...per today's EC.

I am baffled by this. The thing has no proven efficacy, which is the case of *all* SRPT's products (lest we forget), except (i) rather more expensive and (ii) very visibly "under watch" by the FDA with a near-term Y/N read-out of the confirmatory trial.

Given these handicaps, it would've been very easy for an insurer to hold off and kick the coverage can down the road; and yet.

Anybody has a thought on that?