There is yet to be published a perfect study, that is one without flaws of
some kind.

The Kaiser study may have not yielded a statistically significant finding;
however, if there are two drugs on the market, both of which offer about
the same benefit to the taker of the drug, but one can be purchased for a
long-term use (say, two years) for $200 LESS than the other drug, would
this information not be considered sufficiently important to share with
other professionals.

Dare I say that insurance companies would PUSH consumers to have prescribed
the less expensive of the drugs?

Another question to ask is: how relevant CLINICALLY is the finding of a
$200 cost savings?

If a finding is not statistically significant, but is clinically relevant,
that may be just as important as the finding itself.

PS One of the easiest ways to pooh-pooh any study is to say (with a frown
or a sneer), "that study is flawed." (without necessarily explaining the
flaw)

Off the soap box and push it under the computer (how did YOU know that is
where I store mine?)  :-)

     mailto:[log in to unmask]

"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly
disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Ferndale, WA USA) [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.telcomplus.net/kga/lactation.htm
LACTNET archives http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html