SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
PURPOSE: This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to naturopathic therapies.
ISSUE: There is not enough support for naturopathic therapies.
Background:
Natural medicines have been around longer than conventional medicine. Promoters of natural medicine have been long discredited by members of the community. In the medical field they refer to these people as, “quacks.” In politics however, they are called, “charlatans.” Natural medicine serves to treat the underlying cause of disease through, effective, individualized natural therapies. Ancient doctors collected information on herbs and created well developed pharmacopoeias to treat multiple ailments. In fact, some of these drugs are sourced from these herbs. Naturopaths serve to heal but not cure patients. They aim to provide support in a patients convalescence.
Nutrition is very important to the body. In order for the body to regenerate, one should have the adequate nutrients, minerals and vitamins. It becomes increasingly important to the objective of medicine that dieticians must provide the information to patients about how to adequately supply their bodies with the right nutrition to combat disease. Like naturopaths, dietitians serve to provide support to heal but not cure patients. In this support the patient can have healthy diets which aim to reduce risk of exacerbations to their illness.
Doctors are formally trained in well established schools. They, through their profession provide service to essentially diagnose and cure the patient from their ailment. The profession emerged as a result of indifferences with naturopathic medicine and this rift is still apparent in todays landscape. It is only doctors that have the ability to, “cure,” patients of their ailments. This brief agrees with this policy however, we need to have a more sustainable way to ensure the safety and security of the community. This brief proposes a three pronged model in which naturopaths, dietitians and doctors collaborate to cure people of their disease. Not enough is being done to mediate these authorities amicably wherein they can cooperate with one another to benefit clients. From the perspective of naturopaths, there is a common claim that doctors only treat the symptom. As it becomes evident, the main rift between naturopaths and doctors. This is because the one business is more profitable than the other. In this rift dieticians get forgotten. We need to apply the PST model to benefit this proposed three pronged healthcare approach for the sustainability of the medical field.
These disciplines need to realize that each has a body of resources and history in which they can help to aid clients. They need to recognize each other and also that each contributes a significant amount of intel in the clients health. Through this three pronged approach we can assure that health care for the future citizen is a multidiscipline approach. This approach has the potential to reduce costs while also promoting a healthier life style. The problem here is the validity. Those regulating the bodies of naturopaths, dietitians and doctors need to incorporate recognition for each other in their mandate.
Considerations:
The natural medicine industry is worth approximately $71.19 Bn in 2016. It was estimated that the USA alternative medicine industry was expected to earn revenues in that same period of $14.3 Bn. Alternative medicine refers to any form of medicine that is outside the mainstream of western or conventional medicine as practiced by the majority of physicians. By 2025 it is projected that the market is expected to reach $196.87 Bn globally.
Let us now take a look at the food and beverage industry. Comparatively, in the USA its revenue for 2017 was $5.75 Tn in retail. Worldwide however the market is expected to reach $20 to 25 Tn by 2030. Although larger than thealternative medicine industry, we can see that this industry needs radical reform to ascertain the notoriety that the other two industries have. The reason we are looking at food and beverage is because this is a persons primary source of nutrition. This is the place where people get their doses of minerals, nutrients and vitamins. This industry created the food pyramid in order for people to eat healthy, however, more work needs to be done for a sustainable future. Also substances that are not drugs used for medicine are considered food or beverages as per the Food and Drug administration of the USA. As supplements and herbal medicines are considered food by this regulatory body, it becomes increasingly important to know the details of this industry.
Lastly, lets compare the conventional medicine industry. First of all the medical industry is referred to collectively as the, “health care industry,” as currently they are the primary means by which people get diagnosed, treated and rehabilitated. This is the industry that is the primary focus of the PST model. According to data, the value of the global health care industry is $8.45 Tn in 2018. By 2022 global health care spending could reach over $10 Tn. Health care takes more than 10% of the GDP in most developed countries. In fact this figure is close to 18% in 2019 i. the USA.
