---
title: "Adults with type 1 diabetes adopt automated insulin delivery in four Italian NHS clinics; diabetologist visits rise by up to 39.3 pp."
sdDatePublished: "2026-09-14T04:09:00Z"
source: "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.12976"
topics:
  - name: "health care provider"
    identifier: "medtop:20000278"
  - name: "medical research"
    identifier: "medtop:20000737"
  - name: "healthcare policy"
    identifier: "medtop:20000479"
locations:
  - "Emilia-Romagna"
  - "Faenza"
  - "Ravenna"
  - "Lugo"
  - "Rimini"
  - "Italy"
---


Adults with type 1 diabetes adopt automated insulin delivery in four Italian NHS clinics; diabetologist visits rise by up to 39.3 pp.

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

Complements or Substitutes? Technology Adoption
and the Demand for Clinical Care: Evidence from
Automated Insulin Delivery
Moslem Rashidi∗
Cristina Ugolini†
Gianluca Fiorentini‡
Department of Economics, University of Bologna
Piazza Scaravilli, 40126 Bologna, Italy
September 14, 2026
Abstract
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 engage-
ment. The estimated effect on the probability of a diabetologist visit is 16.3 per-
centage 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 ref-
erence semester before adoption. HbA1c testing and a process-of-care index move
∗Corresponding author. Email: moslem.rashidi2@unibo.it.
†Email: cristina.ugolini@unibo.it.
‡Email: gianluca.fiorentini@unibo.it.
1
arXiv:2609.12976v1 [econ.GN] 11 Sep 2026

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 com-
plements 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

1
Introduction
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 re-
sponse to real-time glucose data. The system modulates basal insulin delivery and may
also administer automatic correction boluses, while patients remain responsible for meal-
time 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
3

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 man-
agement, 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 manag-
ing their health may reduce their demand for purchased medical care. A related mech-
anism 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 con-
tacts 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. Evi-
dence from patient-facing technologies likewise provides little support for a simple substi-
tution 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
4

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 dia-
betes 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 pa-
tient’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 oc-
curs at different times across patients. When treatment effects are heterogeneous across
cohorts and over time, conventional two-way fixed-effects event-study estimators may as-
sign 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
5

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 probability of a
diabetologist visit is 16.3 percentage points one semester after adoption and rises to
39.3 percentage points four semesters later against a pre-adoption mean in the reference
semester immediately before adoption of 55.2 percent. HbA1c testing and the broader
process-of-care index move in the same direction, although the evidence for these out-
comes is weaker.
Because the visit estimates remain sensitive to departures from the
extrapolation assumption, we interpret them as conditional on that identifying restriction
rather than as design-based causal effects (Rambachan and Roth, 2023). Overall, the
results indicate that AID does not reduce routine specialist involvement. This pattern
is consistent with medical automation complementing, rather than simply substituting
for, professional clinical inputs. More broadly, patient-facing technologies may alter the
composition of healthcare production and the demand for clinical labor, with implications
for the cost structure of chronic care and specialist capacity.
The paper makes two contributions. First, we provide evide