Do you need a perscription to purchase a CPAP device

wabmorgan wrote:Currently you DO need an Rx.... however... the FDA has AutoCPAP under consideration for sale without an Rx.

Really? That's great news! So, in typical FDA fashion, will it be about 6 years before they make their decision?

Interesting. Insurance companies typically don't pay for things available without prescriptions. I wonder if they will continue to pay for the machines if they are available without prescription. Just food for thought.

Sleepy Dog Lover wrote:Insurance companies typically don't pay for things available without prescriptions. I wonder if they will continue to pay for the machines if they are available without prescription.

OK, continuing the stream of consciousness . . .

Hmm . . ., would it be a bad thing if insurance stopped paying for xPAP machines. This would set in motion a chain of events:
1) Suddenly a whole new group of people would suddenly decide to buy xPAP machines simply to test for apnea. Cost to the individuals, considering deductibles and such might not be any more than a sleep lab study.
2) Existing 'PAP'ers would purchase more machines because they wouldn't have to see their "sleep doc" first.
3) With higher volumes, and fewer regulations in place, the price of xPAP machines would decline.
4) With fewer customers supporting sleep labs, the cost of sleep studies would drop significantly also, and one can hope that existing customers would be treated better in order to keep them satisfied.

So, what's the negative here?

Regards,
Bill

[quote="Sleepy Dog Lover"]Interesting. Insurance companies typically don't pay for things available without prescriptions. I wonder if they will continue to pay for the machines if they are available without prescription. Just food for thought.

NightHawkeye wrote:

Sleepy Dog Lover wrote:Insurance companies typically don't pay for things available without prescriptions. I wonder if they will continue to pay for the machines if they are available without prescription.

OK, continuing the stream of consciousness . . .

Hmm . . ., would it be a bad thing if insurance stopped paying for xPAP machines. This would set in motion a chain of events:
1) Suddenly a whole new group of people would suddenly decide to buy xPAP machines simply to test for apnea. Cost to the individuals, considering deductibles and such might not be any more than a sleep lab study.
2) Existing 'PAP'ers would purchase more machines because they wouldn't have to see their "sleep doc" first.
3) With higher volumes, and fewer regulations in place, the price of xPAP machines would decline.
4) With fewer customers supporting sleep labs, the cost of sleep studies would drop significantly also, and one can hope that existing customers would be treated better in order to keep them satisfied.

So, what's the negative here?

Regards,
Bill

Sleepy Dog Lover wrote:Interesting thought, although there would be some people that still couldn't get treatment because the machines would still be too expensive.

Au contraire. I believe exactly the opposite would happen. How many unused CPAP machines are stuck away in closets simply because they can't legally be sold. People are always trying to sell used machines on Ebay which then yanks the listings as soon as they can. A large numbe of old xPAP machines would suddenly find their way to Goodwill and the Salvation Army. More folks would be able get treatment than get treatment under the current arrangement. At least that's how I think things would work. The darned machines would be worth more as a tax deduction probably than you could get for them on Ebay.

Sleepy Dog Lover wrote:And somehow, some way, somebody would find a way to abuse it and it would end up regulated again

Somehow, I doubt it. How is an xPAP machine more dangerous than aspirin, Tylenol, Benadryl, Tinactin, and hundreds of other drugs which were formerly controlled substances, but which are now over-the-counter. Besides, even if the FDA wanted to regulate it again, it's unlikely they could. After all, the FDA has been trying to regulate food supplements for years . . ., and been totally ineffective at it.

Sleepy Dog Lover wrote:And if it isn't considered a medical device, could you still carry it on a plane?

Now, you're just being silly. When I've helped my 90 year old mother-in-law on and off airplanes, they've never once complained about her keeping her walker with her, and that is a medical device which does not require a prescription. (Trust me, she got it without a prescription.)

Sleepy Dog Lover wrote:There are definitely some positives to it, as you mentioned. As to what the negatives would be, we can only let our imaginations run wild.

Many things are actually quite predictable. I think that this is one of them.

Regards,
Bill (still connecting dots)

wouldn't a cpap machine come under durable medical? like a wheelchair? My daughter has a wheelchair and we didn't need a prescription for insurance, but we did need a letter of necessity from her doc, although anyone could see she can't do without it. Seems like xpap would be covered rx or not. but subject of course (as I'll bet it is already) to deductables and durable medical caps.

just my .o2

[quote="3isles"]wouldn't a cpap machine come under durable medical? like a wheelchair? My daughter has a wheelchair and we didn't need a prescription for insurance, but we did need a letter of necessity from her doc, although anyone could see she can't do without it. Seems like xpap would be covered rx or not. but subject of course (as I'll bet it is already) to deductables and durable medical caps.

just my .o2