How did you get involved in the DHHS Guidelines?
Eric Goosby [from the
Pangaea Global AIDS Foundation]
approached me back in 1996 or 1997. Dr Goosby took the lead role in
organizing this. He thought that there needed to be some sort of
guidelines and I agreed.
MASJ: The Guidelines are continually being revised, and the last
revision was released in July 2003. What is
the process the Panel goes through to determine what needs revision in
the Guidelines and how to revise them?
There are 35 members of the
Panel representing a number of organizations.
For example, there are people from the FDA [Food
and Drug Administration], HRSA [Health
Resources and Services Administration], and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]
as well as people from AIDS activist groups. It’s a large group; in fact, we
found that it’s too large to be able to do very much at one time. So now we
have a subset of about 15 members who are primarily in the clinic and
experienced in HIV care plus a few others—some of the AIDS activists and
some representatives from federal agencies. And this
group of 15 has a conference call once a month—which means 10 to 12 will
actually be on the call—the second Monday of every month, and it usually
lasts about an hour.
Prior to the call, the Secretary pulls
together an agenda for the meeting—it used to be Mark Dybul [from the NIH]
but now it’s Alice Pau [also from the NIH]—based on feedback received
from members of the Panel or from the outside. For example, we have the
newly approved drug
FTC and more information about
and we need to put that information in the Guidelines, into every part of
the Guidelines where it fits, in all the tables and the text where the
various treatment options are discussed. There may be new information from
conferences that needs to be considered. We will also discuss revisions to
the different sections, such as updating the pharmacology information, drug
interactions and complications, and so forth.
Another example of an agenda item might be
an outside letter from the AIDS activist community to which we would
respond. It would be great if we received more feedback from the outside
world. I wish we would get more people that would send a
comment to the Panel saying, “I don’t like what you did here,” rather than
give a speech on Saturday and say “Well, those guys really blew it on this
point.” People should know that because this is a federal panel, it is
required to respond to every comment it receives. All of these would be
agenda items, and examples of what would be discussed during the monthly
Is there a mechanism in place, such as on the Web site, that allows people
to comment on the Guidelines or ask questions of the Panel?
Bartlett: You have raised a good point. I’m not sure that we have publicized
our interest in having people do that. What we have done is to post the
Guidelines on the Web and anybody can see them. And what we would really
like is for people to comment on the revised Guidelines before they
come out in print.
I think the
electronic media has changed how publications are done in such a way that
everything seems to be sort of a moving target now. If we publish a
Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, then there is a hard copy and it’s
going to last for a year. With a publication on the Web, it could be changed
every month. We have not yet really taken advantage of this ability to
update the Guidelines, and we probably should. In the past, what we’ve
tended to do is to say that our next update is going to be one year from
July, which was the time of our last update, but now the best way to do this
in the electronic media world is to change the Guidelines as things happen.
MASJ: The last round of revisions was extensive, particularly for some topics.
Periodically, we will revise an entire section. For example, we didn’t think
that our section on salvage or rescue therapy was very good; we didn’t think
it helped anybody. What the Guidelines have always represented to me was a
kind of state-of-the-art statement. In other words, what the Guidelines said
is what we knew, but I didn’t think that actually helped a practitioner who,
for example, had a patient with multidrug-resistant HIV disease. So we are
changing our approach to, “Here is what we know and here is what we suggest
you do.” In this case, we want to say, “We know that people who have had
multiple drug regimens and have multidrug resistance are unlikely to respond
to any current recommendations; however, there are several things that may
be done which may work.” To do this, we formed a subcommittee and got Trip
Gulick [from Weill Medical College] to lead the effort to rewrite that
section. The rewrite went out to the subcommittee assigned to this rewrite
for comment. Then it went out for a vote to the whole Panel of 35 for
approval and incorporation into the last revised Guidelines. This is
basically the process for any revision of a section. There is a subcommittee
to accomplish specific revisions, and then once the revisions are approved,
the revised section goes out via the listserver to the entire 35-member
Panel. One of the biggest changes in the last revision [July 14, 2003] was
evident in the recommendations for rescue therapy.
Once the conference call is over, the Secretary
summarizes what has been said along with the recommendations for revisions,
and the summary goes out to the entire Panel for comment via our listserver.
It’s a true working group with an active e-mail exchange among the members.
