I recently gave a commencement talk at Northwestern Health Sciences University, the day before Episode One of the last season of Game of Thrones. I chose to inject the sacredness of that day by referencing that other world by presenting the landscape of health and medicine that the graduates were entering as a jockeying between three Houses. In power on the Iron Throne: the House of Volume/Industry. The other two Houses are each insurgencies: the House of Integrative Health and the House of Value-Based Medicine. Can this life-and-death game play out favorably with an alliance between the two insurgencies in a field of health creation?
From the perspective of research contributions from academic institutions in integrative health, the 7 multidisciplinary universities have been key important contributors. These institutions, with one exception, are products of the last 20 years of advance of complementary, integrative and non-pharmacologic approaches in US health care. Each began as a professional school for chiropractic doctors, naturopathic doctors or acupuncturists then chose to expand its offerings for bird-of-a-feather programs, morphing into universities of integrative, natural health sciences. Part 1 of this series, “The Future of Integrative Health – Interviews with Presidents of 7 Multidisciplinary Universities”, examined the cornucopia of their present offerings. Part 2 offers an examination of the current place of research in these integrative health universities as the nation begins to call on their practices and practitioners in developing a new chronic pain strategy.
The recent global activity featured in the Integrator Blog News and Reports and re-posted by ISCMR, an international society of researchers in traditional, complementary, alternative and integrative medicine and health, has shown an unmistakable pattern: multiple governments are acting to remove recognition of homeopathy and certain of other complementary and integrative practice deemed “psuedo-scientific.” It’s not the only pattern. There hjave been recent positive governmental steps in Switzerland, India, the US and elsewhere. Still, the regulatory integrative ectomies in Spain, France, the UK, Australia, Canada – and here in the USA – are worth a collective heads up.
Is it possible that group visits can outperform individual visits in patient reported outcomes? The audience for an energetic panel discussion that touched on group visits at the February 2019 Integrative Healthcare Symposium heard an intriguing – though yet premature – data point. Panelist Mark Hyman MD noted that the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine (CCCFM) has developed a functional medicine “shared medical appointments” group model at the. Hyman then noted that first indications appear to be that self-reports of participants in groups in the Center’s Functioning for Life program. A cursory look at data showed more positive change on key self-report measures via group than via the Center’s already positive individual functional medicine program outcomes. Scientifically verified outcomes have not been reported. Will the performance of group-delivered services hold up under statistical analysis?