ECT Devices

I realize that the article “ECT Device Reclassification Raises Access Concerns” in the January 1 issue relates to the device rather than to ECT itself. However, it is interesting to note that after paying a premium of twice my base malpractice insurance coverage for many years because I administer ECT, my malpractice insurance company abolished this extra premium entirely here in Massachusetts. Its actuaries apparently determined that ECT is no more dangerous than psychotherapy. I see this as stronger evidence for ECT as a treatment option than any clinical trial could provide, in light of the well-known suspicious attitude of all insurance companies.