Equip’s High-Acuity Email Came Between Corporate Layoffs

First, Equip restructured and laid off employees. Then it asked medical and mental health providers to send the sickest eating disorder patients into “acute, virtual care.” Then more corporate employees were cut.

That is the sequence. It is also the problem.

Equip’s provider solicitation did not advertise a limited outpatient service for carefully screened medically stable patients. It asked medical and mental health professionals to “transition your highest acuity ED patients into acute, virtual care.” The same communication positioned Equip against residential treatment, partial hospitalization, and intensive outpatient care.

That was not casual marketing language. It was a clinical capacity claim made to referral sources.

Three months before the solicitation, Equip underwent corporate restructuring that included layoffs. Companies do not restructure and cut staff because everything is calm. They do it because money, operations, strategy, or survival has forced a change.

Then on or about June 25, 2026, a separate source reported that Equip laid off more of its corporate staff. According to that source, the cuts appeared to include persons who had been employed from the first year with the pattern falling on longer term employees tied to the company’s original vision and likely higher paid.

The email now reads differently. It cannot be regarded as a stray exaggeration from a stable company. It was a high acuity referral solicitation sent between two corporate reduction events.

Equip’s investor board cannot plausibly stand outside that sequence. It is implicated within those decisions. As such, the make-up of the board of directors must be examined. Once this is done, a clearer picture starts to come to light.

Equip lists five people on its board of directors. Each person is affiliated with a venture capital company that invested in Equip. General Catalyst. F-Prime Capital. Adams Street Partners. Optum Ventures. The Chernin Group.

There are no medical doctors, mental health experts, nutritionists, or therapists. No one with any appreciable eating disorder experience. Just five persons all of whom are employed by Equip’s investors.

Investor directors exist to know the company’s financial condition. Burn rate, runway, payer growth, staffing costs, restructuring, layoffs, referral strategy, and Medicaid expansion are board level facts in any venture backed healthcare company. A board member who knew about the restructuring and allowed the solicitation to proceed cannot later pretend the email existed apart from the company’s financial condition. A board member who did not know has a different problem: ignorance of the very facts an investor director exists to monitor.

The email solicitation’s defect lies in what it communicated and what it withheld. Medical and mental health providers were told to transition the highest acuity eating disorder patients into Equip’s acute virtual care. That language carries an implied representation that Equip had the staffing, screening, medical oversight, clinical infrastructure, family support systems, emergency escalation pathways, and operational stability to receive those patients.

The email solicitation omitted the restructuring, the prior layoffs, any pending or foreseeable reduction, and any explanation of whether cost pressure had reached clinical operations, admissions standards, medical monitoring, escalation systems, quality controls, or patient support.

That omission changes the legal character of the email.

A medical or mental health provider reading the solicitation was not merely evaluating another telehealth option. The provider was being asked to rely on Equip’s implied representation that the company could safely absorb the population it was soliciting. Financial pressure, staff reductions, removal of longer-term employees, and board knowledge bear directly on that representation.

High acuity eating disorder patients are not ordinary outpatient consumers. Some are medically fragile. Others are psychiatrically unstable, nutritionally compromised, behaviorally unsafe, or dependent on structure a remote platform cannot provide. Medical hospitalization, psychiatric hospitalization, residential treatment, PHP, and IOP exist because certain patients need containment, observation, stabilization, and immediate escalation.

Equip’s email did not lead with medical stability, exclusion criteria, adverse event data, hospitalization rates, step up rates, or limitations on remote care. It led with the highest acuity patients.

An extensive FTC complaint, with supporting documentary evidence has already been filed against Equip. This FTC complaint should be read as more than an advertising substantiation complaint. It is a material omission and misrepresentation complaint.

In addition, complaints are being prepared and will be submitted in the four states where Equip accepts Medicaid. These complaints will include the latest information about employee layoffs.

The Medicaid issue is particularly troubling. Equip publicly represents that millions of Medicaid members can access its services. Public payers do not occupy the same position as private consumers scrolling through marketing copy. State Medicaid programs and Medicaid managed care organizations rely on provider representations about capacity, acuity, medical necessity, safety, network adequacy, and payment eligibility.

A Medicaid plan is entitled to know whether a virtual eating disorder company soliciting high acuity referrals had recently restructured, cut staff, and entered another round of corporate layoffs. A state agency is entitled to examine whether public beneficiaries were steered toward remote care because the placement was clinically appropriate or because a venture backed provider needed volume. Families are entitled to know whether a company asking for high acuity patients had disclosed the operational facts necessary to evaluate that invitation.

The serious legal problems of Equip and Equip’s board of directors do not stop with that reality.

The legal danger is not that Equip sent one irresponsible, possibly fraudulent email. The danger is that the email may have been one step in a revenue pathway: provider solicitation, patient intake, insurance authorization, Medicaid managed-care approval, treatment billing, and outcome claims. If the same high-acuity message traveled through that pathway while internal documents showed financial pressure and reduced staff, investigators will not treat the email as a mistake. They will treat it as evidence.

That is why healthcare fraud, false statements, wire fraud, and even racketeering belong in the conversation. Each theory turns on proof: what Equip knew, what it concealed, how often the claim was repeated, who approved it, whether payers relied on it, and whether money was obtained through the resulting referrals or claims.

Racketeering belongs on the table for the same reason.

One bad email is not RICO. A continuing revenue scheme built on electronic misrepresentations can be.

The RICO question is whether the solicitation was part of a broader pattern of revenue generation through high acuity misrepresentation. RICO is not triggered by outrage. It is triggered by pattern. The question is whether Equip’s high-acuity pitch appeared once, or whether the same representation moved repeatedly through referral emails, intake scripts, payer authorizations, Medicaid communications, patient enrollment materials, and claims for payment.

Those questions belong in subpoenas, civil investigative demands, Medicaid program integrity requests, and litigation discovery.

The board’s role cannot be minimized. Investor directors had the strongest motivation to track financial condition and the clearest access to the company’s internal truth. Restructuring before the solicitation was not hidden clinical minutia. Layoffs after the solicitation were not random background noise. Together, they create a timeline that places board knowledge, operational pressure, and high acuity marketing in the same frame.

Equip may deny financial distress. It may say the restructuring was ordinary. The company may insist patient care was unaffected, that “highest acuity” excluded medically unstable patients, or that “acute virtual care” referred only to a screened population suitable for home-based treatment. Those defenses require documents, not adjectives.

Any serious investigation will begin with the approval chain: who drafted the solicitation, who approved the acuity language, which executives saw it, whether legal or clinical leadership reviewed it, and whether the board received performance reports after it went out. The next production should reach board decks, restructuring documents, layoff plans, runway projections, payer-mix reports, Medicaid expansion materials, referral targets, staffing data, escalation protocols, adverse-event reports, hospitalization rates, step-up rates, dropout rates, and outcomes by acuity.

The same production inevitably will show whether legal, compliance, or clinical leadership reviewed the solicitation. Regulators will ask whether anyone compared the email to the company’s actual staffing and financial condition. Payers should demand proof that Equip’s claims about acuity, capacity, and outcomes were accurate when made. State Medicaid agencies should examine whether public beneficiaries were enrolled through a referral pathway built on incomplete clinical and operational misrepresentations.

This is no longer a narrow fight over telehealth language.

Virtual treatment can help some eating disorder patients. In person family-based care has evidence. Remote access can reduce geographic barriers. Medicaid coverage can expand treatment options for families who have been shut out of care. None of that gives a venture backed company permission to solicit high acuity patients while withholding the financial and operational facts needed to evaluate the solicitation.

The public record now shows a sequence that regulators will not be able to ignore. Restructuring and layoffs, high acuity solicitation, more layoffs. Equip’s board exclusively consisted of investor affiliated directors. The company’s model reaches Medicaid beneficiaries. The email asked providers to transition the highest acuity eating disorder patients into acute virtual care.

Equip can call the email marketing. Regulators should call it damning evidence.

A company that restructures, cuts staff, solicits the sickest eating disorder patients, and then cuts more staff has created a record. An investor board cannot govern that company for growth and then deny knowledge when the growth message becomes dangerous.

The email opened the door. The layoffs supplied the context. The board owns the rest.

The Morgan Dunn Eating Disorder Education Act

For decades, families and clinicians have known that physicians can miss signs and symptoms of eating disorders until the damage is severe.

The signs are not confined to one specialty. Eating disorders may surface through rapid weight loss, growth disruption, dizziness, gastrointestinal complaints, menstrual changes, electrolyte abnormalities, compulsive exercise, purging, diabetes manipulation, depression, anxiety, self-harm, or unexplained medical decline. Body mass index can appear acceptable while the body is already in danger. A patient may look articulate, functional, and medically stable until the illness becomes a crisis.

That is why medical education is crucial.

Eating disorders are not matters of vanity, lifestyle, discipline, or willpower. They are serious psychiatric and medical illnesses that can cause permanent injury and death. Yet there are no enacted federal or state laws requiring medical schools to provide eating disorder education as part of the required medical degree curriculum, much less a law specifying hours, core content, competency assessment, annual certification, and corrective action.

That absence should shock people outside the eating disorder world. It should shame people inside it.

The field has awareness. Conferences have named the problem, families have testified to it, continuing education programs have addressed pieces of it, and public campaigns have repeated the importance of early detection until the language became familiar enough to lose force. None of that requires a medical school to change its curriculum. A webinar does not create a public record of compliance. A slogan about early intervention does not ensure that future physicians learn how to recognize medical instability, refeeding risk, weight suppression, diagnostic bias, or the danger of relying on body mass index alone.

The question is no longer whether the eating disorder community understands the problem. It plainly does. The question is why that knowledge has not been converted into state-level legislation requiring medical schools to teach future physicians before patients are harmed.

Part of the answer lies in the direction of the field itself. As private equity and large treatment platforms gained influence, advocacy increasingly moved downstream toward reimbursement, coverage, parity, treatment access, residential care, and payment for services after a diagnosis had already been made. Those issues are real. Families need coverage. Patients need care. But reimbursement policy does not protect the patient whose physician was never taught how to recognize the illness in the first place.

A system focused on paying for treatment after identification leaves the first failure intact.

That is the gap the Morgan Dunn Eating Disorders Education Act is designed to close.

During the next Texas legislative session starting in January 2027, I intend to have filed the Morgan Dunn Eating Disorders Education Act. This bill requires medical degree programs in Texas to provide core instruction on eating disorders before graduation. It is not an awareness resolution, a symbolic proclamation, or a request that schools consider the subject if time allows. It establishes a minimum legal requirement: at least eight hours of instruction and at least one case-based assessment showing that a student can recognize, medically assess, and make an appropriate referral or management plan for a patient with a suspected eating disorder.

The requirement is modest. The need is not.

The instruction would include diagnostic warning signs, medical complications, starvation, malnutrition, purging, laxative misuse, compulsive exercise, binge eating, refeeding risk, screening, physical examination, laboratory evaluation, medical stabilization, urgent referral, higher levels of care, psychiatric comorbidity, weight stigma, diagnostic bias, and continuity of care. The bill also addresses patients too often missed by stereotype, including children, males, pregnant patients, patients with diabetes, patients in larger bodies, patients with disabilities, and patients from diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The bill is also drafted to answer predictable objections.

1. Medical schools will say their curriculum is crowded.

The bill preserves flexibility. Eating disorder education can be placed inside psychiatry, pediatrics, internal medicine, family medicine, emergency medicine, OB/GYN, adolescent medicine, endocrinology, nutrition, clinical skills, behavioral health, clerkships, modules, case-based learning, or an integrated course. No school is forced to create a freestanding class unless it chooses to do so.

