- Whether IM really offers the best of conventional medicine and CAM.
- Whether IM produces better outcomes.
- Whether IM is effective in the area of prevention, including obesity and cardiovascular risk.
- Whether IM has anything to offer preventive medicine.
- Whether future IM research will yield beneficial results.
- Whether IM has a positive impact on utilization clinical preventive services, smoking cessation, diet, and physical activity.
- Whether IM is cost effective.
We don’t even have a working definition of “integrative medicine,” although experience tells us that incorporating diagnoses and treatments with insufficient evidence of safety and effectiveness is an acceptable element of integrative practice, as is rebranding “conventional” practices as “integrative.”
Normally, these substantial deficiencies would get in the way of declaring that IM is anything like a real specialty in medicine. Indeed, as David Gorski has pointed out, IM is more of a brand than a specialty. Yet, as we do know, integrative medicine considers itself exempt from the rules. Thus, a few years ago, Andrew Weil, MD, an early adopter in incorporating pseudoscience into medical practice, announced his desire to create of a board certification in integrative medicine. No doubt aware that IM couldn’t fulfill the requirements of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), he turned to the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS), whose requirements for Board recognition are more forgiving. For example, the ABPS is willing to credit work experience as a prerequisite to board certification, as opposed to residency and fellowship training. Sure enough, a few years ago, the ABPS formally accepted board-certification in IM via the ABPS’s recognition of the American Board of Integrative Medicine (ABOIM). (more…)