Failure to Launch

One of the interesting aspects in the I&FM market is the predictions that I&FM is on the cusp of “booming.” Articles frequently tout the ability of I&FM to change healthcare, e.g. “I&FM is just waiting to explode, at which point it will be widely accepted.” These articles interest me because I’ve seen them for so long.

If I&FM is waiting to catch fire, maybe the kindling is water-logged? Because there have been attempts to start the fire. Large care facilities and educational institutions have embraced I&FM. Plans have been made. Buildings have been built. Providers have been hired. The press has primed the pump. Patients are ready. The I&FM rocket is on the launch pad. And it has been like this for several years. What is the hold up to the I&FM market growing for physicians looking to practice? Why is there a failure to launch?

I think the confusion about I&FM previously discussed is part of the hold up. Medical spas have been popular for some time, but the inclusion of I&FM treatments in medical spas doesn’t create that many more jobs for I&FM providers. Another factor that I think goes overlooked is that the practice of I&FM isn’t always complementary to traditional medicine—and traditional medicine isn’t always compatible with I&FM.

When the financial plans to develop I&FM assume that the addition or expansion of I&FM won’t impact the traditional side of the house, I think people get some very unwanted surprises. I&FM focused on diseases and symptoms simply won’t utilize specialists or testing the same as traditional medicine. Not only do I&FM providers see fewer patients on average, (because they take a holistic approach requiring more time), but I&FM providers are also addressing the root cause of issues instead of relying on specialists.

(Disclaimer: I&FM providers still need to rely on specialists. If a provider holds a medical license, they are still obligated to exercise the knowledge of their licensing. Practicing I&FM doesn’t absolve providers from employing traditional medical knowledge. Practicing I&FM does mean that providers can try appropriate interventions before referring to specialists when necessary.)

The result is that I&FM providers simply will not utilize specialists to the same degree as their traditional counterparts. That sounds like a good, money-saving idea—unless you are counting on the services those specialists provide to make your bottom line. How can a large medical practice or institution support I&FM if I&FM reduces the utilization of the cardiovascular department that generates the majority of the entity’s profits?