2. Medical educators may say legislators should not dictate curriculum.

The bill does not dictate pedagogy. Faculty governance remains intact. Schools control placement, sequencing, method, assessment, and faculty assignment. The Legislature sets the public safety floor.

3. Institutions may worry about liability.

The bill expressly avoids creating a private cause of action, a new professional standard of care, or a new evidentiary rule. It is an education mandate, not a litigation trap.

4. Administrators may resist reporting.

The requirement is limited. Schools must certify compliance, identify where the instruction appears, state the approximate number of instructional hours, and describe how completion or competency is assessed. A school that falls short receives notice and an opportunity to correct the problem.

5. Legislators may presume the bill creates a new state expense.

That concern misunderstands the design. The bill does not create a new agency, hire inspectors, fund a grant program, purchase a proprietary curriculum, build a treatment network, or create a state-funded training vendor. Compliance would occur inside medical schools that already maintain required curricula, student assessment systems, faculty governance, accreditation processes, and reporting infrastructure. The state’s role is basic accountability: receive certifications, identify noncompliance, and require correction.

Taken together, those answers make the bill difficult to caricature. It does not regulate treatment centers, expand Medicaid, create a lawsuit, or attempt to repair the entire eating disorder system through one statute. The demand is narrower and harder to evade. Texas medical schools may decide how to teach the material, but they should not be permitted to graduate future physicians without baseline training in illnesses they are certain to encounter.

Sadly, the larger obstacle may come from the eating disorder ecosystem itself. That indictment belongs in the open.

For years, organizations with platforms, donors, clinicians, researchers, treatment providers, and lobbyists could have drafted model legislation and taken it state-by-state. Instead, the public agenda too often remained in the safer territory of awareness, resources, messaging, and reimbursement. The result is a field that can describe missed diagnosis in detail while leaving medical schools under no legal obligation to teach future physicians how to prevent it.

This is not a lack of compassion. It is a failure of legislative will.

The Morgan Dunn Eating Disorders Education Act changes the question. Should a medical student be allowed to graduate in Texas without required instruction on eating disorder warning signs, medical complications, refeeding risk, medical instability, appropriate referral, and the dangers of relying on body mass index alone?

If the answer is no, the case for the bill follows.

Texas is the right place to start. The state has already recognized through recent health and nutrition legislation that medical education is a legitimate site for prevention. Eating disorder education belongs in that same frame. Physicians should be able to counsel patients about nutrition, diabetes, metabolic health, exercise, cardiovascular risk, and obesity. But they must also know when weight loss is not health, when restriction is not discipline, when exercise is not recovery, when body size conceals danger, and when a nutrition message can worsen a psychiatric illness.

There is no contradiction between prevention and eating disorder education. The contradiction lies in teaching future physicians about nutrition while leaving them underprepared to recognize starvation, purging, weight suppression, refeeding risk, and medical instability.

Eight hours will not fix the eating disorder treatment system. It will not solve insurance denials, provider shortages, hospital failures, residential treatment problems, or the divide between psychiatric and medical care.

But it can change the first medical encounter.

A physician who has been taught what to look for is more likely to recognize danger, ask the right questions, assess medical risk, and refer before the window for intervention closes. That is the purpose of the Morgan Dunn Eating Disorders Education Act. It asks Texas to not tolerate one indefensible failure: future physicians graduating without required training in illnesses that can permanently injure or kill patients when missed.

That should not be controversial. It should already be law.

[For a copy of the proposed bill, contact me. I welcome all comments and ways we can make the bill even stronger.]

Equip’s Transition

Equip Health recently sent medical and mental health treatment providers this referral solicitation email.

Notice the subject line which should be read exactly as written:

Subject: “Transition your highest-acuity ED patients—into acute, virtual care.”

That sentence is not casual marketing. It is the claim. It is also worthy of regulatory agency investigation.

Before the reader reaches the body of the email, Equip has combined three clinically loaded concepts: highest acuity, acute care, and virtual treatment. The result is not an access message. It is not a modest statement that medically stable patients may receive step down support at home. It is a solicitation asking providers to move the sickest eating disorder patients into a virtual program described as acute care.

Equip may attempt to walk back its representation and offer a narrower interpretation. It may say the representation meant patients who had already achieved medical stability and were appropriate for step down treatment. But that defense relies upon words the email did not use.

Equip did not limit the claim to patients who had been medically stabilized, medically cleared, or found no longer to need inpatient or residential care. It did not confine the solicitation to medically stable patients appropriate for step down treatment. The words it chose were broader, more aggressive, and more clinically consequential.

“Transition your highest-acuity ED patients into acute, virtual care.”

That is a placement claim.

In eating disorder treatment, highest acuity is not a branding term. It points toward patients with serious medical, psychiatric, nutritional, behavioral, or environmental risk. Depending on the case, the phrase may involve bradycardia, hypotension, syncope, electrolyte disturbance, severe malnutrition, refeeding risk, acute suicidality, self-harm, uncontrolled purging, compulsive exercise, laxative misuse, food refusal, failed lower levels of care, or a home setting unable to contain the illness.

Those are not convenience care problems. They are level of care problems.

Some require medical hospitalization. Others require psychiatric inpatient treatment. Some belong in residential care. Others may need PHP, IOP, or carefully monitored outpatient treatment after stabilization. The clinical issue is not whether virtual care can ever help. It plainly can. The issue is whether a fully virtual program should be marketed to referral sources as “acute” care for the “highest acuity” eating disorder patients.

Equip’s email says yes. The evidence does not justify that confidence.

The body of the email makes the subject line harder to dismiss. Equip tells providers that it is a “common misconception” that virtual eating disorder care is only for less complex patients seeking IOP or outpatient treatment. It says patients who are medically, psychologically, or socially complex, or recently hospitalized, can receive the structured support they need through Equip. It describes the company’s 100 percent virtual model as a direct alternative to residential treatment, PHP, and IOP. It claims more than 6,000 high acuity patients successfully treated in two years. It invokes medical safety, strict protocols, and the gold standard of family-based treatment.

