The Australian Government’s Review of Positron Emission Tomography: evidence-based policy decision-making in action

To the Editor: In light of our article examining the Australian Government’s review of positron emission tomography (PET),1 it is interesting to note that the accompanying official response is attributed to the Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA).2 When asked to clarify its role in the review of PET, DOHA had previously persuaded the Commonwealth Ombudsman that it had contributed only secretarial support to the process. With no accountability for policy decisions or the review itself, is it any wonder that DOHA’s response does not address the hard evidence that the politicians are “misusing” evidence-based medicine.

The comment that “one of the concerns that has been raised about the PET reviews is that the government did not follow the views of individuals who were involved in the process” does not relate to our text. We are aware that individual opinion is considered very low-level evidence. Our argument is that the supporting committee made a decision that PET was safe, clinically effective and potentially cost-effective on the basis of the evidence it reviewed. The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) itself did not review any evidence, so, by changing the decision of its supporting committee, MSAC’s own opinion was substituted without any sound scientific basis. Therefore, the decision at a ministerial and government level to restrict Medicare funding for PET is purely a political decision, and must not be misrepresented as “evidence-based”. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the policy decision to restrict Medicare funding for PET prejudiced the objective analysis of the evidence by MSAC.

The suggestion that “the government is funding the collection of data by service providers to improve the evidence base related to the use of PET in a wider range of indications” is misleading. To improve the level of evidence for PET would require, in the words of the permanent medical adviser to MSAC, “very large randomised trials, which are probably not feasible”. The current data collection is not a randomised trial. For many of the indications being examined, the validity of the PET findings and consequent management changes will not be assessed. There is no plan to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Therefore, the process is not going to improve the level of evidence for subsequent decision-making. Perhaps this is the outcome envisaged for 2006!

The problem with the PET review was a fundamental disregard for the promised standards. The ongoing problem is that MSAC is not an appropriately legislated body (unlike the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee). MSAC is secretive and its process and decision-making are difficult and costly to penetrate. Unless the structure, process and accountability of MSAC are changed, history is likely to repeat itself. The official response to our article only serves to heighten our concerns.