Some good news

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

From: ARH-Media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARH-Media@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of karin@a-r-h.org
Sent: 17 January 2011 13:02
To: ARH-Media@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Hom-Media] Some good news
Hi All,

Good news from Switzerland.

BW Karin

The Swiss government has given complementary medicine a second chance to
prove its worth as an insurable health cost.

Interior Minister Didier Burkhalter has announced five therapies previously
struck off the state insurance list will be reimbursable from 2012 as part
of a six-year trial period. The sting: all must prove their "efficacy,
cost-effectiveness and suitability" by 2017.

Back in 2005 the interior ministry rejected the therapies, arguing they
failed to meet the legal requirement of "scientific proof" of the three
efficacy criteria.

The reversal in policy follows a nationwide vote in 2009 in which two-thirds
of Swiss backed including the therapies on the constitutional list of paid
health services. It also takes into account an opposing recommendation by a
federal commission in December to strike them permanently from the list
because of a lack of scientific evidence.

For the new trial, providers of homeopathy, holistic, herbal and neural
therapies and traditional Chinese medicine will have to evaluate their
effectiveness. The findings will then go before a recognised international
institute - still to be determined - that will provide an independent
scientific assessment.

The medical establishment praised the decision to put the case before
international scientific scrutiny while complementary medicine proponents
welcomed the chance for "fair" assessments.

Ignazio Cassis, national vice-chairman of the Swiss Medical Association,
said it was a "very wise and pragmatic" move as it left the decision up to
the international scientific community, rather than the government or the
Swiss population.

It will take advantage of international developments in medical science and
better inform a decision on the issue in six years, he noted.

" I really welcome this move towards the international arena. I see this as
a great opportunity. "
Hansueli Albonico, federation of Swiss societies of complementary medicine

"It's the law"

The outcome remained open, Jean-Marc Crevoisier, head of communications at
the interior ministry, told swissinfo.ch.

"Until now we have not been able to prove fully that these five therapies
are efficient, cost-effective and suitable. Some do it more than others."

"The goal of these six years is to fill in the gaps for those that don't
manage to [meet these criteria] or do so only partially. We'll see what
happens, we cannot prejudge the results."

The scientific testing will be done according to a mandate and standards
fixed by the government, he explained.

"We must prove these three criteria to accept a therapy in the list for
reimbursement. It's required by the law."

He noted that it was an "emotional" issue and the six-year trial period was
set in order to examine the issue in the "most correct way possible".

The government's proposal also includes provisions to boost research and
training in the field, which Crevoisier said would not be
counter-productive, even if there is a negative result for the therapies
after the trial.

International scrutiny

The government is now considering which international institute to approach.
It could be a state-sponsored body such as the United States's lead agency
for scientific research on complementary medicine, the National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The National Institute of Clinical
Excellence in Britain has been name-checked by others.

"The idea is that an international body evaluates existing studies
adequately and they do not draw up new studies. That would not be possible
in this timeframe. Many studies have been done already. The point is to
assess them fairly," said Hansueli Albonico, president of the federation of
Swiss societies of complementary medicine.

He noted there was already evidence of the cost-effectiveness of the
medicines, so it came down to the question of efficacy.

Fair hearing

Practitioners were "confident" in the outcome, he noted, "if we have the
chance to convey solid facts from existing scientific studies - of which we
have already 2,000 clinical trials - and if these contribute to a fair
assessment".

"I really welcome this move towards the international arena. I see this as a
great opportunity."

"In Germany, for example, the medical profession has been engaged in a
dialogue for the past decade on pluralism in medicine and applying different
methods - always with a view to effectiveness, appropriateness and
efficiency."

Switzerland has the highest number of practitioners per capita in the world
- 17,200 registered with health insurers - this due notably to the various
insurance packages covering complementary medicine.

He said the time had now come to widen the terms of reference for medicine.

"We need a shift away from methods used for testing effectiveness, such as
are appropriate for drugs, to studies that show the overall benefit provided
by these [complementary] methods," he concluded.

Jessica Dacey, swissinfo.ch
(With input from Christian Raaflaub and Andrea Clementi)

Millbrook, Millbrook Hill, Nutley,

East Sussex, TN22 3PJ

Tel: 01825 714506

Email: > info@a-r-h.org

Website: www.a-r-h.org

Important Email disclaimer:

This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
receive it in error, you should not use or disseminate the information in
it; instead, please email it back to the sender then delete the message from
your system

* For insurance purposes only, ARH is an Appointed Representative of Balens
Ltd,

who are authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority *

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tanya Marquette]

I am not so optimistic. When they start talking about using American medical institutions to
evaluate holistic healing protocols bells and red flags begin to go off for me.
The medical industry is notorious for creating bias/prejudicial research studies or writing hostile
reports despite the data. Without a real independent source for setting up evaluation processes, and
a source that includes holistic practitioners, I would not be so thrilled. My cynical mind says this might
be the very process by which to trash it all. I see this process happen in other venues as well.
tanya