Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical.

Part of this is just that insurance coverage lags science. We've known that ApoB is more accurate than LDL since the 1990's or 2000's, but to be covered by insurance, several more steps have to happen.

First, the major professional societies (like the American College of Cardiology or National Lipid Associations) have to issue formal guidelines.

Then, the USPSTF (US Preventive Services Task Force) needs to review all of the evidence. They tend to do reviews only every 5 or 10 years. (Countries aside from the US have different organizations that perform a similar role.)

If the USPSTF issues an "A" or "B" rating, then insurance companies are legally obligated to cover ApoB testing. But that also introduces a year or two lag since medical policies are revised and apply to the next plan year.

The net effect is that the entire system is 17 years, on average, behind research.



ApoB blood tests are relatively cheap. You can pay out of pocket about $70 if you really want one and insurance won't cover it.

Most commercial health plans will cover an ApoB test for members with certain cardiac risk factors or medical conditions. But they generally won't cover it as a preventive screening for all members. I don't think we have enough evidence to justify broad screening yet, although that may be coming.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: