The average always downplays the extreme. Statistically, an average without contextual “swing” information is nearly meaningless.
I do not yet see exceptional merit in the reasoning behind this change. I do see powerful monetary reasons to suspect the decision.
BTW, to say that the A1C “has been accepted” when the change has just been proposed is premature, IMO.
......“has been accepted”......
ok, I’ll concede that statement as too specific.
My personal physician made the diagnosis after watching the fasting glucose results for a while. He than introduced the A1c and it now seems to be the primary number in spite of considerable variance in the fasting glucose.
I think perhaps your fixation on cost is misplaced because to obtain a continuous data stream, it is necessary to record fasting sugar daily and plot a curve. Then take the curve and plot a moving average. Why bother? The A1C does the job nicely while eliminating a lot of bother and other tests.
This is especially true for those of us at the low end of the numbers.
The a1c has been the bell-weather of control since it became available.
The bottom line is this: Most of us know when we're doing something to make the situation better or worse. I don't need a meter to tell me that the hot dog I just ate on that sweet, white bun is going to cause a big jump in my BG for a couple of hours.
Further, my fasting BG is going to be dependent on how I treated myself yesterday.