The New Wellness Trend: Do Infusion Therapies Offer Real Health Benefits or a Money Trap?

Behind the Scenes of Wellness Infusions

The health industry, valued at 1.8 trillion dollars, covers services and products ranging from meditation classes and vitamin supplements to fitness technology, spas, and wellness tourism. Within this sector, spa and wellness tourism is seeing the greatest growth .

This economy generally includes alternative medical treatments and services that do not require a doctor's prescription. Some rapidly growing treatments, however, can still be prescribed only by a licensed physician.

For example, intravenous (IV) infusions for various patient-defined conditions are approved by a doctor and generally administered by a nurse. Infused products include vitamins, newly popular supplements such as glutathione, and IV fluids for treating fatigue, “immune boosting,” weight management, or hangovers.

IV Therapy as Celebrity Luxury Consumption: A Growing Trend

In recent years, IV therapies have become popular among Hollywood celebrities . The trend has spread further as well-known figures such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Chrissy Teigen, and Harry Styles have turned to these treatments. Celebrity use has increased the popularity of IV drips and helped position these services as luxury consumer products.

Wellness Centers, Luxury Residences, and Even Apartments... 

Looking at the services and costs, IV drip sessions are offered at prices ranging from 100 to 1,000 dollars. The wide range depends on the ingredients and quality of the provider. IV therapies are now available not only in medical spas and luxury hotels but also in upscale residences and through in-home services. This reinforces their perception as luxury consumer products .

The rapid growth of the global wellness industry is also evident. By 2030, the medical spa industry is expected to reach 49 billion dollars worldwide . This projection shows how demand for IV therapies is increasing not only among Hollywood celebrities but also among the wider population.

Dealing with Absent Evidence

Infusions' popularity partly rests on the belief that they are preferable to evidence-based modern medicine, perhaps because they are perceived as more natural, safer, and less likely to cause adverse effects. Another interesting aspect of their appeal may be their association with hospitals, coupled with the belief that they promote health beyond treating disease. Perhaps most importantly, celebrities and social media influencers commonly promote these infusions, potentially exerting considerable influence on perceived benefits and safety.

Why, then, is prescribing such treatments wrong, or at least potentially problematic, for healthcare professionals? Why should they not give people what they want, particularly when harm is minimal?

First, physicians are skilled members of a profession, not merchants in an unregulated market. A profession develops and maintains specialized, complex knowledge used to serve others. Professions are expected to follow transparent standards guiding practice, such as ethical codes and evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Members of a profession are also expected to maintain competence, uphold honesty and selflessness toward others, and serve the public interest. In exchange for providing these essential services and adhering to these values, an implicit “social contract” develops between society and the profession. This grants the profession exclusive authority in its field, independence in practice, and the privilege of self-regulation. How this contract has evolved is a longer, more complex subject. By honoring it, particularly through adherence to standards of care, the medical profession legitimizes its practice in society's eyes.

Ethically, membership in a profession confers authority but also responsibility. Authority comes partly from licensing by state medical boards and medical specialty boards. Individual members are responsible for providing only treatments recognized by the profession as accepted standards of medical practice. Practicing according to these standards helps protect patients from harm while sustaining the legitimacy of both the individual practitioner and the profession. Physicians are not “snake oil” salespeople offering any unproven treatment simply because it is profitable. Such an approach carries obvious legal risks, threatens professional integrity, and can undermine public trust. Ultimately, requested treatments can be prescribed only by medical professionals responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of health-benefit claims for an individual patient.

How, then, should doctors decide whether to provide treatments that offer no benefit or have no plausible biological rationale? Returning to the situation above, what should they do when asked to provide intravenous fluids, supplements, and electrolytes for “immune boosting”?

First, there is no professional obligation to provide every treatment a patient requests. Physicians have the authority and responsibility to ensure that treatments they offer and administer meet accepted standards of practice. If a treatment does not meet those standards, there is no obligation to provide it.

Indeed, even if potential harm to the patient is minimal—and certainly not zero—there are strong ethical grounds for refusing to prescribe intravenous fluids. Although administering saline (a diluted saltwater infusion) to a healthy individual has two potential benefits, neither is sufficient to justify the treatment ethically.

First, an individual patient may experience the infusion as beneficial, reporting greater well-being or energy afterward. This is not disputed and is not worth arguing about: telling people how they should feel is generally a losing argument. For a physician to be obligated to prescribe treatment, however, there must be at least some benefit from a medical perspective. This does not mean patient preferences are unimportant or irrelevant, only that they are not decisive when no medical benefit exists. The second potential benefit is financial gain for the clinic providing it; this should never be the primary driver in determining appropriate medical treatment.