Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? Why or why not?
Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? I don’t think publicly funded programs should pay for services or treatments that have not shown evidence that they work for a couple reasons. The Daniel Hauser case, there isn’t enough money for treatments and services we know work and are not the standard of care, and if they don’t work it may end up costing more money in the long run everything that claims to be beneficial medically should be tested. First, Daniel Hauser who can forget this case, the twelve year old boy with Hopkins lymphoma who’s parents decided to opt him out of traditions treatment which is the standard of care for the disease he has, based on evidence based practice. The family decided to go with an alternative treatment of herbs, ionized water, and God knows what else because a want-a-be medicine man told them it would work along with prayer. Well Daniel almost died due to his parent’s ignorance; listened to this man who turned out to be a fraud. Now Daniel’s good after being court ordered to resume the clinically tested and FDA approved chemotherapy, I rest my case. Second, there’s barely enough money in the public program kitty to pay for treatments and services for people who need them now. This is why co-pays, deductibles, and total out of pocket cost are going up. Example; the deductible for a surgery last year was about $150.00 but to have that same procedure this year will cost $250.00 depending on the insurer. So no way, I’m on a budget sorry I can’t afford to pay for untested services and treatments to. Thirdly, let’s just say the Health reform bill passes with a clause which allocated public funds for such treatment like Daniel‘s. What if public program had paid for the treatment Daniel received from the medicine man which we know didn’t work and was fraudulent. This same public program that paid for the treatment that didn’t work would now have to pay for the clinically tested, standard of care treatment that does work; I think I’ll pass on that double dipping. Medical treatment has advanced so much and these advancements are because of the controlled clinical trials, evidence based practice, and regulatory bodies which are in place to protect us. Don’t get me wrong mistakes have been made and there will be some made in the future, but at lease it’s all documented which aids in the standard and continuity of care. I do not think this would be a wise or efficient way to spend tax payer’s money. Therefore, publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings.
Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in a controlled clinical setting. This should not take place due to the fact that these treatments and services have not been tested, thus they could potentially be harmful to the public. To add to that what would happen to the quality of the treatment? If companies knew they could get away with putting their “magical” cure onto the shelves without it being tested, could you even imagine how many “new and improved” treatments would be shoved out into the public? Let’s not forget to mention, what safety steps they may by pass or what carcinogenic chemicals they may use because it saves them money and now they do not have to worry about getting tested. To add to that, the health programs are publicly funded, which means the money used to run this service comes from the people. It simply is not right to allow the money to be used by these companies to promote phony treatments and cures. Yes, it is true that there are those select few people out there that would not take advantage of such and thing, but again those numbers are small. In the end, publicly funded health programs should not pay for untested alternative services and treatments because of the health and safety risks to public, also because it is our money they are using and the treatments really help us and not cause more damage while lining someone else’s pocket.
From my perspective, I truly believe that publicly funded program should not pay for alternative services. There are three imperative reasons that we need to consider. First, alternative medicines are lack scientific proof of safety or effectiveness. Although many people believe in alternative services, there has never been any scientific or reliable evidence to support the effectiveness of these types of practice. People who prefer alternative services are those who do not have much knowledge about science and medicine. In 1996, there was a survey that showed the first time users are more likely to buy supplements at super market and also had less knowledge about the herbs that they use compared to long term users. There is an increase of first time users because many people concern about their health, so they would try anything that they think would help. This is the reason that alternative services are more popular in the U.S. Acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and some types of massage therapy do not have a reliable evidence of effectiveness. I recently read the article " Chiropractic: A Skeptical View” by Dr. William T. Jarvis. . The author is a retired professor in health education, and he had been teaching immunization, pasteurization, and food technology at the Loma Linda University of Medicine. He has been researching alternative, pseudoscientific, deviant, and paranormal medical practices, as well as health fraud. In the article, he stated that chiropractic theory and methods are not studied properly; the use of chiropractics is sometime not justifiable and can have negative effects on patients. According to the author, the chiropractic theory lacks validity. For example, chiropractors were asked to define and explain how nerve impingement affects a nerve impulse. They couldn’t answer the question directly, and their approach didn’t reliable. The chiropractors said that they didn’t know how it works, but they believe it works. Some of them also claimed that the study and explanations for chiropractic were completed but unpublished. Those answers are too vague to prove the validity of chiropractics. The author also emphasizes the lack of clinical reliability of chiropractors. He describes the case of a four-year-old healthy girl who was taken to five chiropractors to get a checkup. Each chiropractor showed their own philosophy and opinion in their assessments, and they also showed their unprofessionalism when they mistakenly diagnosed the healthy four-year-old girl. That type of mistake or lack of scientific knowledge would lead to suspicions in the practice. Second, if the government pay for alternative services, they directly support this unscientific practice, and it will waste tax payer money without providing any measurable benefits. I think that the government should use that money to fund for modern medicines because modern medicines are much more reliable and bring benefits for the patient faster. Alternative services are just "preventive care." Third, there are many misconceptions that created by alternative practitioners to promote their practices. People usually think that alternative medicine is more "natural" compared to modern medicine. However, this is a big misconception. If poking the needle into the body, taking a huge number of supplements, manipulate the spine are natural, modern medicine is also a "natural" practice. There is also a big believe that alternative providers look at the whole person. Nowadays, whenever patients come to see modern medical doctors, these patients can only see the doctors for five minutes and get some medication to take. By contrast, alternative practitioners spend more time with the patients. In some cases, they can help patients relieve the pain instantly and convince the patients that alternative services are more reliable. However, the patients do not know that these practitioners do not know much about medicine. Because of all the important reasons above, I believe that alternative services should not be funded by the government.
Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. It is not responsible to pay for a service that a medically trained professional (someone who has trained and studied and is licensed to practice meddical healthcare) can not say how it will affect the illness or anything else in our bodies for that matter. Sometimes people become desperate when they are faced with death or other longterm health care issues and are willing to try anything. Offering and paying for services, medicine and or treatment that we are not fully aware of the outcome is only sending false hope and the wrong message, and ultimately heartache. Then there’s the legal ramification of this as well, offering to cover a service or treatment that may cause an undesirable outcome may have the person or persons involved seeking monetary compensation; after all the health program knew there was no controlled clinical testing and allowed (may be viewed as offered) the treatment anyway. There are just too many things that could go wrong with this. However, if there is scientific evidence to prove that an alternative medicine or treatment could be a benefit to a target group, I believe that grant money should be available to assist in testing the medicine or treatment in a controlled clinical setting. We live in a time where disease and illness are still killing us by large numbers, and we still don’t have answers for everything. We need to carefully and wisely explore all our options.
I don’t believe that publicly funded programs should pay for alternative services or treatments in a controlled clinically setting. I don’t thinks that the governments fund should be used towards these types of medicine. I say this because in order to be tested in a clinically setting then it should be of a medicine or a treatment that has be approved by the FDA. I say this because with today’s economy money should only be spent towards treatments that we already know that are working. If there’s a treatment that many people have previously claim that it works towards a big cure or towards any illness then that treatment should only be tested by then. I also say that that is the only exception when looking at a treatment that can save lives or prevent illnesses. Lets say for example that a certain drug or a remedy has been said to cure cancer or to prevent from spreading then I believe that in this case then it should be studied and looked at. That’s the only exception that I believe that the government can help for the funding, so that they can experiment. But in the other hand I don’t think that other treatments that show no good cause for the wellness of the people should be clinically studied and funded by the government. Many of the new things coming out lately like treatments that haven’t been clinically tested don’t give a lot of evidence to really work. Sometimes the people using these treatments go to courts to claim that many of these treatments do the opposite thing or that they do harm, if there are many claims then the courts should tell the seller to stop selling the item. So this is a reason why I believe that these treatment should not be tested and funded by the public.
I am all for an alternative to conventional medicine treatments, but would prefer that those alternatives have been tested and clinical trials done to show the pros and cons of that alternative medicines use. I do not, however, believe that publicly funded health programs should pay for these types of treatments when they have not been used in clinical trials to come to a general consensus of what the pros and cons are of their use and what the potential dangers are for using them if you are already taking some other conventional drug or herb. Standards of practice and quality needs to be ascertained to one: keep unscrupulous peddlers with false claims and tainted product from becoming a problem and two: herbs can also harm given certain circumstances and anything that is strong enough to make a chemical change in your body will have some side effects and those side effects need to be known. In addition, without some sort of clinical trials and testing done, there is the potential for harm and ineffectiveness with the use of herbs or alternative medicines since some studies have shown that there are varying amounts of the actual herb in most products. With the cost of current health care today, many people are turning to alternative medicine options and self-medicating so why not change the old way of teaching and train our doctors and physicians to also include the study of mind/body interactions and the body's natural potential for healing and start laying a medical foundation for the use of botanical medicine and other alternative medicine therapies? There is a natural synergy of whole herbs and mind/body interactions that could potentially be way more effective than that of man-made chemical treatments. But again, before I agree to publicly funded health care programs footing the bill for these alternative options I need to see the studies that go along with these alternatives.
I believe it is ok if publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that are proven without a doubt by millions of people that may have used or assisted in the use of some sort of alternative service or treatment. I feel that their testimony alone with proven labs or physical exams could be used as some sort of proof that certain alternative services and treatments do work and should get public funding. According to a recent article written by the American Institute of Homeopathy titled “The 2009 Flu Pandemic Risks and Homeopathy”. They claim with the use of supplements like Gelsemium, Bryonia, and Eupatorium perfoliatum, which are plants, minerals, and animal sources have been proven effective in the treatment of the flu. Logically thinking if we depend on plants, minerals and animal sources for food energy in order to stay alive, then who’s to say they couldn’t be effective in treating certain types of illnesses. The article also points out that during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic the mortality rate of people treated with traditional medicine and drugs was 30 percent and the mortality rate of those treated by a homeopathic physician was 1.05 percent. Of the 1500 cases that were reported at the Homeopathic Medical Society of the District of Columbia there were only 15 deaths. Homeopathic medicine has also proved to be effective in the treatment of Typhus Fever which is spread by lice in 1813, Samuel Hahnemann; the founder of Homeopathy treated 180 people, losing only two, while conventional treatments at that time had a mortality rate of 30 percent. These are just a few cases on why I feel publicly funded health programs should pay for certain alternative treatments and services. They should also fund for clinical trials that test specific proven supplements that have been proven effective for certain illness such as the flu.
Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? I think not due to the fact that theses alternative services and treatments could harm the public which would not be good at all. There would basically be no benefit for the people who they test these uncontrolled alternatives on. I know this is probably terrible to bring up but what if one of these so called alternative services or treatments ends up to be another Tuskgee incident where there are some wack jobs behind this testing these terrible treatments or services on possible victims. Especially the fact that these alternatives weren’t previously tested now I don’t know about anyone else but that bothers me it bothers me because it is unsafe and I believe most importantly unethical. Are alternatives services really that answer to or the cure for such diseases as diabetes or some type of cancer? Daniel Hauser’s parents thought that they could fix his leukemia with the simple act of prayer and herbs and did that help him? No his cancer got worse and now is currently on the run avoiding his court order to receive treatment believing that he is a medicine man or so his mother says. However in the case of Madeline Neumann a poor young girl died while her parents assumed that prayer would save her rather than the simple input of insulin into her body a couple of times a day. The truth of the matter is many people want to believe in little things called miracles that will hopefully happen however all this talk about miracles is based on chance. These so called alternatives shouldn’t be paid for by a publicly funded health program because if these so called alternatives are paid for then the co-pay of a simple flu visit to the doctor or a routine check for a pregnant woman or child will rise. Especially deductibles for surgery will go up which to me sounds extremely depressing to me. Deductibles are decently priced now but can you imagine how much it will go up in the future. What about the insurance companies foremost for the average person the odds of getting decent insurance will be very low and insurance will duck out of payments for liability causes. With all these alternatives our health care system will crash and burn there will be too many risk leading to less and less people will go see doctors and be forced to deal with whatever sickness or condition they have with over the counter meds. Overall I am against the publicly funded health programs paying for alternatives because it a huge risk that they shouldn’t take and no one will benefit from.
Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? I believe they should not be funded. It’s not that I don’t believe in alternative medicine, but I think it has its time and place. In cases such as diabetes, cancer, liver disease, more life threatening diseases medicine and treatment to these causes have been researched with people and have been conducted according to strict scientific and ethical principles. Every clinical trial has a protocol, or action plan, which acts like a “recipe” for conducting the trial. The plan describes what will be done in the study, how it will be conducted, and why each part of the study is necessary. The same protocol is used by every doctor or research center taking part in the trial. So only after enough data has shown that the approach is safe and effective, does a health plan cover the costs. I feel that we take so many chances with our lives everyday why would you want to take a chance and choose an alternative service or treatment that has not been studied as well as some and proven effective. However, if alternative services and treatments have gone through all the research and study, only then should it be publicly funded.
Even though I agree with alternative medicines approved by the FDA, I do not condone the use of public funding to pay for uncontrolled services and treatments because it is my tax dollars paying for these services. I think it could be a waste of money to use on untried and unapproved medicines and treatments. It could open the door to a lot of fraud because if public money can be used for alternative and or unapproved treatments anyone could submit a claim and get paid by public money for something that should not be on the market. For example, non-FDA approved treatments for weight-loss that prey on desperate individuals who are trying to loose weight. The money for public funded health programs should go towards funding FDA approved treatments for catastrophic illnesses’ such as cancer and aids.
This is another question I find myself on the fence with but could easily be persuaded to the other side. However, I believe that publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. The main argument is that these alternate services and treatments that have not been tested in a controlled clinical setting might not work. It is most likely, I believe, that if they have not been tested in these settings, they do not work as well as the ones these health programs already have. With all the advancement in technology and science, I would believe that they would have all the recent services and treatments. Why would the public pay for more services and treatments that cannot help or are less effective? Also, if these services are not done in controlled clinical settings, I highly doubt the work done is professional. If you are ill, who wouldn’t want the best treatment done by a professional? However, there is one acceptation. If these services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings are able to help improve or help greatly in any of the health programs services and treatments is perfectly fine and will probably be seen the same way by the people who need these services and treatments. I am very confident that most if not all of these people in need would deny something that would help them to get better or decrease the pain they are in.
