Reply #19: moore called him on gupta's "expert"

[rusty charly]

CNN put his name up for about a nanosecond:

Paul H. Keckley is an active member of several societies and editorial boards, and has authored numerous articles and three books. He has been profiled by ABC’s 20/20, CBS’s 60 Minutes, Fox News, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and has been featured as a keynote speaker at several national industry meetings. Dr. Keckley has also testified for state Medicaid Review Committees in Utah and Tennessee about the potential impact of evidence-based standards on benefits for enrollees.

http://www.prescienceintl.com/programs_bio_faculty.html

the phrase "evidence-based standards on benefits for enrollees" seemed to stick out to me and here's what i found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

In managed healthcare systems, evidence-based guidelines have been used as a basis for denying insurance coverage for some treatments which are held by the physicians involved to be effective, but of which randomized controlled trials have not yet been published. In some cases, these denials were based upon questions of induction and efficacy as discussed above. For example, if an older generic statin drug has been shown to reduce mortality, is this enough evidence for use of a much more expensive newer statin drug which lowers cholesterol more effectively, but for which mortality reductions have not had time enough to be shown? If a new, costly therapy that works on tumor blood vessels causes two kinds of cancer to go into remission, is it justified as an expense in a third kind of cancer, before this has specifically been proven? Skepticism here has been easier for insurers. Kaiser Permanente did not change its methods of evaluating whether or not new therapies were too "experimental" to be covered, until it was successfully sued twice: once for delaying IVF treatments for two years after the courts determined that scientific evidence of efficacy and safety had reached the "reasonable" stage, and in another case where Kaiser refused to pay for liver transplantion in infants when it had already been shown to be effective in adults, on the basis that use in infants was still "experimental." Here again the problem of induction plays a key role in arguments.