Home Testing for OSA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

michaelrack

All In at the wrong time
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
4,339
Reaction score
1,602
Has preliminary CMS (Medicare) approval of home testing for sleep apnea influenced anyone's decision wether to go into sleep medicine?
In my opinion, the approval of 4 and 1 channel devices for home diagnosis will significantly alter the financial viability of the specialty.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Not mine. I decided on sleep medicine mainly due to an interest in primary insomnia and psychiatric-illness related insomnia. Future of sleep medicine lies, imho, in insomnia and other similar disorders.

My assumption is that the above decision will also make sleep medicine less competitive.
 
How do you guys feel it will change the financial landscape of sleep medicine?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
How do you guys feel it will change the financial landscape of sleep medicine?

Reading sleep studies performed in a sleep lab is the most profitable part of sleep medicine.

At home sleep studies will reduce the # of in-lab sleep studies.

Many of the portable studies will be ordered and read by non sleep specialists, further reducing the income of sleep specialists.
 
Now the media is talking about it....



Snoring May Mask Dangerous Condition
By LAURAN NEERGAARD,AP
Posted: 2008-01-07 16:07:01
Filed Under: Health News

WASHINGTON (Jan. 7) - Loud snoring doesn't just annoy your spouse. It could signal dangerous sleep apnea, yet millions go undiagnosed.

A government move may help change that: Medicare is poised to allow at-home testing for sleep apnea - letting people snooze in their own beds instead of spending the night in a sleep laboratory.
It's a controversial proposal, but potentially a far-reaching one. Some 18 million Americans are estimated to suffer from sleep apnea, yet specialists think fewer than half know it.

"It's been awkward and inconvenient and expensive to get a sleep test, and now that should be improved," says Dr. Terence Davidson of the University of California, San Diego, a longtime proponent of home-testing.

Today, Medicare pays for sleep apnea treatment - called CPAP, a mask that blows air through the nose while sleeping - only for seniors diagnosed in a sleep lab. Last month, Medicare proposed covering those diagnosed with cheaper home tests, too. The public may comment on the proposal until next week; final approval is expected in March.

While sleep apnea is a problem for seniors, it is most common in middle-aged men. But private insurers now reluctant to cover home apnea testing are expected to follow the government's lead, thus easing access for all ages.

Sleep apnea doesn't just deprive family members of their own zzzz's. Sufferers actually quit breathing for 30 seconds or so at a time, as their throat muscles temporarily collapse. They jerk awake to gasp in air, sometimes more than 15 times an hour. They're fatigued the next day because their brains never got enough deep sleep.

Severe apnea increases the chance of a car crash sevenfold. Research from UCSD suggests 1,400 deaths each year are caused by drivers with sleep apnea.

Worse, sleep apnea stresses the body in ways that also increase risk of high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke and diabetes.

Not every apnea patient is a bad snorer, and a low rumble may not be cause for concern. But sleep apnea's trademark is bad snoring, the snorting, choking kind. Other risk factors: Being overweight, having small airways, and apnea in the family.

Yet patients don't remember the nightly breathing struggle, and often don't see a doctor unless a family member complains about snoring - or until daytime sleepiness gets so bad they can't function.

Only then comes the test debate.

There are dozens of sleep disorders. A night slumbering in a sleep lab, hooked to monitors that measure both breathing and brain waves while health workers watch, has long been the standard for telling who has sleep apnea or another disorder.

But this lab-based polysomnography, or PSG, can cost $1,500. And while access has improved, there are swaths of the country where reaching a sleep lab can mean a few hundred miles' drive.

For about $500, home tests use primarily breathing monitors to detect only sleep apnea, not other disorders. Hook it up at bedtime, and a doctor checks the recordings later.

A home test can miss apnea, because it won't signal if someone never fell into that deep REM sleep where breathing is most likely to falter, says Dr. Thomas Gravelyn of the Saint Joseph Mercy Hospital sleep center in Ann Arbor, Mich., who opposes the Medicare change.

"You have this good feeling that everything was taken care of, when in fact it wasn't," he says.

"It certainly is possible to diagnose severe apnea at home," adds Dr. Joyce Walsleben, chief of New York University's sleep center. "What if it isn't severe? Are you willing to say it doesn't exist at all if you get a negative study?"

