Embracing Medication Needs of Patients based on Ethical, Dietary, and Religious Preferences.

Purpose: Many patients seek medications without animal-derived ingredients for a multitude of reasons. The purpose of this comprehensive qualitative review is to assess current literature on the topic of animal-free medications and identify the roles that key stakeholders can play in addressing the needs of these patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to June 2022 to identify key articles surrounding the topic of animal-free ingredients and medications. Results: The need for animal-free medications impacts not just vegans and vegetarians, but also those with dietary restrictions due to other beliefs. Three key stakeholder initiatives can address the needs of these patients: 1) Healthcare professionals (HCPs) should strive to select appropriate medications considering their patients' religious and/or cultural background; 2) patients must be involved and notify their providers about their dietary requirements; 3) pharmaceutical industry and manufacturers need to consider animal-free product formulations and provide clear labeling. Conclusion: There is a rising interest in animal-free medications and several organizations and advocacy groups have raised concerns for easier access to these medications. However, more regulatory guidance or oversight is needed. For the nearly 25% animal-free medications available in the market, independent certification marks would facilitate informed consumer decision-making.

American College of Lifestyle Medicine Expert Consensus Statement: Lifestyle Medicine for Optimal Outcomes in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Identify areas of consensus on integrating lifestyle medicine (LM) into primary care to achieve optimal outcomes. METHODS: Experts in both LM and primary care followed an a priori protocol for developing consensus statements. Using an iterative, online process, panel members expressed levels of agreement with statements, resulting in classification as consensus, near consensus, or no consensus. RESULTS: The panel identified 124 candidate statements addressing: (1) Integration into Primary Care, (2) Delivery Models, (3) Provider Education, (4) Evidence-base for LM, (5) Vital Signs, (6) Treatment, (7) Resource Referral and Reimbursement, (8) Patient, Family, and Community Involvement; Shared Decision-Making, (9) Social Determinants of Health and Health Equity, and (10) Barriers to LM. After three iterations of an online Delphi survey, statement revisions, and removal of duplicative statements, 65 statements met criteria for consensus, 24 for near consensus, and 35 for no consensus. Consensus was reached on key topics that included LM being recognized as an essential component of primary care in patients of all ages, including LM as a foundational element of health professional education. CONCLUSION: The practice of LM in primary care can be strengthened by applying these statements to improve quality of care, inform policy, and identify areas for future research.

Lifestyle Medicine Practitioners Implementing a Greater Proportion of Lifestyle Medicine Experience Less Burnout.

PURPOSE: To identify reasons for burnout, characterize the effect of lifestyle medicine (LM) practice on burnout, and assess the risk of burnout in relation to the proportion of LM practice. DESIGN: Analysis of mixed methods data from a large, cross-sectional survey on LM practice. SETTING: Web-based survey platform. PARTICIPANTS: Members of an LM medical professional society at the time of survey administration. METHODS: Practitioner members of a medical professional society were recruited to a cross-sectional, online survey. Data were collected on LM practice and experiences with burnout. Free-text data were thematically grouped and counted, and the association of burnout with the proportion of lifestyle-based medical practice was analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 482 respondents, 58% reported currently feeling burned out, 28% used to feel burned out but no longer do, and 90% reported LM had positively impacted their professional satisfaction. Among LM practitioners surveyed, practicing more LM was associated with a 43% decrease (0.569; 95% CI: 0.384, 0.845; P = 0.0051) in the odds of experiencing burnout. Top reasons for positive impact included professional satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, and meaningfulness (44%); improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction (26%); enjoyment of teaching/coaching and engaging in relationships (22%); and helps me personally: quality of life and stress (22%). CONCLUSION: Implementing LM as a greater proportion of medical practice was associated with lower likelihood of burnout among LM practitioners. Results suggest that increased feelings of accomplishment due to improved patient outcomes and reduced depersonalization contribute to reduced burnout.

Lifestyle Medicine and Economics: A Proposal for Research Priorities Informed by a Case Series of Disease Reversal.

Chronic disease places an enormous economic burden on both individuals and the healthcare system, and existing fee-for-service models of healthcare prioritize symptom management, medications, and procedures over treating the root causes of disease through changing health behaviors. Value-based care is gaining traction, and there is a need for value-based care models that achieve the quadruple aim of (1) improved population health, (2) enhanced patient experience, (3) reduced healthcare costs, and (4) improved work life and decreased burnout of healthcare providers. Lifestyle medicine (LM) has the potential to achieve these four aims, including promoting health and wellness and reducing healthcare costs; however, the economic outcomes of LM approaches need to be better quantified in research. This paper demonstrates proof of concept by detailing four cases that utilized an intensive, therapeutic lifestyle intervention change (ITLC) to dramatically reverse disease and reduce healthcare costs. In addition, priorities for lifestyle medicine economic research related to the components of quadruple aim are proposed, including conducting rigorously designed research studies to adequately measure the effects of ITLC interventions, modeling the potential economic cost savings enabled by health improvements following lifestyle interventions as compared to usual disease progression and management, and examining the effects of lifestyle medicine implementation upon different payment models.

Lifestyle Medicine Reimbursement: A Proposal for Policy Priorities Informed by a Cross-Sectional Survey of Lifestyle Medicine Practitioners.

Lifestyle medicine (LM) is a rapidly emerging clinical discipline that focuses on intensive therapeutic lifestyle changes to treat chronic disease, often producing dramatic health benefits. In spite of these well-documented benefits of LM approaches to provide evidence-based care that follows current clinical guidelines, LM practitioners have found reimbursement challenging. The objectives of this paper are to present the results of a cross-sectional survey of LM practitioners regarding lifestyle medicine reimbursement and to propose policy priorities related to the ability of practitioners to implement and achieve reimbursement for these necessary services. Results from a closed, online survey in 2019 were analyzed, with a total of n = 857 included in this analysis. Results were descriptively analyzed. This manuscript articulates policy proposals informed by the survey results. The study sample was 58% female, with median age of 51. A minority of the sample (17%) reported that all their practice was LM, while 56% reported that some of their practice was LM. A total of 55% of practitioners reported not being able to receive reimbursement for LM practice. Of those survey respondents who provided an answer to the question of what would make the practice of LM easier (n = 471), the following suggestions were offered: reimbursement overall (18%), reimbursement for more time spent with patients (17%), more support from leadership (16%), policy measures to incentivize health (13%), education in LM for practitioners (11%), LM-specific billing codes and billing knowledge along with better electronic medical record (EMR) capabilities and streamlined reporting/paperwork (11%), and reimbursement for the extended care team (10%). Proposed policy changes focus on three areas of focus: (1) support for the care process using a LM approach, (2) reimbursement emphasizing outcomes of health, patient experience, and delivering person-centered care, and (3) incentivizing treatment that produces disease remission/reversal. Rectifying reimbursement barriers to lifestyle medicine practice will require a sustained effort from health systems and policy makers. The urgency of this transition towards lifestyle medicine interventions to effectively address the epidemic of chronic diseases in a way that can significantly improve outcomes is being hindered by current reimbursement policies and models.