1,608 adults with type 1 diabetes adopt automated insulin delivery in four Italian NHS clinics; drives 39.3pp increase in diabetologist visits

1,608 adults with type 1 diabetes adopt automated insulin delivery in four Italian NHS clinics; drives 39.3pp increase in diabetologist visits

Complements or Substitutes? Technology Adoption and the Demand for Clinical Care: Evidence from Automated Insulin Delivery

Callaway, B., Sant’Anna, P.H.C., 2021. Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics , 225, 200–230. doi: https:

Chandra, A., Skinner, J., 2012. Technology growth and expenditure growth in health care. Journal of Economic Literature , 50, 645–680. doi: https:

Freyaldenhoven, S., Hansen, C., Pérez Pérez, J., & Shapiro, J. M., 2025a. Visualization, Identification, and Estimation in the Linear Panel Event-Study Design. In V. Chernozhukov, J. Hörner, E. La Ferrara, & I. Werning (eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Twelfth World Congress, Vol. 2, pp. 225–268. Cambridge University Press . doi: 10.1017

Freyaldenhoven, S., Hansen, C.B., Pérez, J.P., Shapiro, J.M. and Carreto, C., 2025b. xtevent: Estimation and visualization in the linear panel event-study design. The Stata Journal , 25, pp.97–135. doi: 10.1177

Karter, A.J., Parker, M.M., Moffet, H.H., Gilliam, L.K., Dlott, R., 2021. Association of real-time continuous glucose monitoring with glycemic control and acute metabolic events among patients with insulin-treated diabetes. JAMA , 325, 2273-–2284. doi: https:

Roth, J., 2022. Pretest with caution: event-study estimates after testing for parallel trends. American Economic Review: Insights , 4, 305–322. doi: https:

Sun, L., Abraham, S., 2021. Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics , 225, 175–199. doi: https:

Complements or Substitutes? Technology Adoption and the Demand for Clinical Care: Evidence from Automated Insulin Delivery

Whether medical technology reduces or increases demand for professional care is central to assessing its implications for healthcare costs. We study the adoption of automated insulin delivery (AID) among 1,608 adults with type 1 diabetes treated in four specialist clinics of the Italian National Health Service, 283 of whom adopt AID. Because adoption is clinically targeted and staggered, we combine risk-set coarsened exact matching, which retains 181 of the 283 adopters with comparable untreated controls, with a staggered event-study design and adjust for differential pre-adoption trends by extrapolating the untreated trajectory in event time. After adjustment, AID adoption is associated with increased routine outpatient engagement. The estimated effect on the probability of a diabetologist visit is 16.3 percentage points one semester after adoption and rises to 39.3 percentage points four semesters after adoption, against an observed visit probability of 55.2% in the reference semester before adoption. HbA1c testing and a process-of-care index move in the same direction, although the evidence is weaker. The visit estimates remain sensitive to the extrapolation assumption and should be interpreted conditionally on that restriction. The results are consistent with a task-based view of medical technology in which automation substitutes for routine dosing decisions but complements clinical labor by generating new interpretive, adjustment, and supervisory tasks. Patient-facing automation may shift healthcare resources toward sustained specialist involvement, implying that its economic consequences depend not only on device costs and clinical effectiveness, but also on how technology reshapes the demand for professional care.

Keywords: Automated insulin delivery; Type 1 diabetes; Healthcare utilization; Task-based technical change; Staggered difference-in-differences; Event-study design

JEL classification: I11, O33, J23, I12

New medical technologies are typically evaluated on clinical grounds: do they improve health outcomes? From a health economics perspective, however, the question is broader. Do they reduce the need for professional clinical services, or do they create new forms of demand for specialist input, monitoring, and follow-up? A technology that improves outcomes while also increasing specialist contact changes the cost structure of care, not just its quality. Technological change and evolving medical practice are major drivers of healthcare expenditure growth, in part because they alter the intensity and composition of care delivered to patients (Chandra and Skinner, 2012; Laudicella et al., 2022). Assessing the economic consequences of medical technology therefore requires understanding not only whether it improves health, but also how it changes the demand for professional care.

The economics of automation provides a useful framework for understanding this trade-off. Acemoglu and Restrepo (2019) develop a framework in which automation can displace workers from tasks it takes over but can also create new tasks in which labor keeps a comparative advantage, an effect that raises rather than lowers labor demand. Both displacement from automated tasks and reinstatement through the creation of new ones have been documented in manufacturing and digital services (Autor, Levy, and Murnane, 2003; Acemoglu and Restrepo, 2019). Applied to healthcare, this framework implies that medical automation may reduce some forms of professional input while increasing the need for others. Yet whether this reinstatement mechanism operates in clinical care remains largely unexplored.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems combine a continuous glucose monitor, an insulin pump, and a control algorithm that automatically adjusts insulin delivery in response to real-time glucose data. The system modulates basal insulin delivery and may also administer automatic correction boluses, while patients remain responsible for mealtime boluses and for responding to alarms and technical problems. Many patients eligible for AID already use a glucose sensor or an insulin pump, so continuous glucose data and insulin-delivery records are not new in themselves. What distinguishes AID is the closed-loop integration of these components: glucose readings, insulin delivery, and the algorithm’s dosing decisions are recorded together as part of the same treatment process. This integrated record gives clinicians information not available under conventional management, even for patients with prior sensor or pump experience, and may therefore create new needs for specialist interpretation, treatment adjustment, and follow-up.

