Director of Chiropractic Research Testifies at the National Institute of Medicine
Anthony L. Rosner, Ph.D.
Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research
Anthony Rosner, Ph.D., Director of Research and Education for the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, presented testimony on behalf of chiropractic research and practice standards at hearings conducted at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) headquarters in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 2003. The occasion marked the first of six meetings of a study committee planned by the IOM over the next 18 months to explore the scientific and policy implications of the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies by the American public.
The objectives of the study committee are as follows:
To describe the use of CAM therapies by the American public, including the populations that use them and what is known about how they are provided;
To identify major scientific and policy issues related to CAM research (including gender effects), regulation, interactions with conventional medicine, and training and certification; and
To develop conceptual frameworks for guiding decision-making on these issues and questions.
The Institute of Medicine is a private, non-governmental organization that initiates studies in areas of medical care out of appropriations made available to federal agencies. It is a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, which was created by the federal government to be an advisor on scientific and technological matters.
The following is Dr. Rosner’s presentation to the Institute of Medicine.
The Use of CAM by the American Public
My dear colleagues:
I want to thank the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for two reasons; first, for inviting my testimony this afternoon, but especially for carrying what I believe is the unfulfilled work of both the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine an essential step forward by calling us to the table today.
I also want to offer my strongest assent and congratulations to the Institute for its most pertinent and insightful assessment of American healthcare — first, in its forthright reporting of medical errors in 1999;  second, in providing one of the most equitable definitions among the many offered for “primary care;   ” and finally, for having published two years ago the most candid and uncompromising assessments of U.S. healthcare, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 
This last publication courageously concluded that “the American healthcare system is in need of a fundamental change,” especially because “what is perhaps most disturbing is the absence of real progress toward restructuring health care systems to address both quality and cost concerns. . . .”  (more…)