People have a choice of conventional or alternative medicine when deciding how to treat an illness. The difference between conventional and alternative medicine is the scientific research documenting the safety and effectiveness of such treatments and medicines. There are promising claims and advertisements in regards to alternative medicine. However, there are no guidelines or regulations in place for them. Right now fraudulent claims can be made in regards to alternative medicines and treatments by anyone trying to take advantage of the public and misleading them that alternative medicine can cure a disease or ailment. These claims are easily being made because there are no standards or guidelines which alternative medicines and treatments need to adhere to. For instance, companies have made millions of dollars on magnetic jewelry. They claim magnets can alleviate pain or cure ailments such as spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or post polio syndrome. However, these companies also go on to say that the FDA does not endorse these claims or products. Controlled clinical studies or scientific research data are not needed to make such claims. People are being misled by claims of alternative medicine and their treatments because they are not regulated to adhere to the same scientific standards and requirements as conventional medicine. Just as conventional medicines are monitored and regulated by licenses, and FDA approval so should alternative medicines and treatments. Federal government agencies need to answer and address key questions through well designed scientific studies as to how the alternative medicine therapies work, whether alternative medicine therapies actually affect the diseases or medical conditions for which they are being used, and if their claims are legitimately sound. Alternative medicine needs to provide statistical evidence to justify their claims, effectiveness, and safety of their treatments. Until such regulations and guidelines can be in place and monitored, publicly funded monies should not be allowed to cover such treatments. I believe there is a place for alternative medicine in conjunction with conventional medicine. It is a person’s choice to make in regards to the type of treatment they wished to use in regards to their illness, but not every person is medically informed to the legitimacy of alternative medical claims. Right now the American public relies on the validity of the claims the medical profession makes in regards to the conventional treatments for diseases and illnesses because of the protocols the government has in place. The American public can trust in these claims. These claims have undergone controlled clinical studies adhering to strict guidelines and regulations enforced by the federal government. The same should hold true for alternative medicine. It is the government’s duty to help inform the American public and also ensure their safety in regards to their choices about medical treatment. Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments until the same rigorous scientific evaluations used for conventional medicine are applied to alternative medicine.
I don’t think that publicly-funded health programs should pay for the so called “alternative treatments” for two reasons. Firstly, the majority of these treatments have not been tested in controlled clinical settings and most of them turn out to be fraudulent. Secondly, the money to pay for these services comes from people that pay their taxes. I think that we all agree that publicly-funded programs should only cover treatments and medicines that have been clinically tested and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. All around the world there are fraudulent organizations that will sell lies to the public just to get their money. Unfortunately, hopeful, desperate, or naive individuals will believe that having a drink of the natural spring water from Mt. Fuji would help skin issues, or that some miraculous herbs would cure cancer. A person’s beliefs are their own, and if they think they are going to get better with these alternative medicines they are more than free to believe so, as long as they pay from their own pocket and it doesn’t put at risk the life of an underage/dependant person, like with the case of the kid with Hopkins lymphoma that ran away with his mother. The real question is, are these clinically untested treatments worth financing? If by empirical evidence they are well known to have little-to-none effectiveness. Moreover, let’s not forget that we don’t fully know how safe these botanical medicines are or the side effects they might cause, to mention an example. Although I believe that millions of dollars are wasted financing pointless wars or militarily supporting conflicted countries, I surely wouldn’t want my money to be destined to pay for useless alternative treatments or medicines. We have to wisely use the people’s money to wisely take care of the people’s needs.
I do not believe that publicly funded health programs should pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in a controlled setting for a few reasons. First of all there is no evidence that alternative medicine really is effective for certain illnesses. As a matter of fact its not proven to cure ANY illnesses. There may be cases where someone had a certain illness and opted for alternative medicine and they were cured and now they swear on that form of treatment, but who can really prove that it was the alternative medicine? What if their body was just healing itself and the alternative method of treatment they used had absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, I dont want my tax money going to some alternative method of treatment that has not been proven to be effective in a controlled medical setting. If someone wants to opt for alternative medicine, let them pay it out of pocket cause I sure dont want to help you pay for that. I'd rather it go to something that has evidence of effectiveness rather than possibly wasting money on herbs and such things. Just like your own private insurance doesnt cover some things that you might opt to do aside from whats in your policy, I think that the govenrment funded insurance be the same way: you pay out of pocket for alternative treatments.
Publicly funded health programs should pay for alternative services and treatment. With an increase of people seeking alternative routes for restorative health and treatments, more studies need to be done focused on protecting consumers. Acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and massage therapy have proven to be consistently effective and have shown success in most patients. The problems with alternative treatments are the lack of safety, effectiveness, and scientific proof. With diseases such as cancer, diabetes, leukemia, and several other incapacitating diseases ALL possible medicinal possibilities should be explored until cures are found. Although, restrictions need to be placed for consumer protection from false, gimmicky, and unrealistic money making schemes.
Medications, products, and treatments that have not been tested are not proven to work/help. Most publicly funded programs that I know of are aimed at getting more research done for products that are known to work. Until the treatment has been studied and used in controlled clinical settings, the treatment must have a known factor that helps for any program to want to invest in the treatment. With the health program being publicly funded the people who fund should have a say in what they are going to spend their money on. If it goes to pay for a treatment that is not effective their money is wasted if it goes towards making another product more efficient or helping someone in need of a surgery that could help prolong their life then they know that their money was used wisely and effectively. There is no guarantee that any product will work but when the money is used on something that hasn’t been tested then there is no reassurance that it has worked before just not in this particular case. I can see why the issue would come up when people are at last hope even if there are complications with the treatment; they are willing to try anything to see if it will work whether it has been tested or not. I do not think publicly funded programs should front the bill I think the product/treatment that wants to be used, the people responsible for the treatment should use the opportunity as a testing trial and see how it does work and if it is worth using. I do stand by my statement that products need to be tested in order to be used and to be used effectively and until that happens health programs should not pay for these treatments.