The Secretary will then synthesize all of the comments and send out the
final revisions to the committee for discussion and approval during the next
month’s conference call.
MASJ: Can any member of the Panel access the listserver to see what the subcommittees are discussing during the month?
Yes, but many don’t participate because they are representing an agency or they
don’t really feel that this is a primary part of their work. But they could
participate if they wanted.
Do you ever use experts outside of the Panel for
help with revisions?
Bartlett: The answer
is yes and no. One of the things we have done is to say that there are some
things that our committee and Panel are good at and some things that we’re
not very good at, and the things that we’re not very good at are often done
by other groups. Rather than have two guidelines with overlap, we ought to
simply work with another group. So, for example, for maternal–child transmission, there is a separate group that writes their
own guidelines; they have their own panel and they go through a similar
process to keep their guidelines updated. In this case, we simply refer to
their guidelines or we have a brief summary that they approve. Same thing
pediatrics, for which a similar but separate group also exists.
Where it has become somewhat confusing for our
group is something like prevention. We weren’t the experts in prevention but
we put recommendations in anyway because we thought this was important. It
turned out that that the CDC wrote their own prevention
guidelines, and we will probably agree to have theirs merged with ours. In
other words they’ll have their full document with 50 pages about prevention,
and we’ll have a short synopsis of what they say which needs to be reviewed
and approved by the CDC Panel. . I think it becomes very confusing to people
if the DHHS has a set of guidelines that are different from those of another
MASJ: What’s your opinion on the acceptance of federal treatment
guidelines by the medical community?
I think most HIV treatment guidelines
in general are good, including these. But if you ask people who do a lot of
AIDS work, they will likely say, “The Guidelines are fine, but I don’t need
them because that’s what I already do.” That’s the response by most people
that do a lot of HIV care. On the other hand, there are a number of people
who don’t see a large number of patients and who don’t go to the
conferences; those are the ones who would probably find the Guidelines
For credibility, I trust guidelines if they
come from the right source, not from a drug company and not from somebody
that has an axe to grind, but from a source that’s neutral, experienced, and
respected. Our Guidelines have that ingredient.
Although most people in HIV care in the United
States probably don’t think they really need the DHHS Guidelines, another
place where the DHHS Guidelines are very useful is with HMOs, third party
payers, Ryan White CARE Act, the Title I, Title II, Title III activities,
and so forth because a lot of the quality assurance monitoring is done on
the basis of guidelines. A number of state ADAPs [AIDS Drug Assistance
Programs] will approve drugs that are on the DHHS Guidelines list, and
sometimes the use of a drug will be limited according to the Guidelines. For
example, a state ADAP might say, “You can give T-20, but you have to give
it according to what it says in the Guidelines.” So the Guidelines may be
more helpful for some of the medical organizations than they are for the
individual provider. I also think they may help providers in some areas
where they are not that comfortable, such as in some of the more specialized
areas. They may also be useful for quality assurance.
Can you give an example?
One example is in corrections. Providers in correctional facilities would
probably be much better off if they used the Guidelines. If these providers follow the DHHS Guidelines they are doing
good HIV care and at the same time avoiding criticism. Also, a lot of the care
provided under the Ryan White CARE Act is done by quality assurance around
guidelines. Many HMOs have their own guidelines, but by-and-large, they
follow the DHHS Guidelines very closely. New York State has their own
set of guidelines; they have very
extensive guidelines, thousands and thousands of pages of guidelines. The New York State
guidelines are similar to the DHHS Guidelines, but there are some
differences. In many cases, the DHHS Guidelines become a source
document for others. Quite frankly, if somebody in Oklahoma who is running a clinic and is told
that he or she ought to write guidelines for how that clinic should deal with HIV
infection, the person in Oklahoma most likely is just going to take the federal
guidelines and adapt then them for that clinic. So a lot of organizations are
influenced by the DHHS Guidelines in some way, but I don’t think the
average HIV care provider thinks he or she needs them.
mentioned that New York State has its own set of guidelines. Were these
guidelines put together in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins [Division of
Infectious Diseases Clinical Guidelines Program] staff?