Each phrase is material. Together, they create a net impression: Equip is not merely offering virtual outpatient care. It is positioning its model as a substitute for higher levels of care, including for patients described as high acuity or even highest acuity.

That is where the substantiation problem escalates.

FBT has evidence. Virtual FBT has a smaller and less mature evidence base. Equip’s proprietary virtual model is a separate proposition. A fully virtual model marketed as a direct alternative to residential treatment, PHP, and IOP is another proposition still.

In an attempt to gain legitimacy, Equip’s email collapses those categories.

Evidence for in person FBT cannot simply be transferred to virtual FBT. Evidence that virtual FBT may be feasible for selected medically stable patients cannot be stretched into proof that a virtual commercial platform is equivalent to higher levels of care. Company associated outcomes do not become independent validation because the model is built around a recognized therapy.

That is evidentiary laundering. A valid treatment principle is being used to support a broader commercial claim the public evidence has not established.

The existing virtual FBT literature appears to support a narrower statement: virtual FBT may be feasible, acceptable, and useful for selected patients, particularly medically stable adolescents and young adults with adequate family support and access to medical monitoring. That is meaningful. But it is not a finding of equivalence to in person FBT. It is not proof of non-inferiority. It is not evidence that residential care, PHP, or IOP can be replaced for patients who meet those levels of care.

No independent, third party, comparative trial has established that virtual FBT is as effective as in person FBT for adolescent anorexia nervosa. No independent objective trial appears to establish that Equip’s model is equivalent to standard in person FBT. No public independent evidence appears to show that Equip’s fully virtual program is clinically equivalent to residential treatment for patients who meet residential criteria.

Yet the email calls the model a direct alternative.

A direct alternative requires direct proof.

Residential treatment, PHP, and IOP are not interchangeable marketing categories. Each level exists because certain patients need more structure than ordinary outpatient care. At the upper end, care may require direct observation, medical stabilization, supervised meals, behavioral containment, psychiatric safety planning, or twenty-four-hour structure. Whether every program performs those functions well is a separate issue. The level of care exists because the functions are clinically necessary for some patients.

Equip’s model may provide real services: therapy, nutrition support, family coaching, medical coordination, remote meal support, protocols, and escalation. Those services can matter. They do not, by themselves, constitute acute care. They do not establish equivalence to residential treatment. They do not prove safe management of the highest acuity patients.

The distinction is not semantic. It is the patient safety line.

Equip’s own public materials reportedly recognize a limiting principle: the company describes its care as appropriate for medically stable patients and indicates that patients are medically cleared before enrollment. That qualifier is decisive. Medically stable step-down care is one proposition. Highest acuity acute virtual care is another.

The email blurs the difference.

“Medically complex” does not mean medically stable. “Recently hospitalized” does not mean ready for virtual care. “Would otherwise require residential treatment” does not mean safe to manage at home. “High acuity” is not an outcome. “Successfully treated” is not evidence unless the terms are defined and the failures are disclosed.

The claim that Equip has treated more than 6,000 high acuity patients in two years demands answers. What counted as high acuity? How was success defined? How many patients were screened but rejected? How many were excluded because they were medically unstable? How many lacked adequate caregiver support? How many dropped out? How many required hospitalizations during treatment? How many stepped up to residential, PHP, IOP, medical inpatient, or psychiatric inpatient care? How many relapsed after discharge? How many were lost to follow up? How many actually met independent residential criteria at the time of referral?

Without that denominator, “6,000 high acuity patients successfully treated” is a marketing plan, not scientific proof.

The phrase “grounded in medical safety” has the same defect. In a virtual model, medical safety depends on selection, exclusion, honest reporting, reliable caregivers, local medical access, timely vitals, timely labs, ECGs when indicated, and rapid escalation. Those dependencies may support appropriate virtual treatment for selected patients. They do not transform a remote program into an acute care setting.

Equip’s email made objective health claims in a commercial referral solicitation. The claims concerned acuity, medical safety, treatment success, and level of care substitution. They were directed to providers who influence where vulnerable patients receive care. If Equip cannot substantiate those claims with competent and reliable evidence specific to the representations made, the email is not aggressive education. It is deceptive health marketing. The same type of marketing the FTC has investigated with other providers in the past.

Commercial context reinforces the need for scrutiny. Equip is a venture backed virtual treatment company operating in a payer sensitive field where facility-based care is expensive and often contested. A virtual alternative to residential treatment is attractive to insurers. It is scalable. It may be cheaper to authorize. It can be framed as modern, accessible, and evidence based. None of that proves misconduct. It explains why broad claims about “highest acuity” and “acute virtual care” require exacting proof.

The public interest is greater because Equip is not operating only in the commercial insurance market. Equip states that more than seven million Medicaid members can access its services, that it accepts Medicaid plans in several states, and that it is working to expand across state Medicaid programs and managed care organizations. If a company markets a fully virtual model as acute care for high acuity eating disorder patients, or as a direct alternative to residential treatment, PHP, and IOP, the question is not limited to whether private families were persuaded by aggressive marketing. The question is whether Medicaid beneficiaries, Medicaid managed care plans, state Medicaid agencies, and public healthcare dollars may be relying on the same claims.

Medicaid participation requires a higher level of public scrutiny. Medicaid patients often have fewer covered alternatives, less access to specialized in person eating disorder treatment, and less practical ability to obtain independent review when a covered virtual option is presented as appropriate. If Equip means medically stable patients who have been screened and cleared for virtual treatment, it should say that with precision. If it means Medicaid patients who would otherwise meet criteria for residential, PHP, IOP, medical hospitalization, or psychiatric hospitalization, it should publish evidence strong enough to support that substitution.