Still, a Canadian study published last year randomly assigned suspected apnea sufferers to either a sleep lab or home testing, and found they worked equally well.

Last month, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, which represents sleep centers, changed its position to say home tests can help certain high-risk patients - but should be administered by sleep specialists.
Medicare's proposal wouldn't limit which doctors offer home tests. The American Academy of Otolaryngology, head-and-neck surgeons, requested the change.

In fact, Medicare concluded a sleep-lab test isn't perfect, either - and thus proposed that all patients get a 12-week trial of CPAP treatment. Only if their doctors certify they're being helped would treatment continue.

That's important, because about half of apnea patients prescribed CPAP struggle to use it, says Dr. Charles Atwood of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a home-test proponent. What he calls tricks of the trade - trying differently shaped masks, adjusting the air pressure, adding a humidifier to moisten nostrils - early could keep more of them in care.

Consider Raymond Miles, 57, diagnosed with a sleep-lab study a few years ago. While he felt better with CPAP treatment, Miles quit it in frustration when he couldn't get help maintaining it.

Two weeks ago, nudged by his wife, Miles underwent a home test with a different doctor to see if it's time to try care again.

"There's a different level of comfort being at home," Miles says of the testing.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
 
Hmmm..


Why does CXR vs. CT scan or Sigmoidoscopy vs. Colonoscopy come to mind when I see this issue. So basically the home test is a screen and if you suspect something you could get a more powerful test like the inpatient sleep study..sorta like a CT scan compared to a CXR.

Frankly, this might be a very positive thing. Suddenly, you will get primary care to ask for this study to be done cause it's easy and is at home. Next you get the sleep specialist to take a look once the study suspects something.
 
Why does CXR vs. CT scan or Sigmoidoscopy vs. Colonoscopy come to mind when I see this issue. So basically the home test is a screen and if you suspect something you could get a more powerful test like the inpatient sleep study..sorta like a CT scan compared to a CXR.

Frankly, this might be a very positive thing. Suddenly, you will get primary care to ask for this study to be done cause it's easy and is at home. Next you get the sleep specialist to take a look once the study suspects something.

In my pessimistic view, that's not how it's really going to work though . . .

The radiology comparison is not a valid one for a couple of reasons. First, CT is a technical advancement over plain film. See a funny shadow on xray? It's off for a CT to better define it. The home PSG is not being advanced as a screening tool -- it's intended to totally replace attended PSGs as much as possible. Applying this to the world of radiology, this would be as if you started off doing CT as your standard diagnostic test and then were told "OK, from now on you have to just use plain film." Progress? I think not. It's a technologic step backward.

Second, PSG is really a pretty specific test for a limited array of problems. As such, it's the start of a pretty well defined and not too complex algorithm: PSG --> + for OSA (RARELY do you get a false negative) --> CPAP. Radiology tests generate a much more varied response because they can find a multitude of different potential pathologies, so there's a lot more potential need for subspecialists to get involved to sort things out.

A home PSG demonstrating OSA will lead directly to an Rx for auto-titrating CPAP. No need to go to a sleep doc just for that. The patient will probably only end up seeing the sleep specialist if they "fail" an empiric auto-CPAP trial. At that point, the high-money part of the workup (the PSG) has already been done in the eyes of the insurer, so the sleep doc will be left holding the bag of a suboptimal diagnostic study and repeated low-reimbursing followup visits to troubleshoot interface problems with dissatisfied patients.

There will, of course, be some subset of patients in whom a repeat, attended, in-facility PSG will be medically justified, but getting that will rapidly become, I suspect, a nightmare insofar as having to convince the insurer to pay for it.

Also, I suspect the professional component reimbursement will be slashed for reading home studies as compared to attended PSGs, because the home studies use fewer data channels (no EEG, no EMG, mostly just respiratory and position data). So insurers will argue that since there's less data, it must therefore be easier to interpret (actually, the opposite will probably be the clinical reality) and therefore should be reimbursed at a lower rate.

I think sleep med is in for a chaotic couple of years.
 
In my pessimistic view, that's not how it's really going to work though . . .

The radiology comparison is not a valid one for a couple of reasons. First, CT is a technical advancement over plain film. See a funny shadow on xray? It's off for a CT to better define it. The home PSG is not being advanced as a screening tool -- it's intended to totally replace attended PSGs as much as possible. Applying this to the world of radiology, this would be as if you started off doing CT as your standard diagnostic test and then were told "OK, from now on you have to just use plain film." Progress? I think not. It's a technologic step backward.

Second, PSG is really a pretty specific test for a limited array of problems. As such, it's the start of a pretty well defined and not too complex algorithm: PSG --> + for OSA (RARELY do you get a false negative) --> CPAP. Radiology tests generate a much more varied response because they can find a multitude of different potential pathologies, so there's a lot more potential need for subspecialists to get involved to sort things out.

A home PSG demonstrating OSA will lead directly to an Rx for auto-titrating CPAP. No need to go to a sleep doc just for that. The patient will probably only end up seeing the sleep specialist if they "fail" an empiric auto-CPAP trial. At that point, the high-money part of the workup (the PSG) has already been done in the eyes of the insurer, so the sleep doc will be left holding the bag of a suboptimal diagnostic study and repeated low-reimbursing followup visits to troubleshoot interface problems with dissatisfied patients.

There will, of course, be some subset of patients in whom a repeat, attended, in-facility PSG will be medically justified, but getting that will rapidly become, I suspect, a nightmare insofar as having to convince the insurer to pay for it.

Also, I suspect the professional component reimbursement will be slashed for reading home studies as compared to attended PSGs, because the home studies use fewer data channels (no EEG, no EMG, mostly just respiratory and position data). So insurers will argue that since there's less data, it must therefore be easier to interpret (actually, the opposite will probably be the clinical reality) and therefore should be reimbursed at a lower rate.

I think sleep med is in for a chaotic couple of years.

I respectfully disagree. CXR is less sensitive and less specific than Chest CT, do we agree on that? Home sleep study is less sensitive and less specific than an inpatient sleep study, right? If we agree that home sleep study is less specific for sleep apnea than inpatient sleep study (ie more likely to call something sleep apnea when it isnt) then we agree that the comparison to CXR and CT chest is accurate. You will need an inpatient sleep study to confirm the diagnosis in many cases and thus preserve it's value.

Two things I forsee:

1) Just like cardiologists will not take an echo from someone else... you will not see a sleep medicine physician take a sleep study from someone else. Insurance wont pay for the inpatient sleep study cause they can do a home study? Well sir then you have to pay for it cause it is necessary. Suddenly sleep has become an optional thing like plastics/fertility/botox.

2) You will start seeing less and less of the people who dont really need a sleep study.

The common PCP who sends out for sleep studies will no longer be able to bill for inpatient sleep study cause now the insurance will classify that as a subspecialty that only a sleep medicine certified physician can do.

Finally, if a subspecialty is going to base its entire value based on one procedure... then we got a problem and this subspecialty needs to improve itself. It's like basing all pulmonology on chest CTs.
 
I respectfully disagree. CXR is less sensitive and less specific than Chest CT, do we agree on that? Home sleep study is less sensitive and less specific than an inpatient sleep study, right?

Agreed.


If we agree that home sleep study is less specific for sleep apnea than inpatient sleep study (ie more likely to call something sleep apnea when it isnt) then we agree that the comparison to CXR and CT chest is accurate. You will need an inpatient sleep study to confirm the diagnosis in many cases and thus preserve it's value.

Disagreed, because there's already another and even cheaper commonly used screening tool for OSA: overnight home oximetry. If you want a quick screen, send the patient home with a pulse ox. When he brings it back you will (or maybe won't, if it's negative) see cyclic desats over the course of the night. THEN you get the PSG (home or attended, as the case may be) to confirm OSA.

1) Just like cardiologists will not take an echo from someone else... you will not see a sleep medicine physician take a sleep study from someone else.

But the home sleep study won't necessarily be from "someone else." It may well be from the sleep doc himself. Scenario: Primary care doc wants sleep study. Writes Rx/referral for study. Patient takes referral to sleep lab. Insurance company says "We only pay for home studies." Since sleep doc was only give referral to do a diagnostic test, not a full consultation, he really doesn't have any grounds at this point to argue "hey, I think this guy really needs an attended PSG." So he has no choice but to do the home study. Report then goes back to primary care doc.

The AASM may try to get around this by trying to convince CMS to require a sleep medicine consultation prior to PSG, but I don't think there's any precedent for that. I don't have to send someone for a full cardiology consult if I just want an echo, do I?


2) You will start seeing less and less of the people who dont really need a sleep study.

I'm not sure what you mean by "people who don't need a sleep study." I get a very low rate of negative studies.

The common PCP who sends out for sleep studies will no longer be able to bill for inpatient sleep study cause now the insurance will classify that as a subspecialty that only a sleep medicine certified physician can do.

The PCP isn't billing for sleep studies unless he's reading them. I don't think there is any diagnostic test that's limited to one specialty. There's family practice docs who do and bill for colonoscopies. . .

Finally, if a subspecialty is going to base its entire value based on one procedure... then we got a problem and this subspecialty needs to improve itself. It's like basing all pulmonology on chest CTs.

It's not the only procedure we do, but it is the "bread and butter." That's not too different from, say, GI . . . they do a bunch of stuff, but the vast bulk of their procedural business is looking up peoples butts.

And by the way, chest CTs go to rads, not pulmonology, no?
 
Agreed.




Disagreed, because there's already another and even cheaper commonly used screening tool for OSA: overnight home oximetry. If you want a quick screen, send the patient home with a pulse ox. When he brings it back you will (or maybe won't, if it's negative) see cyclic desats over the course of the night. THEN you get the PSG (home or attended, as the case may be) to confirm OSA.



But the home sleep study won't necessarily be from "someone else." It may well be from the sleep doc himself. Scenario: Primary care doc wants sleep study. Writes Rx/referral for study. Patient takes referral to sleep lab. Insurance company says "We only pay for home studies." Since sleep doc was only give referral to do a diagnostic test, not a full consultation, he really doesn't have any grounds at this point to argue "hey, I think this guy really needs an attended PSG." So he has no choice but to do the home study. Report then goes back to primary care doc.

The AASM may try to get around this by trying to convince CMS to require a sleep medicine consultation prior to PSG, but I don't think there's any precedent for that. I don't have to send someone for a full cardiology consult if I just want an echo, do I?

Just like in cardiology, you can recommend a full evaluation when you read the study and think it is necessary. A PCP will not ignore such a recommendation and certainly the patient will not like having a half-unsure diagnosis.



I'm not sure what you mean by "people who don't need a sleep study." I get a very low rate of negative studies.

The PCP isn't billing for sleep studies unless he's reading them. I don't think there is any diagnostic test that's limited to one specialty. There's family practice docs who do and bill for colonoscopies. . .

It's not the only procedure we do, but it is the "bread and butter." That's not too different from, say, GI . . . they do a bunch of stuff, but the vast bulk of their procedural business is looking up peoples butts.

And by the way, chest CTs go to rads, not pulmonology, no?

Pulmonology certainly doesnt do the Chest CT but they practically read their own... they are not going to sit and wait for an "official" radiology reading. (Sorta the same with neuro and brain CT).

But yes you are right it is the bread and butter... but to be the only bread and butter is somewhat of a problem. We are in agreement that who knows what will happen in the future... maybe a new sleep study type will pop up for more sleep disorders.
 
This is an interesting discussion, guys. Actually, it's sort of a scary one when you realize that your decision to go into sleep medicine today will not reflect on how it's being practiced in a few years. That is to say that for people that are applying for fellowships now and in the next year or so are taking a bit of a risk because the architecture of subspeciality is still very much up in the air. But then again, I guess that's just how medicine works these days. You cannot expect to stay the same. Lets keep our fingers crossed that the changes that occur treatment better for patients and practice happier for us. Any ideas on how long before we get a good sense of what the field will look like for the future?
 
That is to say that for people that are applying for fellowships now and in the next year or so are taking a bit of a risk because the architecture of subspeciality is still very much up in the air. Any ideas on how long before we get a good sense of what the field will look like for the future?

We'll get an idea what the field will look like in mid March, when the final decision comes out on home testing- home testing will be approved, but the details are still up in the air.

Doing a sleep fellowship isn't that risky; it's only 1 year and usually 40 hours per week, mostly outpatient. The real risk is cosigning six figure loans to start a sleep lab, like I did.
 
Amen to that. I considered that at one point and passed on it. Hope you've been in business long enough to pay some of that off!

The debt is being taken care, although not with operational income. Right now there are some confidential business deals going on, but in about 3 months I should be able to let any interested fellows/residents know at least one way of starting a successful sleep lab.
 
Top