Bartlett: The New York State
guidelines are a product of the New York State AIDS Institute under Bruce
Agins. They cover a diverse array of topics and are compiled by experts in
the appropriate fields from New York State. Johns Hopkins orchestrates the
meetings, helps with the reviews, and arranges for the publications in print
media and Web-based presentation. These guidelines are available at the New
York State AIDS Institute Web site (http://www.hivguidelines.org).
They cover nearly all relevant topics including many topics not covered in
the federal guidelines, such as psychiatric issues, neurologic complications,
and post-exposure prophylaxis for nonoccupational exposure. They also have occasional differences from the federal guidelines in what they recommend. For
example, with occupational exposure, they routinely recommend three
antiretrovirals rather than the two- or three-drug regimens recommended by
the CDC. I should emphasize that Hopkins does not supply content for the New
York State guidelines, but we have the grant to facilitate administration,
external review, and methods of presentation.
How often are the New York
State guidelines updated?
Bartlett: They are updated,
usually at 6- to 12-month intervals. Like most guidelines, they tend to get
behind because of the velocity of AIDS information.
Would you recommend the New York guidelines as a guide for other states?
Bartlett: I would strongly
recommend the New York guidelines. This is not because they are better than
the federal guidelines, but because they cover areas not covered in federal
guidelines and they also use a somewhat different style of presentation that
I think is easier for the user.
Do you have a criticism of the
DHHS Guidelines in any way?
criticism of them is that it is very hard to find specific information.
The federal Guidelines make recommendations on almost everything, but
if you try to figure out, for example, how often should a CD4 count be
obtained, the information is in there, but it’s buried. I think there
could be a much easier way to present the information.
Why not provide an index or a search engine?
Bartlett: I think that’s a good idea. What we did with the
last revision for the initial treatment section is that we put our
specific treatment recommendations upfront in the first paragraph, which
appears in bold type. Now, we’re going to go through the entire
Guidelines and do that that for every section. This should make it
easier to find information on specific recommendations.
MASJ: Earlier you touched on the speed with which information in the HIV
field changes. Could you comment on any initiatives to provide updates of
the Guidelines on a more frequent basis?
We will be in fact changing how we release updated Guidelines and
do plan to provide updates on a more frequent basis. In the past, we
have not provided updates to the extent that I think we need to. We
ought to take advantage of the fact that in the age of electronic media,
it becomes very easy to update information and provide it to an audience
To follow up on the need to provide more timely updates regarding
treatment guidelines, it seems that an increasing number of physicians
may be basing their treatment decisions on data presented at major AIDS
conferences in advance or in lieu of published data. What’s your opinion
My personal opinion is that this has been a very unfortunate part of the
AIDS information network. There’s an enormous amount of information
that’s presented at meetings that never makes it into press, any place.
And that’s a problem in two ways. One is that it means that the data
have not really been peer reviewed. If an ACTG trial reports something,
then you can depend on it, but there’s a lot of other information that
doesn’t necessarily come from such a credible source. The second problem
is that the reader that wants to get the information can’t get it
because most people don’t have the book of abstracts, and even if you do
you’ve got one paragraph. So I have tried very hard to have the
Guidelines refer as much as possible to published literature rather than
abstracts. For example, if I look at a reference and it is an abstract
from CROI [Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections]
in 1999, and there has been no subsequent publication, I conclude
this is not very good data because it was presented four years ago and
has never been published or the authors are simply lazy about getting
this information into print. There are 67 publications that either have
HIV or AIDS in their titles, so there are plenty of places to publish.
It is terribly disappointing that more data from major AIDS meetings do
not get into the medical literature.
MASJ: But don’t abstracts submitted to meetings like CROI
undergo a peer review?
Yes, but if you been a reviewer on those, you know that all you get is a
paragraph. One paragraph. You read through it, and the bottom line says
that the full database is now undergoing analysis and will be presented
at the meeting. So you say, it sounds like they may have something good
here. I remember one time somebody was presenting a study on impaired
replication capacity, with a title stating “impaired replication
capacity of resistant HIV strains in treatment-naďve patients results in
reduced viral load after the set point is established.” The presenter
started the presentation stating that a slight change in the title is
needed, “It should say the results showed no effect on the viral load
because we have done more experiments.” [laughing] And it completely
changed the bottom line of the study.
With that caution in mind, at what level of experience in HIV
management should a physician consider not following the Guidelines but
rather base treatment decisions on personal experience or judgment?
