The authors state that "total costs during the one year period of the
study were on average higher for the acupuncture group than for controls
because of the acupuncture practitioners' costs".
Surely this cannot be the case - most migraine sufferers I treat,
invariably of chronic protracted kind, will have seen GP and Specialist
before 'trying acupuncture' and I cannot see my costs measuring anywhere
near as high as the costs incurred by the NHS for those patients through
the previous months (perhaps years) of unsuccessful NHS interventions.
Invariably my patients will have spent months under GP treatment -
beginning (after blood and urine tests) with analgesics, then trying
NSAIDS, then prophylactics, probably at some stage receiving 'imigran for
rapid relief', until referral to a Consultant is realised through whom
the NHS funds MRI or CT scan, then another period of drug regimes until
(often several years after initial NHS visit) the patient presents for
acupuncture.
True NHS costs (of which every taxpayer should be aware, of a system
said to be 'free at the point of delivery') are massively above anything
my patients would expect to pay (often in total less than £200) to produce
lasting benefits - for which scan costs alone would heavily outweigh.
I am mindful of the very recent German Study "Measuring the effects
of acupuncture and homeopathy in general practice: An uncontrolled
prospective documentation approach" BMC Public Health 2004, 4:6 4th March
2004 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/4/6)which states...
"The costs of the alternative treatments offered within the test
phase are clearcut: Neither homeopaths nor acupuncturists employ fancy
technical products. They do not order large number of diagnostics, and the
number of sessions taken to achieve the results are modest: On average, 10
acupuncture and 2 to 3 homeopathy sessions were necessary to achieve the
effects with stability over 4 years, which translates to a rough estimate
of *300 per patient, with no hidden costs for expensive drugs. To treat a
migraine patient suffering 2 attacks per month over the course of one
year, using an effective triptane would cost at least the same in one
year, taking only the drug costs into account and without including the
cost of visits to the doctor and costs of diagnostics.."
Did the authors factor in these relatively expensive diagnostics,
drugs and Consultant sessions before deciding that acupuncture is more
expensive than medical intervention?
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
29 March 2004
John P Heptonstall
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Rapid Response:
Are all costs considered?
Sir
The authors state that "total costs during the one year period of the
study were on average higher for the acupuncture group than for controls
because of the acupuncture practitioners' costs".
Surely this cannot be the case - most migraine sufferers I treat,
invariably of chronic protracted kind, will have seen GP and Specialist
before 'trying acupuncture' and I cannot see my costs measuring anywhere
near as high as the costs incurred by the NHS for those patients through
the previous months (perhaps years) of unsuccessful NHS interventions.
Invariably my patients will have spent months under GP treatment -
beginning (after blood and urine tests) with analgesics, then trying
NSAIDS, then prophylactics, probably at some stage receiving 'imigran for
rapid relief', until referral to a Consultant is realised through whom
the NHS funds MRI or CT scan, then another period of drug regimes until
(often several years after initial NHS visit) the patient presents for
acupuncture.
True NHS costs (of which every taxpayer should be aware, of a system
said to be 'free at the point of delivery') are massively above anything
my patients would expect to pay (often in total less than £200) to produce
lasting benefits - for which scan costs alone would heavily outweigh.
I am mindful of the very recent German Study "Measuring the effects
of acupuncture and homeopathy in general practice: An uncontrolled
prospective documentation approach" BMC Public Health 2004, 4:6 4th March
2004 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/4/6)which states...
"The costs of the alternative treatments offered within the test
phase are clearcut: Neither homeopaths nor acupuncturists employ fancy
technical products. They do not order large number of diagnostics, and the
number of sessions taken to achieve the results are modest: On average, 10
acupuncture and 2 to 3 homeopathy sessions were necessary to achieve the
effects with stability over 4 years, which translates to a rough estimate
of *300 per patient, with no hidden costs for expensive drugs. To treat a
migraine patient suffering 2 attacks per month over the course of one
year, using an effective triptane would cost at least the same in one
year, taking only the drug costs into account and without including the
cost of visits to the doctor and costs of diagnostics.."
Did the authors factor in these relatively expensive diagnostics,
drugs and Consultant sessions before deciding that acupuncture is more
expensive than medical intervention?
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests