URAC WS 13 -- Claims of Therapeutic Benefit

The most straightforward of all the URAC Health Web Site (WS) standards, WS 13, is consistently the most problematic. It has been so from the beginning.

I was on the team that conducted the very first WS reviews -- I did 7 companies, and another consultant did the other 7. And, from the very beginning, we all saw that this standard was simultaneously important and very tough to handle. Let's look at it:

• The web site does not make claims of therapeutic benefit without competent and reliable scientific evidence that supports the claim.

Now, let me say right off the bat that this is a big improvement over the 1.0 version, which used the vague phrase "reasonable support" instead of the more useful v. 2.0 "competent and reliable scientific evidence".

Yet, we aren't out of the woods, despite the improvement.

What's so tough? Well, let's start with "claims of therapeutic benefit". What is that?

The Progam Guide (another improvement over 1.0, which didn't have one) tells us that a claim of therapeutic benefit is "an assertion that something (e.g., procedure, drug, and/or exercise) will promote or enhance well-being by having or exhibiting healing powers."

While that guidance wasn't there in v. 1.0, there should be no change in interpretation: this is the definition that Guy D'Andrea (then URAC's Senior VP), Ryan Lawton (who headed up the HWS program at the beginning), and I came up with for the first wave of applicants. Placing the definition in the Program Guide, though, should make it clear -- if you are going to say that doing X will benefit your health in Y ways, you'd better have some support for that statement.

Further, the Program Guide makes it clear what we stressed from the outset -- citing the author isn't sufficient support. If it were, you wouldn't need a separate standard requiring you to cite the author (WS 15).

OK, so we know what to look out for. But what is required for support? Again, the Program Guide makes explicit what had been our practice from the beginning: the key is that "the average user could, if so desired, go to the publication or organization cited to confirm that, in fact, the publication or organization has provided the support for the claim of therapeutic benefit that is made on the Web site." This is why it's acceptable to cite the American Cancer Society -- an average user can go to that organization and look for more details about ACS's support of the claim.

Here's a practice pointer -- while the application should contain a representative sample of URLs with claims of therapeutic benefit, do not assume that the reviewer will look only at the URLs you provide. Expect the reviewer to roam your website freely, especially in connection with this standard. The Web Site Accreditation Committee has made it crystal clear -- this is among the most important standards of all the WS standards.

One final note -- if you delegate the health content to a contractor, be sure to oversee this standard, even if the contractor is URAC-accredited. The Committee is not likely to let you off the hook on this one whether it's your content or your contractor's.