Also, is there any liability involved in deciding not to follow the
Guidelines, such as when using
have dealt with this in two ways. One is that we put a disclaimer in
the beginning, like all guidelines do, that physician judgment supersedes
whatever is in the Guidelines. I do not know how much clout that has;
lawyers tell me that it doesn’t have much clout at all. The second thing is
that there is an enormous amount of grayness to our recommendations. So, for
example, where it says when to start treatment, the recommendation is that
everybody ought to start treatment when their CD4 count is under 200 cells
per microliter, and there’s really a consensus on this; it’s above that
level where there is controversy. If you read our recommendations, we say
things like “For CD4 counts less than 350 and above 200 however, some
experts recommend therapy. This is because there is no clear consensus on
the CD4 threshold to start treatment. We have found that it is better to
qualify our statements; that is, it is much easier to put in a bit of fudge
factor, such as the supporting evidence is not robust or consistent. We also
do this because of just what you’re asking about: we don’t want people to
get nailed because they don’t follow the Guidelines to the letter of the
Interestingly, our feedback to date has not been
that a physician in Florida got sued because he or she didn’t follow the
Guidelines. What we have had been told is that a Southern state has decided
not to put drug X on their ADAP formulary because of something that’s in the
Guidelines. In this case, the Guidelines had been misinterpreted, and we’ve
written to an ADAP to say, “You’ve misinterpreted what we’ve said.”
What happened with
that state exactly?
I really do not know the details of the case
about the ADAP that made an erroneous decision based on misinterpretation of
the Guidelines. I was told about this at a meeting, took it at face value,
and wrote the administrator of the ADAP program.
The most important message is to make sure
that our Guidelines are absolutely clear about what we are recommending and
some of the limitations in the knowledge base. For example, in the section
on antiretroviral regimens, we state preferred regimens and have several
alternatives. Some might interpret this to mean that the only acceptable
regimens are in the "preferred" category. Therefore, it is important to add
a statement such as: "The alternative regimens may be the preferred
treatment in selected patients".
What is your opinion on the value of providing an addendum to the
Guidelines on questions regarding potential areas of misinterpretation to
help prevent similar misinterpretations like the one you cited?
Bartlett: We are in the
process of a major overhaul of the Guidelines in order to address some
of the areas of confusion and also to make the document more "user
friendly." This project will be finished about spring 2004. We had not
considered an addendum for questions, but that might not be a bad idea.
MASJ: What about the physician with
minimal experience in treating patients with HIV who is providing
treatment with a regimen not recommended according to the DHHS
Guidelines. Would such treatment be considered inappropriate? In other
words, would he or she be at risk of
Bartlett: I think one can do a lot of harm in this
disease. It was a lot different before 1995. In 1995, it was very hard
to harm with therapy because we didn’t have anything that worked well.
But in 2003, one can do a lot of harm. So,
I would say in some cases, the answer would be yes.
MASJ: In terms of what you said earlier
about how the Guidelines are revised, could you comment on the general
design of studies from which the results would be included to form the
basis for a treatment guideline or recommendation?
Bartlett: I have always wished we put these criteria in the
Guidelines somewhere. The problem is that the Panel members get very
concerned when you start to write down specific details because they can
always think of exceptions. But in general what is needed for the
initial antiretroviral regimen recommendation is a comparative trial in
treatment-naďve patients with a sufficient sample size—which is really
not defined—with a study duration of at least 24 weeks but preferably 48
weeks. The study should compare a new regimen with one that is already
accepted in the Guidelines as an appropriate comparison. The results
should show the number of subjects that reached 50 and 500 HIV RNA
copies per milliliter; they need to account for the outcome of all of
the patients; there needs to be a tabulation of side effects, and the
data analysis performed has to be both an as-treated analysis and an
intent-to-treat analysis. The panel requires all of this, which is now
MASJ: Could you comment on the process by which the only
protease-inhibitor–based regimen specifically recommended for initial
treatment was Kaletra
[lopinavir/ritonavir] plus lamivudine with either zidovudine or stavudine?
How did that process develop?
