In an editorial in their journal, the American Medical Association gave profound criticism to the process by which treatment and testing guidelines are prepared for practicing physicians. They suggest immediate reforms: appropriate expertise on committees to include clinical experience, avoid placing the same people on the committees from one edition to the next, reporting on disagreements on the committees, asking for public comment via the internet, avoiding the conflicts of interest (especially financial) that are now prevalent, independent peer review, publishing alternative interpretations, and requiring associations which distribute guidelines to not accept financial support from the industry to do so. Hear, hear! It sounds good. But we shall see if this voice has any impact to put a dent in the medical-industrial complex that has proven to be horribly expensive and marginally effective.
See Journal of the American Medical Association (click here for home page) January 28, 2009 issue, p. 429-432 (click here for article)
2 comments:
This would be most welcome for Chronic Lyme Sufferers. The Infectious Disease Society of America's (IDSA) Guidelines for the Treatment of Lyme Disease deny the existence of Chronic Lyme. Insurance companies use these guidelines to deny medical benefits to Chronic Lyme sufferers. Lyme literate doctors who practice according to the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Guidelines(www.ILADS.org) are targeted by State Medical Boards for discipline for practicing outside of IDSA guidelines. These IDSA guidelines would never stand up to the scrutiny that the AMA article suggests. This would be most welcome for those like me whose life has been radically affected by Chronic Lyme disease.
No one can state the case more vividly or passionately than some one who suffers from chronic lyme and is not heard by a heartless system.
Terry Chappell, M.D.
Post a Comment