It becomes evident through all the stats provided how much priority is provided to each segment of this three pronged health care approach. What is clear is that the use of the PST model can aid policy makers in creating a system whereby those in the three pronged approach are recognized and included. Through this three pronged approach we can reduce the cost of health care globally. The main stakeholders here are the naturopaths, dieticians, doctors, the government and the citizens.
Let us brief on how much healthcare actually costs the government and the people. According to the CDC the total per capita national health expenditures were $10739. This resulted in total health expenditures of $3.5 Tn both in 2017. It becomes evident that using a three pronged approach and the PST model adequately can alter the trajectory of health care.
Options:
Option 1: Full implementation of the three pronged approach with PST model.
This option is not very feasible as it requires massive cooperation in part of the three industries mentioned herein. However, a gradual implementation is more feasible and likely to cause less disruption in service delivery. A full implementation would cause increased costs for each of the industries. The priority of each industry first needs to be identified. If we base it of revenue, we can see that people prioritize healthcare first followed by alternative medicine and then nutrition. Using that as a guide, colleges and regulatory bodies can start to evaluate the costs and benefits of each member of the three pronged approach. They can then begin to change their policy to recognize each other which would once and for all quell the conflict. Using the PST model we as policy makers can allocate tax payer money to each member of the three pronged approach. Lets first discuss the PST model. Primary refers to intervention designed to prevent illness and disease. This is where alternative medicine and nutrition become important. We need to promote healthy lifestyles. Secondary treats individuals to minimize impact of disease. This is where healthcare gets involved. In this phase we can realize an effective three pronged approach to illness as alternative medicine and nutrition provide their continued support. Tertiary on the other hand aims to reduce implications of ongoing disease. This is where healthcare is used to continue treating individuals who have chronic illness. This could be and should be further supplemented with nutrition. It is at this point where all alternative medicine options should have already been explored. This is the phase where an acute illness becomes chronic. Through conventional medicine and nutrition health can be managed. As you can see, the PST model provides policy makers with the framework by which the three pronged approach can be possible. We as policy makers need to allocate tax payer money to each member as according to the PST model. Through this model we can see that each citizen will have increased access to a more resilient and sustainable healthcare that has explored all options before going to extremes. Through this, costs can be reduced. Through the proposed three prong approach those that provide services to aid a patient with their ailment can be more efficient as they collaborate with other members of the multi disciplinary team. It is likely that public acceptability for this option will be low as it is too much of a change from what is currently offered. As mentioned a gradual change needs to occur and people need to continue to cooperate with one another to ensure that the patient receives the care they are entitled to. This option is the most safe and secure option of all the options provided as it uses deductive reasoning via a three pronged approach to aid a person and professionals with the delivery of health care.
Option 2: Partial implementation of three pronged model and PST model.
This option is the most feasible. A gradual change to full implementation will allow people to adjust to changes with the regulatory bodies who are presumable cooperating with one another to benefit the patient. This option is sustainable as it has the potential to inform health professionals of the three pronged and PST model approach to health care. This option will allow members of the three pronged approach to collect information on the public delivery of health care. Through this, they can continue to cooperate with one another and adjust their policy to ensure that the service provided is best practice.
Option 3: Education.
This option is feasible but, how certain are we that the population will actually process the information conveyed. People are short on time and are likely to not want to participate in government officials teaching them about a new health care approach and the PST model. However, if people are receptive, we could see a society that is more informed. Attempts such as the food pyramid have been successful taught to the population. There is strong evidence to suggest that many people use this guide as their primary source for deciding what to eat or consume, which is good. There is likely to be high public support for such option as people become increasingly reluctant to commit to anything new. This option will give people the time they need to think about the future of healthcare.
Option 4: Status quo.
This is the most feasible option, however, healthcare could be improved. This option will not fix the conflicts occurring with professions. This option keeps professionals competing with one another for scarce resources. Although competition can be good in some circumstances, the benefit in this situation is jeopardizing patient care as mass confusion is preventing people from making informed choices when in relation to their own care. There is likely to be high public support for this option. Efficiency of health care delivery is likely to be lower if this option is selected. This is not a sustainable option as it does the absolute minimum to promote healthy lifestyles.
Recommendation:
Option two is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment