Management of obstructive sleep apnoea in a primary care vs sleep unit setting: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care (PC) and sleep unit (SU) models for the management of subjects with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). METHODS: Multicentre, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 302 subjects with suspected OSA and/or resistant hypertension were consecutively enrolled, 149 were treated at 11 PC units and 153 patients at a SU. The primary outcomes were a 6-month change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score and Health Utilities Index (HUI). The non-inferiority margin for the ESS score was -2.0. RESULTS: A total of 80.2% and 70.6% of the PC and SU patients were diagnosed with OSA, respectively, and 59.3% and 60.4% of those were treated with CPAP in PC and SU units, respectively. The Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index was similar between the groups (PC vs SU (median (IQR); 23.1 (26.8) events/h vs 21.8 (35.2) events/h), and the baseline ESS score was higher in the PC than in the SU group (10.3 (6.6) vs 9 (7.2)). After 6 months, the ESS score of the PC group decreased from a mean of 10.1 to 7.6 (-2.49; 95% CI -3.3 to -1.69), and that of the SU group decreased from 8.85 to 5.73 (-3.11; 95% CI -3.94 to 2.28). The adjusted difference between groups for the mean change in the ESS score was -1.25 (one-sided 95% CI -1.88; p=0.025), supporting the non-inferiority of PC management. We did not observe differences in the HUI between groups. The cost analysis showed a median savings of €558.14/patient for the PC setting compared with the SU setting. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected OSA, the PC model did not result in a worse ESS score or HUI than the specialist model and generated savings in terms of management cost. Therefore, the PC model was more cost-efficient than the SU model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Results; >>NCT02234765, Clinical Trials.gov.

Value and Payment in Sleep Medicine.

ABSTRACT: Value, like beauty, exists in the eye of the beholder. This article places the value of clinical sleep medicine services in historical context and presents a vision for the value-based sleep of the future. First, the history of value and payment in sleep medicine is reviewed from the early days of the field, to innovative disruption, to the widespread adoption of home sleep apnea testing. Next, the importance of economic perspective is discussed, with emphasis on cost containment and cost-shifting between payers, employers, providers, and patients. Specific recommendations are made for sleep medicine providers and the field at large to maximize the perceived value of sleep. Finally, alternate payment models and value-based care are presented, with an eye toward the future for clinical service providers as well as integrated health delivery networks.

Investigating Cost Implications of Incorporating Level III At-Home Testing into a Polysomnography Based Sleep Medicine Program Using Administrative Data.

OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnea is a common problem, requiring expensive in-lab polysomnography for proper diagnosis. Home monitoring can provide an alternative to in-lab testing for a subset of OSA patients. The objective of this project was to investigate the effect of incorporating home testing into an OSA program at a large, tertiary sleep disorders centre. METHODS: The Sleep Disorders Centre in Saskatoon, Canada, has been incorporating at-home testing into their diagnostic pathways since 2006. Administrative data from 2007 to 2013 were extracted (10030 patients) and the flow of patients through the program was followed from diagnosis to treatment. Costs were estimated using 2014 pricing and were stratified by disease attributes and sensitivity analysis was applied. RESULTS: The overall costs per patient were $627.40, with $419.20 for at-home testing and $746.20 for in-lab testing. The cost of home management would rise to $515 if all negative tests were required to be confirmed by an in-lab PSG. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that at-home testing can be cost-effective alternative to in-lab testing when applied to the correct population, specifically, those with a high pretest probability of obstructive sleep apnea and an absence of significant comorbidities.

An Economic Evaluation of Home Versus Laboratory-Based Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We conducted an economic analysis of the HomePAP study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared home-based versus laboratory-based testing for the diagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). DESIGN: A cost-minimization analysis from the payer and provider perspectives was performed, given that 3-mo clinical outcomes were equivalent. SETTING: Seven academic sleep centers. PARTICIPANTS: There were 373 subjects at high risk for moderate to severe OSA. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to either home-based limited channel portable monitoring followed by unattended autotitration with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), versus a traditional pathway of in-laboratory sleep study and CPAP titration. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: From the payer perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory-based pathway were $1,840 (95% confidence interval [CI] $1,660, $2,015) compared to $1,575 (95% CI $1,439, $1,716) for the home-based pathway under the base case. Costs were $264 (95% CI $39, $496, P = 0.02) in favor of the home arm. From the provider perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory arm were $1,697 (95% CI $1,566, $1,826) compared to $1,736 (95% CI $1,621, $1,857) in the home arm, for a difference of $40 (95% CI -$213, $142, P = 0.66) in favor of the laboratory arm under the base case. The provider operating margin was $142 (95% CI $85, $202,P < 0.01) in the laboratory arm, compared to a loss of -$161 (95% CI -$202, -$120, P < 0.01) in the home arm. CONCLUSIONS: For payers, a home-based diagnostic pathway for obstructive sleep apnea with robust patient support incurs fewer costs than a laboratory-based pathway. For providers, costs are comparable if not higher, resulting in a negative operating margin. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00642486.

SMART DOCS: a new patient-centered outcomes and coordinated-care management approach for the future practice of sleep medicine.

ABSTRACT: The practice of medicine is currently undergoing a transformation to become more efficient, cost-effective, and patient centered in its delivery of care. The aim of this article is to stimulate discussion within the sleep medicine community in addressing these needs by our approach as well as other approaches to sleep medicine care. The primary goals of the Sustainable Methods, Algorithms, and Research Tools for Delivering Optimal Care Study (SMART DOCS) are: (1) to introduce a new Patient-Centered Outcomes and Coordinated-Care Management (PCCM) approach for the future practice of sleep medicine, and (2) to test the PCCM approach against a Conventional Diagnostic and Treatment Outpatient Medical Care (CONV) approach in a randomized, two-arm, single-center, long-term, comparative effectiveness trial. The PCCM approach is integrated into a novel outpatient care delivery model for patients with sleep disorders that includes the latest technology, allowing providers to obtain more accurate and rapid diagnoses and to make evidence-based treatment recommendations, while simultaneously enabling patients to have access to personalized medical information and reports regarding their diagnosis and treatment so that they can make more informed health care decisions. Additionally, the PCCM approach facilitates better communication between patients, referring primary care physicians, sleep specialists, and allied health professionals so that providers can better assist patients in achieving their preferred outcomes. A total of 1,506 patients 18 y or older will be randomized to either the PCCM or CONV approach and will be followed for at least 1 y with endpoints of improved health care performance, better health, and cost control. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02037438.

The diagnostic yield of pediatric polysomnography based on the professional background of referring physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Polysomnography (PSG) is the gold standard in diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing but is labor intensive and expensive. We assessed PSG outcomes based on physician specialty and whether prior referral to sleep clinics reduces costs for children with sleep problems. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of PSGs was performed by demographics, physician specialization, PSG indication, and results. Average costs of evaluating PSGs ordered by primary care physicians (PCPs) versus initial referral to sleep specialists were compared. RESULTS: A total of 493 PSGs were performed between June 2010 and December 2010. Most referrals came from sleep physicians (31%), otolaryngologists (24%), and PCPs (18%). Forty-four percent PSGs ordered by PCPs were normal versus 22% by sleep physicians (odds ratio = 2.8, P < .05). Average cost of PSGs ordered by PCPs was $3053.54/patient versus $917.85/patient for sleep specialist referral. CONCLUSION: PSGs ordered by PCPs were more likely to be normal than PSGs by sleep physicians. Sleep clinic assessment before PSGs may assist in appropriate service utilization, improve delivery of care, and reduce health care costs by using these tests appropriately.

The financial crisis has an impact in sleep medicine: experience of a sleep clinic in Greece.

OBJECTIVE: Greece has entered a long period of economic crisis with adverse effects in daily life. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the economic crisis on the population visiting a sleep clinic between years 2008 and 2011. METHODS: Comparison of the number of patients, anthropometric data, symptoms, and treatment between 2008 (beginning of crisis) to 2011(great impact of crisis) was conducted. RESULTS: The number of patients significantly reduced in 2011(n = 127) compared with that in 2008 (n = 463) and 2009 (n = 465). The mean age, body mass index, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale did not differ between the years (52.2 ± 13.7 years, 33 ± 7.4 kg/m(2), and 11.4 ± 5.4, respectively). The main symptom of the patients was daytime sleepiness, and the symptoms that worsened in 2011 compared with 2008 were headaches (32.4 vs. 49.6 %, p < 0.001) and nightmares (44 vs. 75.9 %, p < 0.001). In 2008, 69.1 % of patients required treatment for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and 81.6 % of them received CPAP. In 2011, 67.7 % required treatment, but only 52.3 % received CPAP. CONCLUSIONS: The economic crisis can be reflected in the number of patients, their symptoms and their treatment options.

An official American Thoracic Society policy statement: pay-for-performance in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

RATIONALE: Pay-for-performance is a model for health care financing that seeks to link reimbursement to quality. The American Thoracic Society and its members have a significant stake in the development of pay-for-performance programs. OBJECTIVES: To develop an official ATS policy statement addressing the role of pay-for-performance in pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine. METHODS: The statement was developed by the ATS Health Policy Committee using an iterative consensus process including an expert workshop and review by ATS committees and assemblies. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pay-for-performance is increasingly utilized by health care purchasers including the United States government. Published studies generally show that programs result in small but measurable gains in quality, although the data are heterogeneous. Pay-for-performance may result in several negative consequences, including the potential to increase costs, worsen health outcomes, and widen health disparities, among others. Future research should be directed at developing reliable and valid performance measures, increasing the efficacy of pay-for-performance programs, minimizing negative unintended consequences, and examining issues of costs and cost-effectiveness. The ATS and its members can play a key role in the design and evaluation of these programs by advancing the science of performance measurement, regularly developing quality metrics alongside clinical practice guidelines, and working with payors to make performance improvement a routine part of clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Pay-for-performance programs will expand in the coming years. Pulmonary, critical care and sleep practitioners can use these programs as an opportunity to partner with purchasers to improve health care quality.