Evaluation of physician and patient compliance with the use of peak flow meters in commercial insurance and Oregon health plan asthmatic populations.

BACKGROUND: Home use of peak expiratory flow (PEF) meters is recommended by NIH management guidelines for patients with moderate to severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether differences in physician PEF meter prescription patterns and patient compliance rates with PEF meter use exist between populations of commercially insured and Oregon Health Plan (OHP) patients. METHODS: A prospective, case-series study was conducted at the Bay Clinic Coos Bay, Oregon. Volunteers responded to a short survey. Patient asthma severity was evaluated by responses to the following questions: (1) frequency of shortness of breath per week, (2) daily and weekly frequency of albuterol rescue inhaler use, and (3) other prescription medications used. Additional questions included: (1) possession of a PEF meter, (2) physician instruction of meter use, (3) patient compliance with instructions, and (4) type of medical insurance. Using NIH asthma stratification guidelines, only respondents with moderate to severe asthma were included in this study. Respondents were age restricted to between 6 and 60 years. Incomplete surveys were not accepted. RESULTS: Ninety-six surveys were received and 54 accepted. Only 24 (44%) of the 54 respondents with moderate to severe asthma had a PEF meter. Nineteen (79%) used it according to physician instructions. Of the 29 patients reporting to have commercial insurance, 18 (62%) had a PEF meter and 15 (83%) used it as prescribed. Of the 21 asthmatic patients with OHP coverage, only 5 (24%) P = .007 had a peak flow meter and 4 (80%) used it as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude physician prescription compliance of peak flow meters for asthma monitoring falls short of the NIH guidelines. When a PEF meter is prescribed, patients will likely use it regardless of their medical insurance. Significant differences exist in physician compliance with PEF meter prescription between populations of commercially insured and OHP patients. More study is necessary to further understand this divergence in care delivery.