View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2009, 10:13 PM
mmglobal's Avatar
mmglobal mmglobal is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,511
Default

I agree that testing is good. Yes, the FDA sometimes saves us from overzealous, too early adoption of unproven technology. In other extremes, our process keeps us from having access to proven technology that is just better. For example, the uncoated version of the Charite' was approved in 2004. When the trial was submitted, the uncoated version was in use. By 2004, the Hydroxyapitite coating was standard on so many other orthopedic devices. It was 17 months before we stopped using the inferior version.

Last year, I attended the California Technology Assessment Forum, a panel that meets twice a year to provide Blue Cross/Blue Shield political cover for denying coverage. One of the presenting surgeons told me about a cancer treatment that was pending approval. Over the years, technology has advanced that allows us to direct targeted energy more and more accurately. This is hugely important because it allows the surgeons to more accurately destroy cancerous tissue while doing less damage to surrounding tissue. He told me that the new system had been accepted as superior and had excellent data behind it. About 40% of the providers had adopted it as standard even though the insurance companies were not paying for it. The equipment is expensive and it's difficult for providers to gain access to the technology without adequate reimbursement.

Many of the providers provided treatment at a loss. May patient self pay for the superior procedure. His amazing point was that generating class 1 data in this case will NEVER happen. In his opinion, it would be malpractice to enroll people into a study and allow them the get inferior treatment for the purpose of providing class 1 data. Who would enroll if informed consent was appropriately done? For the insurers to hang their hat on the lack of class 1 data and continue to deny reimbursement for the treatment that cancer patients need is a horrible abuse of the system.

I don't know how we got to this place... I understand the harsh realities of providing services after the 70's and 80's when medical costs spiraled out of control. The pendulum has swung the other way and all I know is that I can hardly afford insurance and now have to compromise care because it's too costly.

Sorry for the rant.

Mark
__________________
1997 MVA
2000 L4-5 Microdiscectomy/laminotomy
2001 L5-S1 Micro-d/lami
2002 L4-S1 Charite' ADR - SUCCESS!
2009 C3-C4, C5-C6-C7, T1-T2 ProDisc-C Nova
Summer 2009, more bad thoracic discs!
Life After Surgery Website
President: Global Patient Network, Inc.
Founder: www.iSpine.org
Reply With Quote