This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (21)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

How Strict Should We Be?

David M. Eddy, MD, PhD

JAMA. 1997;278(3):179-185.

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

THE BENEFIT LANGUAGE described in the previous article¹ described what might be called "evidence- and outcomes-based criteria"² for coverage: Treatments should be backed by sufficient evidence to determine their effects on health outcomes, and a comparison of the outcomes should show that the treatment is effective, beneficial, and cost-effective. This article will focus on the first of these criteria—that treatments should be backed by solid evidence of effectiveness. In one sense, this criterion should be the least controversial, because it corresponds to the "investigational" exclusion that has appeared for decades in the contracts of almost all traditional fee-for-service insurers, health maintenance organizations, and government programs. (Henceforth I will use the word "plan" to include all types of organizations that finance and/or deliver health care, and the word "treatment" to include all types of health interventions.) Recently, however, this criterion has become far more controversial because of reports . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Kaiser Health Plan and Permanente Medical Group of Southern California Pasadena, Calif

Footnotes
Correspondence: David M. Eddy, MD, PhD, 2140 L St NW, #604, Washington, DC 20037.

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