Patient-reported Differences in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Care between Jurisdictions with and without Government Funding for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure.

ABSTRACT

Rationale Funding for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment may impact how patients access care, wait times, and costs of care. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare differences in diagnosis and treatment of OSA between Canadian jurisdictions with and without public funding for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Methods: We administered an anonymous internet survey to Canadian adults reporting a physician diagnosis of OSA. Responses were categorized on the basis of whether the respondent's province provided full or partial funding for CPAP therapy for all patients. We assessed wait times for diagnosis and treatment, patient-borne costs, and model of care delivery compared between jurisdictions with and without universal CPAP funding. Results: We received 600 responses representing all Canadian provinces and territories. The median (interquartile range) age was 59 (49-66) years; 57% were male, and 21% were from rural settings. Patients living in provinces without public CPAP funding (n = 419) were more likely to be diagnosed using home sleep apnea testing (69% vs. 20%; P = 0.00019). Wait times were similar after adjustment for demographics, disease characteristics, and model of care. Although patient-borne costs of care were similar between jurisdictions, patients from regions without CPAP funding reported that cost had a greater influence on the choice of therapy. Sleep specialists were more commonly involved in OSA care in regions with CPAP funding. There was no difference in the current use of therapy between jurisdictions with and without public funding. Conclusions: This survey study demonstrates that public funding for CPAP therapy impacts how Canadians access OSA care but is not associated with differences in wait times or costs. Future research is required to determine the impact of different funding models for OSA care on clinical outcomes.