It was developed primarily on a basis of the available controlled trials,
although other factors such as patient convenience and pill burden were also
considered. This protease inhibitor regimen seemed to be as good or better
than anything tested at the time the review was done. The obvious concern is
that there are no published data
on lopinavir/ritonavir compared with another
So we can’t say for certain that it’s better than other regimens that
a lot of us use. Nevertheless, it has never been beaten and it clearly
has a very good track record, including 5-year durability. We chose the
specific nucleoside analogues that it is paired with because we have
become a bit nervous about a general recommendation of “two nucleosides
and a protease inhibitor” as a good way to go because of some of the
drug interactions and problems that have been seen with certain
combinations, such as the triple nucleoside analogue regimen and
Regarding the lack of published data, what about the
Context study, which compared lopinavir/ritonavir with boosted fosamprenavir?
There are several
ongoing studies of lopinavir/ritonavir versus other boosted protease
inhibitors, so I think the problem of sparse comparative studies will be
corrected very soon. There is also a large ACTG study comparing
efavirenz versus lopinavir/ritonavir. However, remember that the
panel likes a "full deck" in making comparisons. This means a good
sample size, comparable patients, follow-up for at least 48 weeks, and
good data regarding virologic response, immune response, and toxicity.
We are also interested in convenience, long-term toxicity, pill burden,
drug interactions, food effects, and so on.
With adherence being a key predictor of long-term virologic success, what is
your opinion on the potential impact on the adherence with once-daily
compared with twice-daily therapy? There’s new information about once-a-day therapy in the Guidelines and an explanation now about missed doses
and minimum concentration (Cmin) in relation to the inhibitory
concentration (IC50), but could you comment further on this?
Bartlett: I think that we now
are at a point where we can offer once-daily therapy It’s probably going
to be a nonnucleoside-analogue-based once-a-day therapy because we now
have drugs with long half-lives that show once-daily dosing can be done.
However, there are some important differences based on pharmacokinetics.
For example, a missed dose with unboosted atazanavir could be a
disaster; yet, with efavirenz, it would not be such a problem because of
its half-life. So, by discussing missed doses in the Guidelines,
we tried to point out that once-a-day therapy is not necessarily the
same among all of the drugs that are going to be offered as once-a-day
drugs. But we think that we’re at a point where once-a-day therapy can
be standard care.
MASJ: Several agents and drug combinations have been removed from the
preferred and alternate regimens for initial recommendations in
treatment-naive patients. What are the reasons for removing the triple
nucleoside analogue regimen as a preferred initial treatment?
Bartlett: The Trizivir triple
nucleoside regimen was removed because of the results from the ACTG 5095
trial, which seemed to be solid science. I personally was not surprised
because I thought that if a drug regimen does not work very well in a
patient with a high viral load, then it probably would not work in
patients with a lower viral load if you had a large enough sample size.
It just means it is a weaker regimen, a less potent regimen. At the same
time, there were a number of members on the Panel who have had very good
experiences with a triple nucleoside regimen. They felt that for a lot
of patients, it may not be the best regimen in terms of the likelihood
of a durable viral response, but it was their best shot at therapy. It’s
now in the “alternative” category and may be preferred for some
The guidelines make a distinction between patients with “limited” prior
treatment experience versus “extensive” prior experience. What’s your
definition of those two terms?
Well, don’t ask that because we don’t know. “Extensive” means patients
who have been exposed to multiple drugs and have a resistance profile
that really limits their options with all three drug classes. We were
reluctant to try to define these terms because it’s such a gray area.
However, we did think that was very important to tell a provider that if
a patient fails his or her first regimen, their probability of success
with another one is very good. Likewise, we also thought it was
important to tell a provider that if the patient has had extensive
exposure to all drug classes with many resistance mutations, they should
not spend a lot of time changing from one regimen to another because
it’s probably not going to work. So we thought that the differences in
the approach to those two patient populations was important to convey,
but we also felt we couldn’t get into too many specifics because there
are so many variables involved.
There are many physicians and other
caregivers globally who try to utilize the DHHS Guidelines. Many
of them are from resource-limited nations where some, and often most,
antiretrovirals are not available. Do you have any advice on ways that
the Guidelines can be adapted in such situations?
Our guidelines are
sponsored by the US government and are directed primarily at treatment in
this country. However, we are sympathetic to the use of these guidelines
elsewhere and feel that the information is useful but not always
relevant because of some exceptions. You mentioned one, which is a limited drug
supply. Other confounders are the problem of concurrent diseases such as TB,
drug storage issues like refrigeration, and the importance of economics with
a drug price structure that is entirely different than ours. We simply
cannot cover all of this ground. I also feel that there are many AIDS
experts in every area of the world who are better equipped to address
regional issues and most have done this.
