Those are good points. The portion I put in bold triggered another thought. From some folks who have shared their journeys on the forum, it was apparent that the reasons they had additional studies.....even after they had data-capable machine......is that many of their original sleep studies were probably flawed. The ones I'm thinking of were started out on non-data-capable CPAP machines......then got data-capable Autos......then went to Bi-Levels/Bi-PAPs (and/or more specialized ASV-type machines) before they finally received decent therapy.brazospearl wrote:Sounds like we need a survey choice for "when the data indicates a substantial change is needed." Seriously, why bother if the data shows things are going well? What would we learn from a new study? If things aren't going well it's another matter entirely, and there's no time frame appropriate for that. Just sayin'.
Brazospearl
These pages are filled with stories of flawed sleep studies.......doctors who are unwilling to prescribe data-capable machines.......and DMEs who are pulling every under-handed trick to get out of handing them out
After several years of reading these stories, it really makes a person sick to their stomach and mad as Hell about the state of this portion of the "health-care" industry. And......then there are the manufacturers......who are trying to protect their "customer base". Hint.....it ain't us, the end-users.
Den