If a therapy is extremely difficult to actually obtain or do then you should require more evidence for it (higher cut-off value) than if the therapy is easy to obtain or do (lower cut-off value).
As an example, rigorous dietary programs such as the classic Gerson program require virtually a full time commitment to doing the therapy - with the necessity of making fresh juices every few hours as well as several coffee enemas per day over an extended period of time it is said to be almost impossible for a sick person to do this therapy on their own. In this case I think the effort required means strong evidence it works is needed and thus would substantially raise the cut-off for this therapy. Conversely, Essiac Tea (which I am skeptical of the evidence for) requires relatively little effort - just brewing the tea when needed and drinking a relatively manageable amount each day.
As another example, programs which require foreign travel to obtain certainly are more difficult because of it, and this may raise the cut-off value. But I think this is usually a much weaker modifier - it may not be that difficult to travel if your life is at stake!