Tracheostomy-related durable medical equipment: Insurance coverage, gaps, and barriers.

PURPOSE: Tracheostomy care is supply- and resource-intensive, and airway-related adverse events in community settings have high rates of readmission and mortality. Devices are often implicated in harm, but little is known about insurance coverage, gaps, and barriers to obtaining tracheostomy-related medically necessary durable medical equipment. We aimed to identify barriers patients may encounter in procuring tracheostomy-related durable medical equipment through insurance plan coverage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tracheostomy-related durable medical equipment provisions were evaluated across insurers, extracting data via structured telephone interviews and web-based searches. Each insurance company was contacted four times and queried iteratively regarding the range of coverage and co-pay policies. Outcome measures include call duration, consistency of explanation of benefits, and the number of transfers and disconnects. We also identified six qualitative themes from patient interviews. RESULTS: Tracheostomy-related durable medical equipment coverage was offered in some form by 98.1 % (53/54) of plans across 11 insurers studied. Co-pays or deductibles were required in 42.6 % (23/54). There was significant variability in out-of-pocket expenditures. Fixed co-pays ranged from $0-30, and floating co-pays ranged from 0 to 40 %. During phone interviews, mean call duration was 19 ± 10 min, with an average of 2 ± 1 transfers between agents. Repeated calls revealed high information variability (mean score 2.4 ± 1.5). Insurance sites proved challenging to navigate, scoring poorly on usability, literacy, and information quality. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors may limit access to potentially life-saving durable medical equipment for patients with tracheostomy. Barriers include out-of-pocket expenditures, lack of transparency on coverage, and low-quality information. Further research is necessary to evaluate patient outcomes.

Speech and Safety in Tracheostomy Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence of the safety and effectiveness of phonation in patients with fenestrated tracheostomy tubes. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched. The research question was, "Are fenestrated tracheostomy tubes a safe and effective option to facilitate early phonation in patients undergoing tracheostomy?" Studies of fenestrated tracheostomy tubes were assessed for risk of bias and quality of evidence. Data were abstracted, cross-checked for accuracy, and synthesized. RESULTS: Of the 160 studies identified, 13 met inclusion criteria, including 6 clinical studies (104 patients), 6 case reports (13 patients), and 1 nationwide clinician survey. The primary indications for a tracheostomy were chronic ventilator dependence (83%) and airway protection (17%). Indications for fenestrated tracheostomy included inaudible phonation and poor voice intelligibility. Patients with fenestrated tubes achieved robust voice outcomes. Complications included granulation tissue (6 patients [5%]), malpositioning (1 patient [0.9%]), decreased oxygen saturation (3 patients [2.6%]), increased blood pressure (1 patient [0.9%]), increased peak pressures (2 patients [1.7%]), and air leakage (1 patient [0.9%]); subcutaneous emphysema also occurred frequently. Patient-reported symptoms included shortness of breath (4 patients [3.4%]), anxiety (3 patients [2.6%]), and chest discomfort (1 patient [0.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: Fenestrated devices afford benefits for speech and decannulation but carry risks of granulation, aberrant airflow, and acclimation challenges. Findings highlight the need for continued innovation, education, and quality improvement around the use of fenestrated devices.

Are Fenestrated Tracheostomy Tubes Still Valuable?

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to describe the frequency, indications, and outcomes of fenestrated tracheostomy tube use in a large academic institution. Method A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate the use of fenestrated tracheostomy tubes between 2007 and 2017. Patients were included in the study if they were ≥ 18 years of age and received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube in the recent 10-year period. Results Of 2,000 patients who received a tracheostomy, 15 patients had a fenestrated tracheostomy tube; however, only 5 patients received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube at the study institution. The primary reason why the 15 patients received a tracheostomy was chronic respiratory failure (73%); other reasons included airway obstruction (20%) and airway protection (7%). Thirteen (87%) patients received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube for phonation purposes. The remaining 2 patients received it as a step to weaning. Of the 13 patients who received a fenestrated tracheostomy tube for phonation, only 1 patient was not able to phonate. Nine (60%) patients developed some type of complications: granulation only, 2 (13.3%); granulation and tracheomalacia, 2 (13.3%); granulation and stenosis, 4 (26.7%); and granulation, tracheomalacia, and stenosis, 1 (6.7%). Conclusions Fenestrated tracheostomy tubes may assist with phonation in patients who cannot tolerate a 1-way speaking valve; however, the risk of developing granulation tissue, tracheomalacia, and tracheal stenosis exists. Health care providers should be educated on the safe use of a fenestrated tracheostomy tube and other options available to improve phonation while ensuring patient safety.