Should a prescription be required for CPAP?

[zonk]

Firearm don,t require a prescription.

[Bompa]

Firearm don,t require a prescription.

In Canada we need an " Acquisition Certificate " (Prescription) from our local law enforcement and Federal government. Just a little FYI.

[priti36]

What I am left with is I had to make an uninformed decision but based on not my actual need, yet it was controlled by an insurance company? Well, if I give it more thought, maybe it was also a sleep center that wanted to direct me to a certain provider? Things were pretty much decided for me? I had little say in how I ended up with a machine that is not very popular? I wonder how much of this was done because one of the above thought I was easy prey and could decide for me. Not that I was really abused in any way, intentionally. But if anyone had taken the time to explain what I know now, I would never have accepted this machine. I was new to this, but EVERYONE I dealt with knew better. And they steered me in this direction. I apologize for my many mistakes in the english language.

about all you can do is make the best of it. in the end your machine blows air. that's all that really counts. the bells and whistles and looking at data are nice, but not essential to treating your apnea. use it every night, feel better and when the time is right, upgrade.

I disagree CPAP efficacy data is not luxury it,s essential tool for patients and doctors to keep check how is the therapy is working without it the doctor have no clue on the follow appointment if ever there is one. If you don,t have a problem now and not likely to have one in future than yes data is not essential for you.
IMHO feeling better can be misleading how the therapy working because when I started the therapy felt better but now a year later feeling much better than the time thought felt better.

[shanzlik]

I am okay with the prescription for the machine, but not for accessories (humidifier, hoses, masks, filters, etc.). Accessories should be available over the counter. I suppose insurance might be less likely to cover the accessories then, but on the other hand maybe prices would come down?

[TheDreamer]

The machine should require prescription....though I don't think masks should. The user should be able to get whatever mask they need, and not have to deal with a prescription that restricts them.

Also doctors shouldn't be stingy on giving you additional copies of your prescription. They shouldn't be conspiring with your DME to hold you ransom to them, or refusing to give you a copy because they don't think insurance would pay for another one or that they don't really think you would run into any problems flying internationally (and say if you do have trouble, the airport can call them then?)....

My original mask prescription said "Optilife"....my later prescription says "Nasal Pillow mask only" ARGH!

The Dreamer.

[zimlich]

There are more kinds of sleep disorders than straightforward OSA. There is central, complex, UARS, probably more, all treated differently. Yes, I think we need a sleep test and prescription.

[zonk]

Prescription or not why do we pay higher prices in Australia?
May be if more people take their business on line and buy from US than might see prices tumble down as they are now beyond reach for most patients. Mask for $300, anyone - don,t think so!

[DCwom]

Perhaps a Rx should be required for a CPAP, but surely not for an APAP.

Prescriptions might arguably be reasonably required for those with subnormal intelligence, brain damage, insanity, etc., but surely not for sane people of average or better intelligence, who are capable of reading the educational materials.

Who really reads educational materials? I think you're giving too much credit to the general populous, besides once lawyers get involved their plaintiffs are always "uneducated" about the risks of a product. I can easily see CPAP manufactures being sued because the end user didn't know how to correctly use/select the product, with a prescription it puts a doctor (a recognized trained specialist) in the liability path between the patient and manufacturer.

[Netskier]

Perhaps a Rx should be required for a CPAP, but surely not for an APAP.

Prescriptions might arguably be reasonably required for those with subnormal intelligence, brain damage, insanity, etc., but surely not for sane people of average or better intelligence, who are capable of reading the educational materials.

Who really reads educational materials? I think you're giving too much credit to the general populous, besides once lawyers get involved their plaintiffs are always "uneducated" about the risks of a product. I can easily see CPAP manufactures being sued because the end user didn't know how to correctly use/select the product, with a prescription it puts a doctor (a recognized trained specialist) in the liability path between the patient and manufacturer.

I read the educational materials, and I know a lot of others that do too, but I readily admit that we are not typical.

I think that most would read them if they were written for clarity to educate the users, and not to eliminate legal liability, because writing for this drastically increases complexity, which inhibits people from reading the information.

Your comments are correct, but the question said "should", not "must to avoid legal troubles for corporations". So let's talk about what should be.

Everyone should have the opportunity for free education through the Ph.D. level as they do now in almost all of Europe, and did in California through at least 1963. Gov Pat Brown gave California the best educational system in the world, overall, and successors destroyed it. Free education improved the workforce, and the California economy boomed until it was the fifth largest in the world, behind only the US, Japan, China, and Germany, IIRC.

Healthcare should be free, as in most of Europe and Canada. This includes free sleep studies, and free rental of home sleep study machines. The idea is to inform the public, and not to restrict their education and freedom.

Lawyers should have been banned, as our Founders almost did. Don't get me started about lawyers. Suffice it to say that we are arguably overly litigious, and we should not be.

All of your arguments are predicated upon medical service providers trying to maximize their profits rather than the health of our populace. This should not be the case.

I am unwilling to give up my freedom to maximize my own health, and to choose my own fate, because you are concerned that someone else will make an uninformed decision, possibly hurt themselves, go to court, and make trouble for corporations, who bribed our government to create this horrible state of affairs in the first place.

We need to take our country back for the 99%, and away from the 1% that rule it now. We can start here by advocating medical freedom for ourselves.

I stick by my answer to the question as it was written.

[DCwom]

Perhaps a Rx should be required for a CPAP, but surely not for an APAP.

Prescriptions might arguably be reasonably required for those with subnormal intelligence, brain damage, insanity, etc., but surely not for sane people of average or better intelligence, who are capable of reading the educational materials.

Who really reads educational materials? I think you're giving too much credit to the general populous, besides once lawyers get involved their plaintiffs are always "uneducated" about the risks of a product. I can easily see CPAP manufactures being sued because the end user didn't know how to correctly use/select the product, with a prescription it puts a doctor (a recognized trained specialist) in the liability path between the patient and manufacturer.

I read the educational materials, and I know a lot of others that do too, but I readily admit that we are not typical.

I think that most would read them if they were written for clarity to educate the users, and not to eliminate legal liability, because writing for this drastically increases complexity, which inhibits people from reading the information.

Your comments are correct, but the question said "should", not "must to avoid legal troubles for corporations". So let's talk about what should be.

Everyone should have the opportunity for free education through the Ph.D. level as they do now in almost all of Europe, and did in California through at least 1963. Gov Pat Brown gave California the best educational system in the world, overall, and successors destroyed it. Free education improved the workforce, and the California economy boomed until it was the fifth largest in the world, behind only the US, Japan, China, and Germany, IIRC.

Healthcare should be free, as in most of Europe and Canada. This includes free sleep studies, and free rental of home sleep study machines. The idea is to inform the public, and not to restrict their education and freedom.

Lawyers should have been banned, as our Founders almost did. Don't get me started about lawyers. Suffice it to say that we are arguably overly litigious, and we should not be.

All of your arguments are predicated upon medical service providers trying to maximize their profits rather than the health of our populace. This should not be the case.

I am unwilling to give up my freedom to maximize my own health, and to choose my own fate, because you are concerned that someone else will make an uninformed decision, possibly hurt themselves, go to court, and make trouble for corporations, who bribed our government to create this horrible state of affairs in the first place.

We need to take our country back for the 99%, and away from the 1% that rule it now. We can start here by advocating medical freedom for ourselves.

I stick by my answer to the question as it was written.

Geez, I just pointed out that not everyone can be relied on to understand what a product can and can't do for them nor what the risks are. I don't know why you got all "Occupy" with me?

Getting back to the original question about needing a prescription. I think the term prescription itself is probably a source of confusion. When talking about drugs classified as controlled dangerous substances by a regulatory authority (e.g. the FDA in the USA) it is generally understood that a Medical Doctor's prescription is needed, however there are other cases where prescriptions are needed but may or may not be a legal requirement. For example if you participate in a Medical Reimbursement account you can not claim reimbursement for over-the-counter drugs unless you have a physicians prescription, however you can freely purchase these drugs at your local grocery store. Likewise insurance carriers may also require a prescription for medical tests and equipment, in these cases the prescription is being used as a form of approval for coverage rather than legal acquisition of a service or device.