drive? I certainly would not.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.fudiabetes.org/t/control-too-good-for-cgm/2650)._