Drowsy Driving Considerations in Non-Commercial Drivers for the Sleep Physician.

ABSTRACT: The sleep physician faces many challenges in the assessment of drowsy driving. The following article reviews current clinical evaluation methods and legal considerations at the state level in the United States.

Assessing readiness to drive in adolescents with narcolepsy: what are providers doing?

PURPOSE: There are no universally accepted guidelines for assessing driving readiness in adolescents with narcolepsy. The purpose of the present study was to survey pediatric sleep medicine providers regarding their current practice patterns for assessing driving readiness in adolescents with narcolepsy, knowledge of their state laws regarding physician reporting of unsafe drivers, and opinions regarding what physician duty ought to be. METHODS: This was an anonymous web-based survey distributed via the PedSleep listserv, which serves as a hub of communication for pediatric sleep medicine providers. RESULTS: A total of 52 pediatric sleep providers from 25 different states completed the survey. Eighty-eight percent of providers routinely assess driving readiness in adolescents with narcolepsy. Factors rated as "absolutely essential" by at least 50% of respondents included the following: history of previous fall-asleep crash or near miss, sleepiness (reported by patient), sleepiness (reported by caregiver), and cataplexy (reported by patient). Providers included maintenance of wakefulness testing: never (34%), if patient reports no/mild sleepiness (10%), if patient reports moderate/severe sleepiness (25%), or always regardless of patient symptoms (30%), and the median minimally acceptable result was 30 min (25-75th: 20-40 min). There was substantial lack of knowledge regarding legal obligations for reporting. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate great variability in practice patterns among pediatric sleep medicine providers for assessing driving readiness in adolescents with narcolepsy. In addition, it shows limited knowledge of the providers about their respective states' laws. Further studies are required to identify the best approach to assess residual sleepiness in this population.

The Prescription Drug Pricing Moment: Using Public Health Analysis to Clarify the Fair Competition Debate on Prescription Drug Pricing and Consumer Welfare.

Fair competition law and public health law talk past each other when discussing pharmaceutical pricing and distribution. The former cannot agree on the relevant definition of consumer welfare. The latter does not fully comprehend the highly complex but inherently collective nature of pharmaceutical drug acquisition in the United States. This essay proposes to inject public health discourse into this debate to enrich it, focus it, and render it more accessible to those who must live by its outcome.

Managing Our Microbial Mark: What We Can Learn About Pay for Performance From Ebola's Arrival at Our Shores.

The narrative of Ebola's arrival in the United States has been overwhelmed by our fear of a West African-style epidemic. The real story of Ebola's arrival is about our healthcare system's failure to identify, treat, and contain healthcare associated infections. Having long been willfully ignorant of the path of fatal infectious diseases through our healthcare facilities, this paper considers why our reimbursement and quality reporting systems made it easy for this to be so. West Africa's challenges in controlling Ebola resonate with our own struggles to standardize, centralize, and enforce infection control procedures in American healthcare facilities.

Bending the health cost curve: the promise and peril of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Underlying today's and the future's health-care reform debate is a consensus that America's health-care financing system is in a slow-moving but deep crisis: care appears substandard in comparison with other advanced industrial countries, and relative costs are exploding beyond all reasonable measures. The Obama Administration's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) attempts to grapple with both of these problems. One of ACA's key instrumentalities is the Independent Payment Advisory Board-the IPAB, designed to discover and authorize ways to reduce the rate of growth of Medicare and other categories of health spending. The IPAB is a peril. Expert boards to perform regulatory tasks in the interest of efficiency and social goals always run a high risk of being captured by the industry they are supposed to regulate. Even should it succeed at its task of reducing the rate of growth of Medicare spending, who is to say that the reductions will not come at a heavy cost in reduced quantity and effectiveness of medical care? But the IPAB also has promise. The need for a better process than our current specialist-driven one to assign value to the medical services provided by Medicare is great. The bellwether status of Medicare payment systems means that commercial insurance consumers and payors would also benefit mightily from bringing more coherent, technocratic, and cost-effectiveness oriented logic to this process. And the current system of relative Medicare reimbursement rates is, in the judgment of many, currently well out of whack. We quail when we consider the magnitude of the tasks the IPAB faces--even its initial task. Nevertheless, we remain optimistic that this administrative agency will manage to bend the long-run healthcare cost curve and moderate future price increases.