I am wondering if some of the potentially transforming CFTR treatments should re-arrange how we rate centers; it would appear to me that the methodology provided by the cff.org and expertly documented here does not give weight to how progressive one CF Center is v. another. The impact/benefit of a bucket of this data could mean that perhaps the FEV1 numbers could look neutral or unattractive, but centers who embrace this approach and fight for patients will leap-frog, data-wise, Treatment Centers who still believe the world is flat with regards to treating CF and are not open to disruptive change - the disrupters will be able to provide improved FEV1 numbers faster and by the time you go back to check a year later, the disruptors will be towards the top of the list. I personally lived through this hell with a center whose numbers looked avg / good according to cff.org but whose approach was a kin to burning witches in the 14th century.
Should ppl w CF care about the approach of the CF Centers and if they do, how could/would this get measured?