You have talked about the process on how the Guidelines are updated
and about some of the specific revisions that were made recently, but
perhaps you could also comment on the state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
(ADAPs). There were recent press reports of deaths of several people in West Virginia
Kentucky who were on those states' ADAP waiting lists because there was no funding to purchase antiretroviral
drugs for those people who died. At what point is the failure to initiate
antiretroviral therapy for HIV patients potentially harmful for a patient and, with more than 700 people on
ADAP waiting lists, is there a way that treatment might be prioritized so
that this doesn’t happen again? Could recommendations be made based on the DHHS Guidelines?
Bartlett: One of the things
you need to say right up front is that ADAP and
Medicaid are state-based systems; so there are 50 of them, and they
are all different. People on ADAP in Maryland are not going to suffer
because Maryland has a great ADAP, and the reason it has a great ADAP is
because it has great Medicaid. Maryland has risk-adjusted rates for
AIDS. I don’t know what the rate is in West Virginia, but in Tennessee,
it’s something like $150 per member per month. Well, you can’t provide
care with that. In Maryland, it’s $2600 per member per month for a
patient with AIDS. That’s a colossal difference and something that a lot
of people are simply not aware of. So if you are in Tennessee—and it
looks like West Virginia and Kentucky may
be the same way—Medicaid is broke; reimbursement is under funded, and
this places an increased burden on ADAP. So if you’ve got a good
Medicaid, you’ve usually got an ADAP that can supply the patient needs,
and if you’ve got a bad Medicaid, you don’t. This means that they may
need to prioritize.
So what recommendations would you make for evaluating people for
prioritizing treatment if you had to?
Bartlett: There needs to be
a way to prioritize by saying that these are the drugs that are most
critical, and these drugs are less critical on the basis of cost. So
Serostim, for example, may not be very important compared to an
antiretroviral drug, and you may have to bite the bullet and say that.
And then the second thing is you may have to say that patient X may have
only recently got on the ADAP rolls but needs medicine more than others
who have been there longer. I don’t know of states that do this. If
people are dying in West Virginia and Kentucky, they either need more
funds or a way to prioritize. ADAPs are coming to the point of
rationing, which is where many are—I think there are nine states that
have waiting lists—those that have to ration probably need to find a way
to prioritize. I do think there could be guidelines but they need to
come from HRSA because HRSA holds the purse strings for ADAP
Would HRSA get their information from the DHHS Panel on how to make their recommendations?
Bartlett: They could. I think if they asked us, we would probably provide
whatever kind of information they wanted.
MASJ: That leads me to my next question. Would national
guidelines on rationing HIV drugs and prioritization of those on ADAP
waiting lists be of benefit to those affected by the lack of ADAP
funding? It sounds like you are saying yes and that HRSA needs to do
Bartlett: Yes, but Medicaid and ADAP are state based, and
people are very reluctant to mess with the prerogative of a state. HRSA
might say, “We don’t think that’s our role. We think our role is to
allocate the money to the states, and they then have the prerogative of
deciding how they’re going to spend that money. And if they want to have
a list that is simply by number, then that’s their prerogative. If they
want to do it by some method in which they judge severity of need and so
forth, then that’s their prerogative too.” On the other hand, I think
that if HRSA became alarmed by this, they could set up some sort of
guidance. Ultimately, HRSA can apply an enormous amount of pressure on
states because it could make funding contingent on demonstrating such
plans. Many probably have them.
MASJ: Assuming HRSA gets involved,
would the Panel consider developing some supplemental guidelines for the
prioritization of care for people with HIV on state ADAP waiting lists?
You seemed to imply that if HRSA approached you that you would.
Bartlett: Well, you know, I’m speaking as an individual.
Would the Panel respond? I think we would respond to almost anything
that HRSA or another federal agency asked us to do. How we would go
about doing it, I’m not sure. Most of us on the Panel, and in medicine
for that matter, are running on a fast treadmill. Personally, I would
try to do it because I see it as a very high priority, a very important
However, we are all volunteers who are already pretty busy. Further, we
may not have the right expertise to do the necessary cost-effective
analysis. It might require a different panel.