In these years of economical crisis and spending reviews the funding of lot of medical practices has been call into question.

Only techniques with strong evidence of effettiveness in metodologically strong trials have been recommended to the physicans to be prescribed to the patients, in order to avoid unjustified expenses for the public heathcares. At the same time, the increasing evidence of efficacy and advantages in terms of lower costs, reduction of medication intake, and almost absence of side effects, has called attention on Acupuncture in different Western countries, as a valid treatment for many chronic diseases and conditions. That's the case of some Italian regions, as Emilia Romagna, that recently approved the public financing of Acupuncture for the treatment of low back pain, with or without sciatica, and for the chronic migraine and muscle-tension headache, as it was already recommended in the U.K. by the eminent NICE guidelines. Also European Community has shown its interest on Acupuncture by financing the CHETCH project (China and Europe taking care of Healthcare Solutions), a 4 years programme of exchanges between European and Chinese researchers to study the possible models of integration of the best tools of Traditional Chinese Medicine, as Acupuncture, in the European national healthcare systems. One of the reason that led to conceive this project and the regulations above is the increasing request from the patients to have the possibility to choose this terapy, instead or together with the other traditional tratments provided by the public healthcare, as more extended "Right to the Care".
Is this integration really possible? Which should be the obstacles to introduce it in the western care organizations? What would it be the possible advantages, for the patients but also for the healthcare systems? Are there already any answer to these questions in the scientific literature?

The inclusion of an economic perspective in the evaluation of health care has become an accepted component of health policy and planning
Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been used as a tool for addressing issues of efficiency in the allocation of scarce health resources. It provides a method for comparing the relative costs as well as health gains of different - and often competing - health interventions.
Over the past two decades, an increasing number of patients have turned to acupuncture for what they perceive to be cost-effective treatment. Simultaneously, there has been a growing body of scientific knowledge on the efficacy of complementary medicine; an improved understanding of its mechanisms of action; and advances in processes to ensure quality and standardization of materials and products.
Acupuncture is one of the fastest growing forms of health care in many countries. This explosion is due to the recognition by both patients and regulators of the safety, effectiveness and low costs associated with this form of patient care. Indeed, many Health Regulatory Authorities, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, have provided evidence that acupuncture is cost-effective if used in specific chronic diseases.
The increased costs of interventions and health care in a resource-limited environment have fueled the demand for clinically effective and applicable evidence in real life.
To this end, pragmatic trials have been advocated as they are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in real-life routine practice conditions, while RCTs test whether a treatment works under optimal conditions.
Will clinical acupuncturist researchers be able to face the need of RCTs to build the evidence base around the efficacy of acupuncture while simultaneously dealing with the need of testing its effectiveness in routine clinical practice? And how will this issue be managed by the researchers? The debate is open.