Implementing Evidence

 A policy change to clearly outline defined care, based on some level of evidence, should be viewed positively.  I'm completely horrible with geography, but I believe the United Kingdom began an initial step toward defining the care options for people with low back pain this month.  It is a bit difficult for me to easily understand politics or the medical systems in other countries, but this change did appear to have reasonable evidence to support the options for care.

The next day, crap hit the fan.  The public had its own perception.  Since painkilling jabs (routine facet joint injections) were not included in the options for care, this was interpreted as cutting corners and costs.  Granted, sure, costs were being cut but the rationale was because of the lack of cost effectiveness.  I also noticed a vibe.... people in pain deserved painkilling jabs. 

Obviously, our health care system needs an overhaul.  If policies were to change based on cost-effectiveness and outcomes, how could the changes be implemented such that public support occurs?  How can new policies have positive public perception?  Is public perception accurate with the belief that people in pain deserve whatever it is that they want?

~Selena