The good and the ridiculous in the Washington State Health Board

[elfs]

In an article in the Seattle Times recently, a reporter reviewed the work of the Health Technology Assessment Committee, a board empowered by the state to go through procedures and processes item by item, evaluating the evidence around their efficacy, and accepting or rejecting them for coverage under the state's various healthcare programs, including Medicaid.

I approve. They're not doing anything different from insurance agencies, but they're doing it with taxpayer dollars. Just as I once struggled, in the most brutal confrontation allowed by law, to advice someone on her medical choices, I approve of people reviewing all the evidence and recommending the most informed course of action.

I had to giggle, though when I read this:

The seven doctors, a nurse, a chiropractor, a naturopath and a speech therapist who make up the committee are, by design, not experts in the technologies they review. [Emphasis mine]

A naturopath? Really? The people who practice homeopathy, "qi energy flow management," stabbing their patients with tiny sharp things to balance the body's humours, and "biotherapeutic drainage?" These are the guys who talk about "blood detoxification" and "colon cleansing?"

This is the guy entrusted as an "expert in evaluating evidence?" Yeah.

Look, I'm all for improved patient-practitioner relationships, but that seems to be the only thing naturopaths provide above and beyond ordinary medical care. The biggest study of acupuncture, for example, found "Perceived acupuncture outcomes seem not to be related to placebo effects and patient expectations." Looking through PubMed, I can't find a single study of a CAM (complementory and alternative medicine) modality that isn't just the placebo effect writ repetitiously.

You know what they call "alternative medicine" that works?

Medicine.

You know what they call people who use medicine that works?

Doctors.