Question

Should insurance companies and governmental agencies that fund treatment be able to restrict access to treatment that is not evidence-based? What about treatment that works better than alternatives but is more expensive?

Answer 1

No, Insurance companies and governmental​agencies that fund treatment should not be able to restrict access to treatment that is not evidence based.

Many time accidents or miss happenings take place when the victim cannot produce the evidence. For example if a person has heart attack or accidentally gets hit by other car at a place where there is no CCTV camera (at a distant place) then he/she deserves​ benefits of insurance like treatment or financial support but can't produce proofs so in that case it will be injustice to him/her.

Nobody want to face any accident deliberately, so if someone​ gets injury or any other losses then then they deserve at least medical treatment even if they can't produce evidences.

Although government or insurance companies can make policies for such cases of no evidences of miss happenings so that a victim (specially poor or middle class) can get treatment.

If a treatment works better than alternatives but it is expensive, still government or insurance companies go for treatment. Life or health of an individual is more important than any expenses or other alternatives. Main purpose of insurance is to get financial protection when there is such situation of life or health at risk. So I believe that even if treatment is expensive, companies/ agencies should go for it instead of other alternatives.