Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Andy, Jun 30, 2018.
No mention of GET or CBT.
You raised my hopes with that thread title.
I saw that item. I have no idea what the evidence is for these cuts - can we ride on the back of them and say there's just as much evidence for cutting CBT/GET for ME/CFS, and probably the whole if IAPT for MUS.
Protected species, mate.
"to be offered to far fewer patients" just means that it will be offered to none. It will be an effective ban.
The same thing happened when the NHS decided that T3 should be taken off patients because it cost so much. The NHS didn't ban it, but in effect that is what happened. Many patients (mostly women) have had their T3 taken away and have lost their jobs and become bedridden. The smart ones and the brave ones find out they can buy it online or they bankrupt themselves paying for private prescriptions. They are told by doctors "my hands are tied, the CCG / the NHS has banned it". It's not true - but it might as well be.
What I felt was important for us was the statement that if there was only a treatment with significant harms associated with it, it was better to do nothing. We are continually bombarded with CBT and GET having to be continued because otherwise there would be no treatments available.
same old same cost cutting in the name of efficiency .what does it matter if tens of thousands of patients are now denied procedures that would benefit them . as we know not all treatments will benefit all patients so picking out samples of patients who saw no benefit will be easy but then using these sample cases to deny the treatment to others is just plain wrong . evidential bias can always find ways to cut costs .
Separate names with a comma.