This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

S. Clark Newhall, MD, JD
Salt Lake City, Utah

JAMA. 1995;273(13):995.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—After reading the article by Dr Eddy,¹I was left with an uneasy feeling that the cost-benefit analyses he describes might not meet the requirements of peer review usually applied to validate the results of other scientific assertions. Accordingly, a decision to change one's practice based on a cost-benefit analysis conducted at the behest of an insurer may not be the best decision a physician can make for his or her patient. I entertain these doubts at the risk of being thought a backward curmudgeon of the "just to be on the safe side" school.

I suggest that cost-benefit analyses such as Eddy describes should be published in the peer-reviewed medical literature, just as other scientific studies are. Further, it seems appropriate that insurers restrain themselves from creating "complementary coverage policies or guidelines" until the particular cost-benefit analysis and its assumptions can be considered in the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?