Equip may criticize residential treatment. The residential sector has earned scrutiny. But the flaws of one system do not validate a commercial replacement. A company cannot attack higher levels of care as insufficiently proven, then market its own virtual model as a direct alternative without independent evidence commensurate with that claim.

The burden is simple.

If Equip means medically stable patients appropriate for step down care, it should say that. If Equip means highest acuity patients, it should produce the evidence. If Equip means a direct alternative to residential treatment, PHP, and IOP, it should publish the comparative data.

Produce the independent study showing virtual FBT is noninferior to in person FBT. Produce the independent study showing Equip’s proprietary model is equivalent to in person FBT. Produce the independent study showing a fully virtual model is a safe and effective direct alternative to residential treatment for patients who meet residential criteria. Publish the denominator. Publish exclusion criteria. Publish hospitalization rates. Publish step up rates. Publish dropout rates. Publish adverse events. Publish relapse data. Publish outcomes by diagnosis, acuity, medical risk, purging behavior, suicidality, weight status, prior hospitalization, and caregiver availability.

Until then, the email should be read for what it is: a commercial solicitation asking providers to transition the sickest eating disorder patients into a virtual model on claims Equip has not publicly proved.

Not proof.

Not science.

Not validated acute care.

Merely a sales document. And a sales document worthy of federal agency investigation at that.

Five Million Dollars is not a Victory. It is an Indictment.

The EDCoalition and some advocates are celebrating the June 12, 2026, announcement of the House Appropriations Committee’s advancement of $5 million for eating disorder prevention, screening, training, early detection, and related work. They posted, “We did it EDCoalition!”

In the narrow world of appropriations politics, some may call that a win. They believe that any federal recognition of eating disorders is better than silence. Others more appropriately call it, “dereliction of duty.”

But that is just one of the many problems. The baseline has been set so low that symbolic movement can be mistaken for serious action.

Five million dollars is not a serious federal commitment to eating disorder research. It is not close. Measured against the federal budget, comparable psychiatric and substance use conditions, the mortality rate of eating disorders, and twenty-five years of organized federal advocacy, the number is not a breakthrough. It is damning evidence of gross incompetence.

For 2026, the Congressional Budget Office projects total federal outlays at approximately $7.4 trillion. Against that number, $5 million for eating disorders represents about 0.0000676% of federal spending.

For greater perspective, for every $1 million the federal government spends, this eating disorder package represents roughly 68 cents.

That is not a national research priority. It is a rounding error with a press release.

A household comparison makes the number harder to hide. If an eating disorder professional earns $75,000 per year, the same percentage of her income donated toward eating disorder research would be … five cents.

One nickel.

That is the scale of “the victory” being celebrated.

Nor is the $5 million, in any meaningful scientific sense, $5 million for eating disorder research. Four million dollars is directed to the National Center of Excellence for Eating Disorders. The committee language describes provider engagement, pediatrician consultation, screening and treatment guidance, pediatric training models, prevention, early intervention, treatment protocols, education, training, and awareness. Those functions may be useful. They may improve identification. But they are not longitudinal mortality studies. They are not randomized clinical trials. They are not biological, genetic, neuropsychiatric, pharmacologic, or comparative treatment research at the scale the illness demands.

The remaining $1 million is labeled “Eating Disorders Research” under the HHS Office on Women’s Health. That line is narrow by design. Eating disorders affect women and girls, but they also affect men, boys, athletes, veterans, older adults, and people across race, income, and geography. A serious national research agenda would not be confined to one office, one demographic frame, or one million dollars.

If research means actual NIH scale investigation into causes, mortality, treatment outcomes, relapse, biological mechanisms, clinical standards, access, comparative efficacy, and prevention, then this package does not appear to do that.

Zero dollars in this package are appropriated to the NIH eating disorder research portfolio.

Zero dollars are described as new NIH grants for disease mechanism, clinical trials, longitudinal outcomes, mortality reduction, pharmacologic innovation, or treatment accountability.

Zero Dollars.

That is the headline.

The number becomes worse when placed against eating disorder mortality. ANAD reports that 10,200 deaths each year are the direct result of an eating disorder, roughly one death every 52 minutes. If the entire $5 million package is credited as eating disorder funding, it equals about $490 for each eating disorder death.

That is not valuation. It is scale. It is an insult to those who have died from eating disorders.

If only the $1 million line labeled “Eating Disorders Research” is counted, the figure falls to about $98 per death. If only new NIH research money specifically created by this package is counted, the figure is zero.

That is the damning arithmetic behind the celebration. But there is more.

Eating disorders are not obscure. They affect an estimated 28.8 million Americans over a lifetime. They carry serious medical risk. They intersect with anxiety, depression, trauma, substance use, suicide, cardiac complications, endocrine disruption, gastrointestinal injury, bone loss, infertility, malnutrition, and organ failure. They are not lifestyle problems. They are not boutique illnesses. They are not adolescent vanity disorders. They are lethal psychiatric and medical diseases.

Yet the federal response remains as if eating disorders did not exist at all.

Research disparity among other mental health issues is shocking. NIH estimated eating disorder research support at roughly $55 million in fiscal year 2024. Anxiety disorders received about $266 million. Depression received about $673 million. Schizophrenia received about $239 million. Drug abuse, through NIDA alone, received about $1.663 billion. Substance misuse received about $2.588 billion.

Those conditions deserve serious funding. The comparison does not prove they are overfunded. It proves something else: when the federal government treats a psychiatric or behavioral health condition as a research priority, it knows how to fund at scale.

Eating disorders are not treated that way.

The same point appears in federal spending outside health research. The federal government has been willing to identify, authorize, defend, or fund foreign and international programs in amounts that exceed or dwarf the entire eating disorder package. Publicly cited examples include:

$6 million for cultural tourism and local economic development in Egypt.