The opposite prediction is also plausible. In Grossman’s (1972) health-production framework, a technology that raises the productivity of the patient’s own time in managing their health may reduce their demand for purchased medical care. A related mechanism is risk compensation (Peltzman, 1975): if technology lowers the consequences of imperfect self-management, patients may rationally reduce other forms of precaution, including scheduled visits and monitoring. Both mechanisms therefore predict fewer contacts with professional care after adoption, although behavioural frictions may weaken or complicate this response (Baicker, Mullainathan, and Schwartzstein, 2015). Consistent with this substitution channel, Schmid (2015) finds that greater access to consumer health information lowers demand for physician visits. In that setting, however, the information is used directly by patients, whereas AID generates data and algorithmic decisions that may themselves require clinical interpretation.

Empirical evidence on whether medical technology substitutes for professional care is mixed. In the broader health-IT literature, Agha (2014) finds that hospital information technology raised spending without commensurate quality gains, while Lee, McCullough, and Town (2013) find only modest productivity contributions from IT investment. Evidence from patient-facing technologies likewise provides little support for a simple substitution effect. Roubos et al. (2025) study a telemonitoring platform used as a substitute for outpatient visits in COPD and as a complement to them in asthma: visit frequency held steady in both groups, while remote consultations rose substantially. Similarly, Zeltzer et al. (2023) find that adoption of a home diagnostic device raised primary-care utilization by 12 percent while reducing use of more intensive settings, with no increase in total spending. Relatedly, Horn, Sacarny, and Zhou (2022) show that the adoption of robotic surgery can expand utilization and alter the allocation of patients across providers. These findings suggest that new technologies may reallocate the composition of care rather than simply reduce its use.

For AID specifically, existing evidence has focused on clinical outcomes and acute health care utilization: adopters experience lower rates of emergency and inpatient care (Manjelievskaia et al., 2025), alongside the improvements in glycaemic control documented in the clinical literature (Burnside et al., 2022; Ståhl et al., 2026). What remains unknown is how AID affects routine outpatient engagement: the specialist visits and laboratory monitoring that constitute the recurring component of diabetes care.

Two features of our institutional setting may further favor complementarity between AID and professional care, although neither determines the direction of the utilization response. First, prescribing physicians retain responsibility for monitoring treatment and device use after adoption. Second, within the publicly funded Italian NHS, routine diabetes care entails little or no point-of-use monetary cost for patients covered by chronic-disease exemptions. Together, these features may make additional specialist monitoring more likely to be incorporated into the care pathway following AID adoption.

Evaluating how AID adoption affects healthcare utilization is challenging because its causal effect is difficult to identify for two main reasons. First, adoption is clinically targeted rather than randomly assigned. Physicians prescribe AID in response to a patient’s evolving clinical trajectory, so adoption timing is correlated with within-patient changes in disease severity that also affect healthcare utilization. Adopters and untreated comparison patients may therefore differ not only in their clinical history at the time of adoption, but also in the trajectory of utilization leading up to it. Second, adoption occurs at different times across patients. When treatment effects are heterogeneous across cohorts and over time, conventional two-way fixed-effects event-study estimators may assign negative weight to some cohort-time effects and distort the estimated dynamic path (de Chaisemartin and D’Haultæuille, 2020; Goodman-Bacon, 2021).

The design addresses these problems in three steps. First, risk-set coarsened exact matching pairs adopters with untreated comparison patients who share a comparable pre-adoption clinical history within each adoption risk set, retaining adopters whose history has support among eligible controls and reducing differences in observed clinical differences at the time of adoption. Second, the interaction-weighted estimator of Sun and Abraham (2021) builds the dynamic treatment path from comparisons between newly treated and not-yet-treated or never-treated patients only, avoiding the negative weighting problem that can arise in conventional two-way fixed-effects event studies. Third, following Dobkin et al. (2018) and Freyaldenhoven et al. (2025a, 2025b), we project the pre-adoption trajectory into the post-adoption window and assess whether the estimated effect remains after accounting for that trend. This projection rests on an explicit identifying restriction that residual confounding follows a low-dimensional path in event time. We treat this restriction as an assumption to be made transparent and assessed, not as a property delivered by the event study design itself.

We find that adoption raises routine outpatient engagement once differential pre-adoption trends are taken into account. The estimated effect on the prob