You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Behavioral medicine, including the common schools of behavioral psychotherapy, typically receive a high degree of support from institutions, such as hospitals. This is in part due to the common misunderstanding that equates evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychology with empirically supported treatments (ESTs). This confusion of terms not only prioritizes biobehavioral treatment models but also undercuts much of the knowledge generated in practice-based research that better reflects actual clinical experience. From a Freudian-Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective, the methods of intervention in behavioral medicine typically align with treatment by suggestion, which positions the clinician as an educator. In contrast, psychoanalytically informed care offers a qualitatively different method of intervention focused on eliciting rather than delivering knowledge. Because behavioral medicine does not account for unconscious motivations for symptom retention, this article argues that institutions ought to retain clinicians who can provide psychoanalytically informed care as a second-line treatment if common methods of behavioral medicine do not show effectiveness with a given patient. In addition to the clinical benefits for patients, this article suggests there may be economic benefits for the institution as well, as patients may respond to a second-line treatment and require less care utilization.