Posts
16 comments:
Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? I don’t think publicly funded programs should pay for services or treatments that have not shown evidence that they work for a couple reasons. The Daniel Hauser case, there isn’t enough money for treatments and services we know work and are not the standard of care, and if they don’t work it may end up costing more money in the long run everything that claims to be beneficial medically should be tested.
First, Daniel Hauser who can forget this case, the twelve year old boy with Hopkins lymphoma who’s parents decided to opt him out of traditions treatment which is the standard of care for the disease he has, based on evidence based practice. The family decided to go with an alternative treatment of herbs, ionized water, and God knows what else because a want-a-be medicine man told them it would work along with prayer. Well Daniel almost died due to his parent’s ignorance; listened to this man who turned out to be a fraud. Now Daniel’s good after being court ordered to resume the clinically tested and FDA approved chemotherapy, I rest my case.
Second, there’s barely enough money in the public program kitty to pay for treatments and services for people who need them now. This is why co-pays, deductibles, and total out of pocket cost are going up. Example; the deductible for a surgery last year was about $150.00 but to have that same procedure this year will cost $250.00 depending on the insurer. So no way, I’m on a budget sorry I can’t afford to pay for untested services and treatments to.
Thirdly, let’s just say the Health reform bill passes with a clause which allocated public funds for such treatment like Daniel‘s. What if public program had paid for the treatment Daniel received from the medicine man which we know didn’t work and was fraudulent. This same public program that paid for the treatment that didn’t work would now have to pay for the clinically tested, standard of care treatment that does work; I think I’ll pass on that double dipping.
Medical treatment has advanced so much and these advancements are because of the controlled clinical trials, evidence based practice, and regulatory bodies which are in place to protect us. Don’t get me wrong mistakes have been made and there will be some made in the future, but at lease it’s all documented which aids in the standard and continuity of care. I do not think this would be a wise or efficient way to spend tax payer’s money. Therefore, publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings.
Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in a controlled clinical setting. This should not take place due to the fact that these treatments and services have not been tested, thus they could potentially be harmful to the public. To add to that what would happen to the quality of the treatment? If companies knew they could get away with putting their “magical” cure onto the shelves without it being tested, could you even imagine how many “new and improved” treatments would be shoved out into the public? Let’s not forget to mention, what safety steps they may by pass or what carcinogenic chemicals they may use because it saves them money and now they do not have to worry about getting tested. To add to that, the health programs are publicly funded, which means the money used to run this service comes from the people. It simply is not right to allow the money to be used by these companies to promote phony treatments and cures. Yes, it is true that there are those select few people out there that would not take advantage of such and thing, but again those numbers are small. In the end, publicly funded health programs should not pay for untested alternative services and treatments because of the health and safety risks to public, also because it is our money they are using and the treatments really help us and not cause more damage while lining someone else’s pocket.
From my perspective, I truly believe that publicly funded program should not pay for alternative services. There are three imperative reasons that we need to consider. First, alternative medicines are lack scientific proof of safety or effectiveness. Although many people believe in alternative services, there has never been any scientific or reliable evidence to support the effectiveness of these types of practice. People who prefer alternative services are those who do not have much knowledge about science and medicine. In 1996, there was a survey that showed the first time users are more likely to buy supplements at super market and also had less knowledge about the herbs that they use compared to long term users. There is an increase of first time users because many people concern about their health, so they would try anything that they think would help. This is the reason that alternative services are more popular in the U.S. Acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and some types of massage therapy do not have a reliable evidence of effectiveness. I recently read the article " Chiropractic: A Skeptical View” by Dr. William T. Jarvis. . The author is a retired professor in health education, and he had been teaching immunization, pasteurization, and food technology at the Loma Linda University of Medicine. He has been researching alternative, pseudoscientific, deviant, and paranormal medical practices, as well as health fraud. In the article, he stated that chiropractic theory and methods are not studied properly; the use of chiropractics is sometime not justifiable and can have negative effects on patients. According to the author, the chiropractic theory lacks validity. For example, chiropractors were asked to define and explain how nerve impingement affects a nerve impulse. They couldn’t answer the question directly, and their approach didn’t reliable. The chiropractors said that they didn’t know how it works, but they believe it works. Some of them also claimed that the study and explanations for chiropractic were completed but unpublished. Those answers are too vague to prove the validity of chiropractics. The author also emphasizes the lack of clinical reliability of chiropractors. He describes the case of a four-year-old healthy girl who was taken to five chiropractors to get a checkup. Each chiropractor showed their own philosophy and opinion in their assessments, and they also showed their unprofessionalism when they mistakenly diagnosed the healthy four-year-old girl. That type of mistake or lack of scientific knowledge would lead to suspicions in the practice. Second, if the government pay for alternative services, they directly support this unscientific practice, and it will waste tax payer money without providing any measurable benefits. I think that the government should use that money to fund for modern medicines because modern medicines are much more reliable and bring benefits for the patient faster. Alternative services are just "preventive care." Third, there are many misconceptions that created by alternative practitioners to promote their practices. People usually think that alternative medicine is more "natural" compared to modern medicine. However, this is a big misconception. If poking the needle into the body, taking a huge number of supplements, manipulate the spine are natural, modern medicine is also a "natural" practice. There is also a big believe that alternative providers look at the whole person. Nowadays, whenever patients come to see modern medical doctors, these patients can only see the doctors for five minutes and get some medication to take. By contrast, alternative practitioners spend more time with the patients. In some cases, they can help patients relieve the pain instantly and convince the patients that alternative services are more reliable. However, the patients do not know that these practitioners do not know much about medicine. Because of all the important reasons above, I believe that alternative services should not be funded by the government.
Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. It is not responsible to pay for a service that a medically trained professional (someone who has trained and studied and is licensed to practice meddical healthcare) can not say how it will affect the illness or anything else in our bodies for that matter. Sometimes people become desperate when they are faced with death or other longterm health care issues and are willing to try anything. Offering and paying for services, medicine and or treatment that we are not fully aware of the outcome is only sending false hope and the wrong message, and ultimately heartache. Then there’s the legal ramification of this as well, offering to cover a service or treatment that may cause an undesirable outcome may have the person or persons involved seeking monetary compensation; after all the health program knew there was no controlled clinical testing and allowed (may be viewed as offered) the treatment anyway. There are just too many things that could go wrong with this. However, if there is scientific evidence to prove that an alternative medicine or treatment could be a benefit to a target group, I believe that grant money should be available to assist in testing the medicine or treatment in a controlled clinical setting. We live in a time where disease and illness are still killing us by large numbers, and we still don’t have answers for everything. We need to carefully and wisely explore all our options.
I don’t believe that publicly funded programs should pay for alternative services or treatments in a controlled clinically setting. I don’t thinks that the governments fund should be used towards these types of medicine. I say this because in order to be tested in a clinically setting then it should be of a medicine or a treatment that has be approved by the FDA. I say this because with today’s economy money should only be spent towards treatments that we already know that are working. If there’s a treatment that many people have previously claim that it works towards a big cure or towards any illness then that treatment should only be tested by then. I also say that that is the only exception when looking at a treatment that can save lives or prevent illnesses. Lets say for example that a certain drug or a remedy has been said to cure cancer or to prevent from spreading then I believe that in this case then it should be studied and looked at. That’s the only exception that I believe that the government can help for the funding, so that they can experiment. But in the other hand I don’t think that other treatments that show no good cause for the wellness of the people should be clinically studied and funded by the government. Many of the new things coming out lately like treatments that haven’t been clinically tested don’t give a lot of evidence to really work. Sometimes the people using these treatments go to courts to claim that many of these treatments do the opposite thing or that they do harm, if there are many claims then the courts should tell the seller to stop selling the item. So this is a reason why I believe that these treatment should not be tested and funded by the public.
I am all for an alternative to conventional medicine treatments, but would prefer that those alternatives have been tested and clinical trials done to show the pros and cons of that alternative medicines use. I do not, however, believe that publicly funded health programs should pay for these types of treatments when they have not been used in clinical trials to come to a general consensus of what the pros and cons are of their use and what the potential dangers are for using them if you are already taking some other conventional drug or herb. Standards of practice and quality needs to be ascertained to one: keep unscrupulous peddlers with false claims and tainted product from becoming a problem and two: herbs can also harm given certain circumstances and anything that is strong enough to make a chemical change in your body will have some side effects and those side effects need to be known. In addition, without some sort of clinical trials and testing done, there is the potential for harm and ineffectiveness with the use of herbs or alternative medicines since some studies have shown that there are varying amounts of the actual herb in most products. With the cost of current health care today, many people are turning to alternative medicine options and self-medicating so why not change the old way of teaching and train our doctors and physicians to also include the study of mind/body interactions and the body's natural potential for healing and start laying a medical foundation for the use of botanical medicine and other alternative medicine therapies? There is a natural synergy of whole herbs and mind/body interactions that could potentially be way more effective than that of man-made chemical treatments. But again, before I agree to publicly funded health care programs footing the bill for these alternative options I need to see the studies that go along with these alternatives.
I believe it is ok if publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that are proven without a doubt by millions of people that may have used or assisted in the use of some sort of alternative service or treatment. I feel that their testimony alone with proven labs or physical exams could be used as some sort of proof that certain alternative services and treatments do work and should get public funding.
According to a recent article written by the American Institute of Homeopathy titled “The 2009 Flu Pandemic Risks and Homeopathy”. They claim with the use of supplements like Gelsemium, Bryonia, and Eupatorium perfoliatum, which are plants, minerals, and animal sources have been proven effective in the treatment of the flu. Logically thinking if we depend on plants, minerals and animal sources for food energy in order to stay alive, then who’s to say they couldn’t be effective in treating certain types of illnesses. The article also points out that during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic the mortality rate of people treated with traditional medicine and drugs was 30 percent and the mortality rate of those treated by a homeopathic physician was 1.05 percent. Of the 1500 cases that were reported at the Homeopathic Medical Society of the District of Columbia there were only 15 deaths. Homeopathic medicine has also proved to be effective in the treatment of Typhus Fever which is spread by lice in 1813, Samuel Hahnemann; the founder of Homeopathy treated 180 people, losing only two, while conventional treatments at that time had a mortality rate of 30 percent. These are just a few cases on why I feel publicly funded health programs should pay for certain alternative treatments and services. They should also fund for clinical trials that test specific proven supplements that have been proven effective for certain illness such as the flu.
Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? I think not due to the fact that theses alternative services and treatments could harm the public which would not be good at all. There would basically be no benefit for the people who they test these uncontrolled alternatives on.
I know this is probably terrible to bring up but what if one of these so called alternative services or treatments ends up to be another Tuskgee incident where there are some wack jobs behind this testing these terrible treatments or services on possible victims. Especially the fact that these alternatives weren’t previously tested now I don’t know about anyone else but that bothers me it bothers me because it is unsafe and I believe most importantly unethical.
Are alternatives services really that answer to or the cure for such diseases as diabetes or some type of cancer? Daniel Hauser’s parents thought that they could fix his leukemia with the simple act of prayer and herbs and did that help him? No his cancer got worse and now is currently on the run avoiding his court order to receive treatment believing that he is a medicine man or so his mother says. However in the case of Madeline Neumann a poor young girl died while her parents assumed that prayer would save her rather than the simple input of insulin into her body a couple of times a day. The truth of the matter is many people want to believe in little things called miracles that will hopefully happen however all this talk about miracles is based on chance.
These so called alternatives shouldn’t be paid for by a publicly funded health program because if these so called alternatives are paid for then the co-pay of a simple flu visit to the doctor or a routine check for a pregnant woman or child will rise. Especially deductibles for surgery will go up which to me sounds extremely depressing to me. Deductibles are decently priced now but can you imagine how much it will go up in the future.
What about the insurance companies foremost for the average person the odds of getting decent insurance will be very low and insurance will duck out of payments for liability causes. With all these alternatives our health care system will crash and burn there will be too many risk leading to less and less people will go see doctors and be forced to deal with whatever sickness or condition they have with over the counter meds.
Overall I am against the publicly funded health programs paying for alternatives because it a huge risk that they shouldn’t take and no one will benefit from.
Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? I believe they should not be funded. It’s not that I don’t believe in alternative medicine, but I think it has its time and place. In cases such as diabetes, cancer, liver disease, more life threatening diseases medicine and treatment to these causes have been researched with people and have been conducted according to strict scientific and ethical principles. Every clinical trial has a protocol, or action plan, which acts like a “recipe” for conducting the trial. The plan describes what will be done in the study, how it will be conducted, and why each part of the study is necessary. The same protocol is used by every doctor or research center taking part in the trial. So only after enough data has shown that the approach is safe and effective, does a health plan cover the costs. I feel that we take so many chances with our lives everyday why would you want to take a chance and choose an alternative service or treatment that has not been studied as well as some and proven effective. However, if alternative services and treatments have gone through all the research and study, only then should it be publicly funded.
Even though I agree with alternative medicines approved by the FDA, I do not condone the use of public funding to pay for uncontrolled services and treatments because it is my tax dollars paying for these services. I think it could be a waste of money to use on untried and unapproved medicines and treatments. It could open the door to a lot of fraud because if public money can be used for alternative and or unapproved treatments anyone could submit a claim and get paid by public money for something that should not be on the market. For example, non-FDA approved treatments for weight-loss that prey on desperate individuals who are trying to loose weight. The money for public funded health programs should go towards funding FDA approved treatments for catastrophic illnesses’ such as cancer and aids.
This is another question I find myself on the fence with but could easily be persuaded to the other side. However, I believe that publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. The main argument is that these alternate services and treatments that have not been tested in a controlled clinical setting might not work. It is most likely, I believe, that if they have not been tested in these settings, they do not work as well as the ones these health programs already have. With all the advancement in technology and science, I would believe that they would have all the recent services and treatments. Why would the public pay for more services and treatments that cannot help or are less effective? Also, if these services are not done in controlled clinical settings, I highly doubt the work done is professional. If you are ill, who wouldn’t want the best treatment done by a professional? However, there is one acceptation. If these services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings are able to help improve or help greatly in any of the health programs services and treatments is perfectly fine and will probably be seen the same way by the people who need these services and treatments. I am very confident that most if not all of these people in need would deny something that would help them to get better or decrease the pain they are in.
People have a choice of conventional or alternative medicine when deciding how to treat an illness. The difference between conventional and alternative medicine is the scientific research documenting the safety and effectiveness of such treatments and medicines. There are promising claims and advertisements in regards to alternative medicine. However, there are no guidelines or regulations in place for them. Right now fraudulent claims can be made in regards to alternative medicines and treatments by anyone trying to take advantage of the public and misleading them that alternative medicine can cure a disease or ailment. These claims are easily being made because there are no standards or guidelines which alternative medicines and treatments need to adhere to. For instance, companies have made millions of dollars on magnetic jewelry. They claim magnets can alleviate pain or cure ailments such as spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or post polio syndrome. However, these companies also go on to say that the FDA does not endorse these claims or products. Controlled clinical studies or scientific research data are not needed to make such claims. People are being misled by claims of alternative medicine and their treatments because they are not regulated to adhere to the same scientific standards and requirements as conventional medicine. Just as conventional medicines are monitored and regulated by licenses, and FDA approval so should alternative medicines and treatments. Federal government agencies need to answer and address key questions through well designed scientific studies as to how the alternative medicine therapies work, whether alternative medicine therapies actually affect the diseases or medical conditions for which they are being used, and if their claims are legitimately sound. Alternative medicine needs to provide statistical evidence to justify their claims, effectiveness, and safety of their treatments. Until such regulations and guidelines can be in place and monitored, publicly funded monies should not be allowed to cover such treatments.
