In the 1990s, Dr. David Eisenberg and collegues at Harvard created a little stir in the health care discussion when they published the results of several studies regarding the use of (and estimations of the dollars spent on) “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (CAM) by consumers. The definitions of the services included in “CAM” for the study were a little loose- (not taught in traditional medical schools) and some of the categorization may have been a little confusing but the bottom-line was very real: Over $27 billion was estimated to have been spent on CAM services, most of it was cash, and most medical doctors were unaware of the use of these services.
The $27 billion number caught the attention of the insurance industry. Since most of these CAM services were outside the traditional benefit structure of a health plan, the insurance providers began to try to figure out ways to capture some of the dollars. Affinity networks were all the rage for awhile as insurance payers simply developed networks as a “value-add” to a health plan member. They would provide access to CAM providers to members at a discount from normal charges and collect an administrative fee for coordinating the efforts and providing the access to their members. Very little was done to actually integrate these services further into any health care plan for an individual patient. In the 90s, creating a “health and wellness culture” in health care was still an altruistic vision to most insurance payers (still is to some); they remained focused on managing illness and paying claims. Offering CAM networks was a product decision by the marketers, not a clinical one.
No doubt, some progress has been made since 1997 but the health care system we have today still has a long way to go to integrate the services included in the CAM definition, into a clinical delivery structure that focuses not only on improving the physical health, but the quality of life of each individual.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently published some updated numbers which shows there continues to be a strong demand for CAM services.
The study, “Costs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and Frequency of Visits to CAM Practitioners: United States, 2007” estimates that nearly $34 billion was spent out-of-pocket by consumers for a variety of CAM products and services in 2007. The vast majority of this cost ($22b) was for “self-care purchases i.e. products, classes, and materials; and nearly $12 billion was spent on practitioner visits.
The methodologies between Eisenberg’s approach in the 90s and the approach used in this updated study are so drastically different you have to take some of the comparative conclusions made with a tad of skeptisicsm. We all know that developing consistent definitions and comparisons in health care has not been one of the industry’s strengths.
Nonetheless, this updated study projects an even larger expenditure for CAM services than Eisenberg estimated in 1997. This continued growth creates opportunities for CAM products and services to play a more visible role in the health care system that is evolving.
This study shows that individuals continue to seek more holistically focused (and yet safe) methods to address health issues, and more important, look to these services to maintain their health and quality of life.
As the health care system gravitates toward health, wellness, and quality of life even more, we hope the clinicians (and not the marketers) take the steps necessary to integrate appropriate access to CAM services and make them an even more important component of health care delivery in the future.
The $27 billion number caught the attention of the insurance industry. Since most of these CAM services were outside the traditional benefit structure of a health plan, the insurance providers began to try to figure out ways to capture some of the dollars. Affinity networks were all the rage for awhile as insurance payers simply developed networks as a “value-add” to a health plan member. They would provide access to CAM providers to members at a discount from normal charges and collect an administrative fee for coordinating the efforts and providing the access to their members. Very little was done to actually integrate these services further into any health care plan for an individual patient. In the 90s, creating a “health and wellness culture” in health care was still an altruistic vision to most insurance payers (still is to some); they remained focused on managing illness and paying claims. Offering CAM networks was a product decision by the marketers, not a clinical one.
No doubt, some progress has been made since 1997 but the health care system we have today still has a long way to go to integrate the services included in the CAM definition, into a clinical delivery structure that focuses not only on improving the physical health, but the quality of life of each individual.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently published some updated numbers which shows there continues to be a strong demand for CAM services.
The study, “Costs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and Frequency of Visits to CAM Practitioners: United States, 2007” estimates that nearly $34 billion was spent out-of-pocket by consumers for a variety of CAM products and services in 2007. The vast majority of this cost ($22b) was for “self-care purchases i.e. products, classes, and materials; and nearly $12 billion was spent on practitioner visits.
The methodologies between Eisenberg’s approach in the 90s and the approach used in this updated study are so drastically different you have to take some of the comparative conclusions made with a tad of skeptisicsm. We all know that developing consistent definitions and comparisons in health care has not been one of the industry’s strengths.
Nonetheless, this updated study projects an even larger expenditure for CAM services than Eisenberg estimated in 1997. This continued growth creates opportunities for CAM products and services to play a more visible role in the health care system that is evolving.
This study shows that individuals continue to seek more holistically focused (and yet safe) methods to address health issues, and more important, look to these services to maintain their health and quality of life.
As the health care system gravitates toward health, wellness, and quality of life even more, we hope the clinicians (and not the marketers) take the steps necessary to integrate appropriate access to CAM services and make them an even more important component of health care delivery in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment