The High authority of health (HAS), which is tasked by the ministry of Health to assess the appropriateness of the reimbursement of homeopathy, announced Wednesday that it would only make his opinion that the “spring”, and not in February as planned, due in particular to the extent of the evaluation work to be done
At the end of August, the ministry of Health had seized the HAS to know his opinion as to the merits of the conditions of support and the reimbursement of homeopathic medicines”, indicating to wait on the conclusions “by the end of the month of February, 2019”. This request was made following a tribune published in Le Figaro in march 2017, originally signed by 124 health professionals, who were protesting against a practice, “irrational and dangerous”.
When they are prescribed by a doctor or a midwife, some homeopathic products are reimbursed an amount equal to 30% by health Insurance.
Unlike any medication, they do not have to provide evidence of their effectiveness to be eligible for the reimbursement. A difference permitted by a derogation enjoyed by the homeopathic products since the 1960s.
” ALSO READ – warning Shot against the ineffectiveness of homeopathy inefficiency repeatedly demonstrated,”We do the best to produce the most close to the time displayed in the reference to the minister. We are expecting the spring”, a-t-on indicated to the HAS-confirming information magazine L’express on Wednesday. “It is a tremendous work to evaluate homeopathy and its maintenance is the reimbursement,” noted the independent public authority, whose opinion is consultative. “The evaluation service of the medicines try to do it with the greatest rigour and an opening as large as possible, to not go to side items that one could reproach him for not taking into account”, she added, stressing that there was more than a thousand strains of these granules.
A tedious work, already done on numerous occasions by several public health institutions, foreign. In 2015, the australian council of the national health and medical research, after a review of 225 studies, had thus led to the conclusion that there is no evidence of any efficacy of homeopathy.
A year later, the repression of the frauds the u.s.
has required manufacturers of homeopathic products, as they indicate on their products that they do not have scientifically proven their effectiveness.
In 2017, the National Health Service (NHS) in the uk has announced the déremboursement of granules in England, stating that homeopathy is “at best a placebo and a waste of the limited funds of the NHS”. Very recently, Spain has asked manufacturers of homeopathic products to prove their effectiveness before you have a claim to a therapeutic indication. Despite the weight of the existing evidence, the High authority of health has indicated that they have carried out a review of the scientific literature (international scientific studies, the opinion of learned societies, recommendations from health authorities of other countries, etc) and it is preparing to launch “in the coming days” a call for contribution to collect the arguments of all stakeholders.
” READ ALSO – homeopathy does it really have its place in the maternity hospitals? “The community does not support homeopathy” In an op-ed published on 4 December in the Express , 131 members of the Academies of medicine, pharmacy and sciences, were of the view that “the debate around the efficacy of homeopathy, which persists in public opinion did not take place in the scientific community”. “The community does not support homeopathy,” they recalled. “She has not proved its efficiency on the basis of demonstrations of verifiable and objective”. They also felt that the discipline “should not be taught in the faculties of medicine and pharmacy”. The budget in 2019, social Security, finally adopted Monday by the Parliament, provides in its article 42 that “the rules supported by the health insurance homeopathic medicinal products (. ..
.. .) are defined by decree in Council of State”.
This decree, of which it is not yet known when it will be released, specify “in particular the procedure and the methods of evaluation or re-evaluation of these drugs” by the HAS. . .