I believe there is a place for alternative medicine in conjunction with conventional medicine. It is a person’s choice to make in regards to the type of treatment they wished to use in regards to their illness, but not every person is medically informed to the legitimacy of alternative medical claims. Right now the American public relies on the validity of the claims the medical profession makes in regards to the conventional treatments for diseases and illnesses because of the protocols the government has in place. The American public can trust in these claims. These claims have undergone controlled clinical studies adhering to strict guidelines and regulations enforced by the federal government. The same should hold true for alternative medicine. It is the government’s duty to help inform the American public and also ensure their safety in regards to their choices about medical treatment. Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments until the same rigorous scientific evaluations used for conventional medicine are applied to alternative medicine.
I don’t think that publicly-funded health programs should pay for the so called “alternative treatments” for two reasons. Firstly, the majority of these treatments have not been tested in controlled clinical settings and most of them turn out to be fraudulent. Secondly, the money to pay for these services comes from people that pay their taxes. I think that we all agree that publicly-funded programs should only cover treatments and medicines that have been clinically tested and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. All around the world there are fraudulent organizations that will sell lies to the public just to get their money. Unfortunately, hopeful, desperate, or naive individuals will believe that having a drink of the natural spring water from Mt. Fuji would help skin issues, or that some miraculous herbs would cure cancer. A person’s beliefs are their own, and if they think they are going to get better with these alternative medicines they are more than free to believe so, as long as they pay from their own pocket and it doesn’t put at risk the life of an underage/dependant person, like with the case of the kid with Hopkins lymphoma that ran away with his mother. The real question is, are these clinically untested treatments worth financing? If by empirical evidence they are well known to have little-to-none effectiveness. Moreover, let’s not forget that we don’t fully know how safe these botanical medicines are or the side effects they might cause, to mention an example. Although I believe that millions of dollars are wasted financing pointless wars or militarily supporting conflicted countries, I surely wouldn’t want my money to be destined to pay for useless alternative treatments or medicines. We have to wisely use the people’s money to wisely take care of the people’s needs.
I do not believe that publicly funded health programs should pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in a controlled setting for a few reasons. First of all there is no evidence that alternative medicine really is effective for certain illnesses. As a matter of fact its not proven to cure ANY illnesses. There may be cases where someone had a certain illness and opted for alternative medicine and they were cured and now they swear on that form of treatment, but who can really prove that it was the alternative medicine? What if their body was just healing itself and the alternative method of treatment they used had absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, I dont want my tax money going to some alternative method of treatment that has not been proven to be effective in a controlled medical setting. If someone wants to opt for alternative medicine, let them pay it out of pocket cause I sure dont want to help you pay for that. I'd rather it go to something that has evidence of effectiveness rather than possibly wasting money on herbs and such things. Just like your own private insurance doesnt cover some things that you might opt to do aside from whats in your policy, I think that the govenrment funded insurance be the same way: you pay out of pocket for alternative treatments.
Publicly funded health programs should pay for alternative services and treatment. With an increase of people seeking alternative routes for restorative health and treatments, more studies need to be done focused on protecting consumers. Acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and massage therapy have proven to be consistently effective and have shown success in most patients. The problems with alternative treatments are the lack of safety, effectiveness, and scientific proof. With diseases such as cancer, diabetes, leukemia, and several other incapacitating diseases ALL possible medicinal possibilities should be explored until cures are found. Although, restrictions need to be placed for consumer protection from false, gimmicky, and unrealistic money making schemes.
Medications, products, and treatments that have not been tested are not proven to work/help. Most publicly funded programs that I know of are aimed at getting more research done for products that are known to work. Until the treatment has been studied and used in controlled clinical settings, the treatment must have a known factor that helps for any program to want to invest in the treatment. With the health program being publicly funded the people who fund should have a say in what they are going to spend their money on. If it goes to pay for a treatment that is not effective their money is wasted if it goes towards making another product more efficient or helping someone in need of a surgery that could help prolong their life then they know that their money was used wisely and effectively. There is no guarantee that any product will work but when the money is used on something that hasn’t been tested then there is no reassurance that it has worked before just not in this particular case. I can see why the issue would come up when people are at last hope even if there are complications with the treatment; they are willing to try anything to see if it will work whether it has been tested or not. I do not think publicly funded programs should front the bill I think the product/treatment that wants to be used, the people responsible for the treatment should use the opportunity as a testing trial and see how it does work and if it is worth using. I do stand by my statement that products need to be tested in order to be used and to be used effectively and until that happens health programs should not pay for these treatments.
Post a Comment