$20 million for Ahlan Simsim Iraq, a USAID funded Sesame Workshop affiliated program aimed at children in Iraq.

$24.6 million to build climate resilience in Honduras.

$13.4 million for civic engagement in Zimbabwe.

And nearly $11 million for armored personnel carriers for Uruguay’s quick reaction force. It staggers the imagination to know our federal government is spending more than twice as much on armored personnel carriers for Uruguay’s quick reaction force instead of eating disorder research.

On questionable domestic programs, the federal government has been willing to provide funding in amounts that equal the entire eating disorder package. Publicly cited examples include:

$5 million appropriated for potato breeding facilities in Idaho.

$5 million for historical publications and records grants.

$5 million for Native tourism activities.

$5 million for a harmful algal bloom demonstration program.

$5 million for algal carbon utilization to support data centers.

$5 million for a golden mussel watercraft inspection program in California.

$5 million for moving a local airport passenger terminal in Texas.

$5 million for a veterinary teaching clinic in Kentucky.

Those projects have their lobbyists, their local sponsors, and their bureaucratic justifications. Compared with the federal neglect of eating disorders, they are worthless priorities. They do not carry the mortality burden. They do not explain 10,200 deaths a year. They do not represent a national psychiatric and medical crisis. They do not leave families burying children after years of failed treatment, denied care, and inadequate science.

The comparison is not unfair. It is the point. Five million dollars is a routine federal line item for potatoes, mussels, algae, airports, tourism, records, and veterinary facilities. For eating disorders, it is being sold as a national victory. It is actually a national disgrace.

Washington can move tens of millions of dollars when a priority is visible. It can defend large sums when a program has institutional force behind it. It can spend at scale when the issue is treated as urgent. Eating disorders, despite the mortality burden, remain funded as if the deaths are regrettable but politically inexpensive.

Which brings the focus back to the Eating Disorders Coalition.

The EDCoalition has existed since 2000. After more than a quarter century of organized federal advocacy, the question is not why Congress did so little. The question is why the leading federal eating disorder advocacy organization is celebrating so little and accomplishing even less. Who is funding the EDCoalition for this gross incompetence? For that matter, let’s explore that gross incompetence.

Let us start with the size of the ask. A movement serious about research would not treat a few million dollars as a historic achievement. It would be demanding a major NIH eating disorder initiative, a national mortality study, longitudinal outcomes data, comparative treatment research, relapse studies, treatment safety research, and real accountability for levels of care. It would insist that eating disorders be funded in proportion to their lethality, prevalence, and medical complexity.

Instead, we are left to wonder who is funding the EDCoalition and diverting attention away from those important issues? Who is funding this betrayal of public trust and setting the agenda? Answers to which will never be supplied. Transparency is optional.

Instead, we watch with incredulity EDCoalition celebrating a meaningless $5 million appropriation, most of it directed toward screening, training, education, consultation, early detection, and technical assistance.

Those are support functions. They are not a research agenda.

In some ways, no appropriation at all would have been more honest. Zero dollars would have plainly exposed the neglect. It could have become a legitimate rallying point. Families, clinicians, researchers, and patients could have pointed to the absence and said: this is what abandonment looks like. Why does this exist?

Five million dollars does something more dangerous. It creates the appearance of progress while preserving the reality of neglect. It gives Congress a talking point. It gives advocacy organizations a fundraising headline. It lets the field announce movement without forcing the community to confront how little was actually done.

That is why the celebration is not harmless.

A token appropriation can anesthetize outrage. It allows policymakers to praise families, clinicians, researchers, and people with lived experience while allocating sums that would not sustain a serious national research agenda for one lethal disease. It allows the public to hear that eating disorders received funding without understanding that the funding is microscopic. It allows an advocacy organization founded twenty-five years ago to announce a win instead of admitting that the federal response remains grossly inadequate.

The failure is not that nothing happened.

The failure is that so little happened, and the public was asked to applaud.

If eating disorders are serious, life-threatening illnesses, fund them that way. If early detection saves lives, fund the research that proves what works. If evidence-based treatment matters, fund comparative outcomes, relapse data, mortality studies, program accountability, and treatment safety. If one person dies every 52 minutes, stop pretending $490 per death is a victory.

Five million dollars is not progress at scale. It is not a research commitment. It is not a national response. It is a measure of how little the crisis still matters in federal policy. And apparently, with the lack of public outrage, with the failure to demand answers and accountability, the eating disorder community simply does not care either.

That is the indictment.

The eating disorder field has spent decades asking families to trust it. Trust the treatment center. Trust the intake coordinator. Trust the website. Trust the words “evidence based.” Trust the branded clinical model. Trust the promise that the program knows what it is doing because the patient is too sick, the parents are too frightened, and the stakes are too immediate for careful comparative shopping.

But trust is not a standard of care. And neither are marketing, credentials, nor an impactful website. In a medical and psychiatric illness with substantial mortality risk, high relapse rates, serious medical complications, and profound psychiatric comorbidity, the absence of enforceable, generally accepted standards of care is not a theoretical defect. It is an operating condition that places patients in danger.

The eating disorder community has long understood the problem, even when it has not solved it. In 2008, the Academy for Eating Disorders Credentialing Task Force produced draft recommendations for residential and inpatient eating disorder program accreditation. Some of the most respected, knowledgeable professionals participated in this collaboration.

The document did not read like an aspirational brochure. It read like a blueprint for patient protection. It called for standards in assessment and treatment planning, treatment delivery, quality improvement, specialized protocols, outcome measurement, and accreditation. Its stated purposes were to safeguard patients and families seeking inpatient and residential care, improve the quality of care offered by programs, and provide a benchmark for third party payers. That language is important. It shows that the field knew, at least by then, that eating disorder treatment required more than general mental health licensure and more than ordinary institutional accreditation.

