Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
I understand the concerns expressed by Dr. Kamerow, and previously by Dr. Woolf and colleagues. I highly respect and value the work of the USPSTF and do not want to see that compromised. However, I am also left to wonder, "Can't we all just play NICE with each other?"
Determining what is and is not covered, for treatment as well as prevention, needs to be done by someone, and I would far rather have it done for all by a government-sponsored organisation that, yes, looks at costs, too, than idiosyncratically by every insurer, who you can bet look at costs as a factor. The United States has the world's most expensive health care, with some of the worst outcomes in the industrialized world. If we cannot figure out a way to link evidence and cost to coverage decisions in an equitable way, it may be time to change from "E pluribus unum" to "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."
I am Principal Investigator of a PCORI project seeking to develop interventions to help patients understand the USPSTF recommendations about PSA screening and mammography screening in women aged 40-49. (I also want to live in a society that devotes fewer resources to health care, yet achieves better and more equitable outcomes.)