a) provide information and advice to the Minister on complementary and alternative health care [The report provided very little about the nature of the individual methods and provided no criticism of any such methods.]
b) provide advice on how complementary and alternative health care can improve outcomes in the priority areas signalled in the New Zealand Health Strategy [So far, I detect no advice, just a call for opinions about what might be done.]
c) provide advice on the need, or otherwise, to regulate complementary and alternative health care practitioners in order to protect consumers who use complementary and alternative health care [I see no information about how effective regulation can be done.]
d) provide advice on consumer information needs and, in particular, advice on the benefits, risks and costs of complementary and alternative therapies [The MACCAH little information on any of these topics and failed to mention any of the best sources of information.]
e) review overseas evidence-based research, identify priorities for the development of New Zealand evidence-based research on the safety and efficacy of specific complementary and alternative therapies, and support the development of guidelines [Research priorities should be based on whether or not a proposed study can provide useful results. The main factors to consider should be preliminary evidence of effectiveness and whether of not the method has a scientifically plausible rationale.]
f) provide advice on whether, and how, specified complementary and alternative health practitioners should be integrated into the mainstream health system. [This is a one-sided coin. The other side should be how to protect consumers from practices that don’t work.]
Analysis of the April 2003 Draft Report of the New Zealand Ministerial Advisory Committee on Complementary and Alternative Health (MACCAH)
June 27, 2003
