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?

Kimford J. Meador, MD
Medical College of Georgia Augusta

JAMA. 1997;278(17):1403.

	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.

—In his article on investigational treatments, Dr Eddy¹ describes "the minimum evidence required to provide physicians and patients with the information they need to determine how the treatment will affect the patient's outcomes." In addition, he asserts that "denial of coverage is one of the few barriers that delays the dissemination of procedures, tests, and off-label uses of drugs before their effectiveness can be determined."

Who should make these determinations? Eddy states that the evidence should be "sufficient to enable appropriately trained, motivated, and impartial people to draw conclusions about the magnitude of the effects." The determination of payment (ie, access) for standard treatments or tests that have proven efficacy, much less the determination of investigational status, is frequently in the purview of health insurance and health maintenance companies. These sources can hardly be deemed "impartial" and, in most states, are free of medicolegal liability for their decisions. In effect . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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