Medical specialties that are highly insurance carrier driven, such as O&EM, are tightly maintained by State evaluation and treatment guidelines (SETG). With significant financial incentive to provide optimal intervention and to spend no more than is efficacious, insurance carriers are proficient reviewers of medical literature to assure that they are generally paying for only that which has been determined effective in evidence-based literature. This results in continuously updated databases to which the attending practitioners are accountable; essentially AI-driven practices.
Of course, recognition and treatment of most of the chemical and environmental exposure effects are insufficiently documented in the SETG’s, so there are still many O&EM cases for which the art of medicine plays a larger role in intervention. However, most clinicians in this specialty are acutely aware of the need to continuously refresh their familiarity with SETG’s versus regional standards of care, and historical practices.
In spite of the practice efficiency of O&EM clinics, similar guidelines have not been developed for all specialties. Most traditional western medicine (TWM) practitioners already have biases peculiar to their specific training settings, biases that are not preferred worldwide. Moreover, because of the continuous explosion of new medical information, including that generated by CAM, it is becoming increasingly difficult for many contemporary (TWM) clinicians to stay abreast of all current perspectives and ideal practices. For now, the electronic medical record (EMR) is just as it is named, a record, not a universal diagnostic and treatment tool. Until that time arrives, modern TWM is partly Artificial Intelligence (smart phones and other computers, independent pieces of diagnostic equipment, EMRs), partly tradition, and in need of many more integrated advances.