|  From woo-woo nutters to big-pharma dupes and shills, from snake oil   hustlers to deluded do-gooders, there is no shortage of practitioners   who profit from the diseases of the desperate and the gullible. In the   business that is American healthcare, even caring   professionals—alternative and traditional—weigh patient welfare and   evidence-based medicine against the desire to turn a profit.  October’s column examined the poorly regulated industry of compounding pharmacies,   including Dallas-based NuVision and ApothéCure—producers of   alternative and traditional medicines, some that the FDA deemed   potentially “life-threatening,” and some that, indeed, were implicated   in patient deaths.  It was a clear example of bad medicine. But problems broader and more   subtle than tainted drugs plague U.S. healthcare. Money and magical   thinking pollute traditional and alternative medicine alike.  Another venture by the man behind the Dallas companies, Gary Osborn,   illustrates the kind of medicine that draws eager believers and the   vain. The Texas Institute of Functional Medicines (TIFM) he founded   specializes in “alternative” therapies for such slippery conditions as   aging, male menopause and being overweight. Its website features three   staffers. TIFM medical director Guy A. Francis, an osteopath   specializing in plastic surgery, once wrote that he can help men “slow   down and often reverse the aging process,” which he called a “disease.”   Beverly Brown-Osborn, an improbably smooth-browed middle-aged woman, who   possesses the “unique ability to make every patient feel comfortable.”   Then there’s Gary Osborn, the silver-maned founder-pharmacist who was   fined and placed under 90 days house arrest in connection with the   above-mentioned patient deaths.  Francis’ predecessor as TIFM medical director was fellow osteopathic   plastic surgeon Kevin D. Light, whose YouTube video promoted “facial fat   transfers” that “last forever.” Ac- cording to Texas Medical Board   (TMB) records, in 2002, before Light came to TIFM, the board placed him   on probation because of “allegations of intemperate use of alcohol   and/or controlled substances.” Another former TIFM director, Kenneth W.   O’Neal, who had collaborated with Osborn to develop chelation therapies,   also ran afoul of the Texas Medical Board. According to TMB documents,   in 2005, after O’Neal had apparently left TIFM, four patients he treated   with chelation and/or “vitamin” therapies at a different practice died.   The board declared his practice a “threat to the public welfare” and   revoked his license in 2008.  Nor is traditional medicine immune from problematic practices. MRIs,   for example, can be a valuable diagnostic tool, but many of America’s 28   million-per-year MRI scans are medically unnecessary. They subject   patients to worry and expense, and can lead to unneeded treatments.  When MRI machines, which can cost millions of dollars, were owned by   hospitals, doctors made no money when they ordered a scan. Increasingly,   however, docs invest in their own practice-based machines, and have to   take a lot of MRIs to break even—or turn a profit. Unsurprisingly, at   practices that made money from scans, MRI use rose a whopping 80 percent   between 2004 and 2010, compared to a 12 percent rise when docs had no   financial incentive to order scans, according to a study by Duke University’s Matthew P. Lungren and colleagues.  Also, a recent study of knee MRIs showed that when docs owned the   machines or got a referral kickback, significantly more patient scans   showed no abnormalities (i.e., were proved unnecessary). Shoulder MRIs   followed a similar pattern with “25.6 percent more negative scans in the   financially incentivized group,” a study in the American Journal of   Roentgenology concluded. The profit incentive is huge: up to $8,000 for U.S. scans, compared to $280 in France.  Irrational and avaricious medical approaches drive up healthcare costs,   and cost health and lives. But there’s a movement to change that: A   growing trend of “evidence-based medicine” aims to assess what actually works. It supersedes categories such as   traditional and alternative. Good doctors and even insurance companies   should welcome it, and Obamacare should prioritize it. But there will   always be some who treat the disease of their own greed with the   soothing balm of money. |