In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Ahn et al1 raise the intriguing question of whether treatments covered by Medicaid should be democratically decided. Analyzing Oregon and Washington state guidance documents for proposed Medicaid coverage, and the public comments responding to these documents, Ahn et al1 found that 88% of commenters supported expanding coverage to include additional treatments and that at least 40% of commenters had financial ties to companies making products affected by the coverage decision. Yet the evidence cited in support of coverage was weak: almost 80% of commenters cited no studies, and even when cited, fewer than one-third of the studies that were referenced were randomized clinical trials. The authors thus document public comments that are skewed toward expanding coverage, clouded by industry interests, and impaired by weak supporting evidence.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Kanter GP. Public Comments and Industry Interests in Medicaid Coverage Decisions. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(2):331–332. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5077
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: