Improving meter accuracy

I've been diabetic for 18 years. In that time, I've had a number of meters, and I've seen a lot of things improve. Memory has increased, blood sample size has decreased, reading time has dropped, bells and whistles have been added... they've even got one now that can wirelessly communicate with a pump. Everything has improved... except for the one thing that matters most: accuracy.

18 years ago, I was told that the FDA had set a maximum error factor of 20%. Any meter on the market had to meet that. And none of the common meters exceeded that mark. So if you're 200, the meter can come up with anything from 160 to 240. If you're 300, it can read anything from 240 to 360. If it says you're 240, you can be anywhere from 200 to 300.

More accurate tests are possible. Hospital meters are bigger and more expensive and all, but their error factor is negligible.

And yet, with each successive meter that I've gotten, I've asked the same question. "Is it more accurate?" And the answer has always been "No." They're not required to make it any more accurate, and I guess advertising an increase in accuracy would only serve, from their POV, to highlight how inaccurate the meters are. The fancy new meters with charts and graphs and everything are no more accurate than the little pen-sized meter I had nearly two decades ago. It's mind-blowing to me.

The numbers on the meter determine our treatment of a life-threatening disease. But those numbers aren't going to get any more reliable unless someone makes it happen. Unless there's a public demand to make it happen. Or unless the FDA lowers the maximum allowed error, which probably also would require public demand.

Our health is at stake. Our lives are at stake. 20% has been good enough, I suppose, but when it's this important, why settle for "good enough"?

Paul