American taxpayers subsidize public institutions graduating doctors of medicine and doctors of osteopathy. These subsidies take the form of constructing and supporting state colleges of medicine and state colleges of osteopathy. Taxpayers pay for libraries and learning resource centers; computer installations; audiovisual facilities; centers for clinical studies and laboratory research; animal quarters; teaching hospitals; outpatient clinics; and all sorts of ancillary services. Taxpayers underwrite student residence and dining halls, insurance programs, and recreational facilities. Taxpayers provide the salaries, wages, and fringe benefits for an army of employees at such state colleges of medicine and osteopathy.
American taxpayers do not subsidize state colleges of chiropractic, because there are none. The medical and osteopathic schools like the present arrangement. They don't want to change the status quo. They don't want to share state tax dollars with any newcomers. They fear their share of the money would be reduced.
The medical and osteopathic professions likewise want to keep things the way they are. Medical doctors and osteopaths think the existence of state schools of medicine and osteopathy is seen by the public as giving the governmental stamp of approval to their professions. Medical practitioners think that the absence of state colleges of chiropractic is taken by society to mean that chiropractic as a profession is not worthy of taxpayer support. They'd like chiropractic to be treated like astrology: tolerated in a democratic society, but not funded by it. And, they think to themselves, if any chiropractic ideas and practices eventually do turn out to have some value, they can be co-opted into medicine, which medical doctors regard as all-inclusive of what is worthwhile.
As the chiropractic profession enters its second century, it's time to begin discussing the pros and cons of state colleges of chiropractic, comparable to, for example, the University of Michigan Medical School at Ann Arbor and the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine in East Lansing.
William E. Bachop, DC, PhD
Lombard, Illinois
When sports chiropractors first appeared at the Olympic Games in the 1980s, it was alongside individual athletes who had experienced the benefits of chiropractic care in their training and recovery processes at home. Fast forward to Paris 2024, where chiropractic care was available in the polyclinic for all athletes, and the attitude has now evolved to recognize that “every athlete deserves access to sports chiropractic."
It is estimated that 61% of patients with CTS avoid taking surgical options due to postoperative complications and costly surgical procedures. Chiropractic care offers a comprehensive and effective treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, addressing the condition from multiple angles. Recent studies also have unveiled a game-changing adjunct to chiropractic treatments for CTS: nerve flossing.
Some doctors thrive in a personality-based clinic and have a loyal following no matter what services or equipment they offer, but for most chiropractic offices who are trying to grow and expand, new equipment purchases help us stay relevant and continue to service our client base in the best, most up-to-date manner possible. So, regarding equipment purchasing: should you lease, get a bank loan, or pay cash?