The AED standards also identified the core duties that any serious eating disorder program should recognize. Screening and intake should assess medical stability, psychiatric status, nutritional status, substance use, special needs, and developmental appropriateness. Admission should be a comprehensive interdisciplinary process involving medical, psychiatric, psychological, nutritional, and biopsychosocial assessment. Treatment planning should be timely, documented, individualized, and regularly reviewed. Continuity of care should include prompt communication with appropriate providers. Discharge planning should begin at admission and include specific follow up care. Treatment delivery should include psychological, medical, nutritional, and psychiatric care. Programs should accurately describe their licensure, staffing, levels of medical care, treatment team composition, emergency protocols, costs, insurance participation, treatment duration, discharge criteria, staff qualifications, and continuing education. Outcomes should be measured, not guessed. Quality improvement should be ongoing, documented, and tied to actual patient results.

The field knew what a safety framework looked like. It knew patients needed medical screening, physician access, psychiatric care, nutrition expertise, discharge planning, family involvement, trained staff, outcome measurement, and transparent program information. It knew residential and inpatient programs were not ordinary therapy offices with beds. They were controlled treatment environments for patients with complex medical and psychiatric illnesses. Yet these standards were abandoned. They were never adopted nor enforced. And that is the indictment.

Building up to 2008.

This was before the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008 was passed into law. It was before the Affordable Care Act was enacted. It was before the scourge of COVID. It was also largely before the private equity gold rush into the eating disorder industry began.

When a field lacks generally accepted standards of care, it does not become more flexible. It becomes less accountable. Every treatment center can claim excellence. Every program can call itself evidence based. Every operator can define “appropriate care” around its own staffing model, payer contracts, census pressures, and clinical philosophy. A family trying to decide where to send a medically fragile child or adult is left to compare slogans. A physician trying to refer a patient is forced to rely on reputation, relationships, and sales materials. An insurer can exploit ambiguity by denying care as unnecessary. A treatment center can exploit ambiguity by selling care as indispensable. The patient is then caught between two industries, each invoking medical necessity when it serves its financial interest.

The phrase “evidence-based treatment” illustrates the collapse. In any responsible medical field, evidence-based care should mean that a treatment is supported by research, delivered with fidelity, matched to diagnosis and level of care, monitored for safety, and evaluated by outcomes. In eating disorder treatment, the phrase has too often become a branding device. It may refer to CBT, DBT, FBT, exposure work, nutrition rehabilitation, medical monitoring, group therapy, experiential therapy, or a proprietary blend of whatever the program happens to offer.

Without a standard which requires programs to identify which treatment is being used, why it is appropriate, who is trained to deliver it, how fidelity is monitored, and what outcomes are achieved, “evidence based” becomes a label detached from evidence.

The harm is not semantic. Eating disorders kill. They injure. They produce cardiac instability, electrolyte abnormalities, endocrine disruption, bone loss, gastrointestinal complications, renal stress, refeeding risk, suicidality, and profound psychiatric comorbidity. They also deceive systems that rely on visible severity. A patient can appear medically stable until the lab work, EKG, weight trajectory, purging history, exercise behavior, or refeeding risk says otherwise. A patient can be in a larger body and still be medically unstable. A patient can be “normal weight” and dying. A patient can be discharged because insurance will not pay, retained because a bed must be filled, stepped down because the program has no capacity, or admitted because the program has capacity even when a different level of care would be safer.

The absence of standards increases mortality risk because it removes the guardrails that prevent predictable harm. Certainly, the lack of standards does not cause every death. It does not explain every bad outcome. But it allows dangerous variation in medical screening, level of care decisions, staff training, treatment planning, discharge readiness, and continuity of care. In a lethal illness, dangerous variation is not a neutral administrative problem. It is a patient safety failure.

The mortality problem is compounded by misunderstanding. Culturally, eating disorders are still often reduced to vanity, dieting, thinness, control, adolescence, or female distress. That public misunderstanding persists partly because the professional system has not spoken with one disciplined voice. If the field itself cannot agree on what competent care requires, it cannot expect legislators, medical schools, insurers, journalists, families, or courts to understand the illness with precision. Fragmentation creates confusion. Confusion creates delay. Delay creates medical deterioration. In the space between first symptoms and competent intervention, patients become sicker.

The legal system has already exposed the danger of this absence. In the behavioral health coverage battles surrounding generally accepted standards of care, eating disorders should have been central. Yet when courts and insurers search for recognized standards, eating disorder specific standards have often appeared fragmented, inconsistent, or conspicuously absent from the sources treated as authoritative. That absence sends a devastating message. The illness is deadly enough to require intensive treatment, expensive enough to bankrupt families, complex enough to require interdisciplinary care, but not organized enough to present one enforceable standard to the systems that control access and accountability.

Nor did private equity create this issue. It simply entered a disorderly field and found opportunity.

That distinction matters. The eating disorder field’s failure to establish enforceable standards predated much of the private equity consolidation. But once investment capital entered the residential and intensive treatment market, the absence of standards became commercially useful. A PE backed platform benefits from scalability. Scalability requires replicable operations, predictable margins, payer strategy, labor control, census management, and brand extension. In a field with enforceable clinical standards, those pressures collide with mandatory staffing, outcome reporting, medical coverage, training, supervision, discharge criteria, and transparent patient safety obligations. In a field without enforceable standards, those pressures can be converted into business judgment.

The AED standards make the private equity question sharper, not softer. By 2008, the field had articulated the need for eating disorder specific accreditation, prompt medical screening, interdisciplinary assessment, four core treatment components, nutritional rehabilitation goals, trained staff, continuing education, transparent financial information, discharge planning, quality improvement, and outcome measurement. Any serious investor entering or expanding in the eating disorder treatment market after that point had industry notice that residential and inpatient eating disorder care required specialized safeguards. The blueprint existed. The failure was not a lack of imagination. It was a lack of enforcement.

Measured against those standards, private equity’s role was not merely ownership. It was the commercialization of ambiguity. PE backed entities could acquire respected clinical brands, consolidate markets, add locations, advertise comprehensive care, pursue higher levels of reimbursement, and present themselves as national solutions without being forced to prove standardized outcomes across the platform. They could market compassion while operating under financial structures that reward growth, utilization, and eventual sale. They could describe themselves as evidence based without submitting to a universally accepted, independently audited eating disorder standard that measured whether the care advertised was the care delivered.

This is also why standards are important. Standards do not guarantee recovery. They do not eliminate clinical judgment. They do not reduce complex human beings to checklists. Properly designed, they do the opposite. They preserve clinical judgment by defining the minimum conditions under which judgment can be trusted. They require that a patient be medically assessed before placement. They require that a program be honest about its capabilities. They require that treatment be individualized, documented, and reviewed. They require that medical, psychiatric, psychological, and nutritional care all exist in fact, not only in marketing. They require that programs measure outcomes in a way that survives scrutiny. They make it harder for a center to sell a level of care it cannot safely provide. They make it harder for an insurer to deny a level of care the patient medically needs. They give families a way to distinguish treatment from theater.

The eating disorder community has paid a severe price for its failure to impose those minimum conditions. Families have been left to investigate facilities while in crisis. Patients have been moved through levels of care without clear, enforceable criteria. Clinicians have been forced to operate in a landscape where “specialist” can mean rigorous training or little more than self- selection. Payers have been able to exploit inconsistency. Treatment centers have been able to exploit fear. Private equity has been able to exploit both.

The result is a field that too often asks for deference without submitting to discipline. It asks insurers to pay for care while failing to create uniform proof of what competent care requires. It asks families to trust programs while permitting those programs to define their own excellence. It asks physicians to refer into higher levels of care while failing to ensure that those levels of care meet eating disorder specific standards. It asks the public to understand eating disorders as serious medical and psychiatric illnesses while tolerating a treatment marketplace that sometimes behaves as though seriousness can be inferred from price.

Purportedly, this topic has been discussed on numerous occasions by various organizations and individuals. On a few occasions, the topic has even gone past the discussion stage. In 2022, the American Psychiatric Association drafted new Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Eating Disorders. On February 27, 2023, the APA announced it had adopted these guidelines. But there was a proviso. The press release also stated, “APA’s own “Proper Use of Guidelines” section says the guidelines are not a statement of the standard of care, do not mandate a particular course of medical care, do not substitute for clinician judgment, and are voluntary.”

In late 2025, the DSM Steering Committee proposed new eating disorder severity guidelines to be adopted and included in the DSM-V-TR or the next derivation of the DSM. Again, the warning language appears, The previously mentioned limitations apply equally to this proposal.

Effectively meaning … there has been some discussions. But, no effective, collaborative, broad-based action. Talk? Some. Solutions? None.

The solution is not another voluntary badge. It is not another proprietary credential. It is not another conference panel, white paper, or consensus statement that can be ignored by the next operator with a marketing budget. The solution is enforceable, eating disorder specific standards of care tied to accreditation, licensure, reimbursement, outcome reporting, and medical education. The standards must require medical risk assessment, refeeding competence, interdisciplinary treatment, trained staff, transparent levels of care, family involvement where appropriate, discharge planning, continuity of care, independent outcome measurement, and external accountability. They must apply to nonprofit programs, academic programs, independent centers, and PE backed platforms alike. They must be forward thinking taking into account the seismic changes which have occurred in the last five years impacting eating disorders.

The field does not need to start from scratch. The AED standards showed the beginning of the map. Later guidelines and center of excellence proposals added other pieces. The scientific literature has expanded. The public burden data have become harder to ignore. The litigation record has grown. Families have told the truth at great cost. The missing ingredient is not knowledge. It is institutional will.

An eating disorder treatment system without generally accepted standards of care is not a system. It is a marketplace. In that marketplace, the sickest patients are the least able to judge quality, the most desperate families are the easiest to persuade, the most expensive care is not always the most effective, and the most polished brands are not always the safest. That is not medicine. That is exposure.

The eating disorder community must decide whether it exists to protect patients or to protect the institutions that claim to serve them. If it chooses patients, it must accept enforceable standards, transparent outcomes, real accountability, and scrutiny of financial structures that place growth over care. If it refuses, then the verdict writes itself: the system knew the danger, possessed the tools to reduce it, and chose fragmentation over protection.

A patient refuses breakfast. A parent tries to supervise lunch between work calls. By dinner, food has been hidden, exercise has been concealed, and the number on the home scale depends on whether anyone was watching closely enough. The care team appears by video. The eating disorder remains in the house.

That is the promise and the risk of virtual eating disorder care. Recovery can happen at home only when the home can safely become part of the treatment system.

Equip Health did not enter the eating disorder field quietly. It loudly arrived with a prosecution of the existing system. In Equip’s telling, residential treatment was expensive, disruptive, inaccessible, opaque, and insufficiently evidence based. Families were being asked to send children away. Patients were cycling in and out of facilities. According to Equip’s public rhetoric, families were spending large sums of money on care that did not reliably produce recovery.

That critique landed because much of it contained truth. But shadows and shades of truth also exist in the critique.

First, there is no generally accepted standards of care for eating disorders. A basic, crucial priority. The medical and mental health fields have known about eating disorders for literally decades. And yet, the eating disorder field cannot collaborate and come up with generally accepted standards of care. That, in and of itself, is a felony-like indictment against the system and everyone in it.

Eating disorder treatment in the United States is fragmented, expensive, unevenly regulated, and often inaccessible. Many families cannot find trained clinicians. Many insurers deny care until a patient is medically worse. Some residential programs have overpromised, underdelivered, or sold safety without providing it.

But Equip’s argument deserves the same scrutiny Equip applies to residential treatment. Once a company attacks an entire level of care while selling its own substitute, the question is no longer whether the old system has flaws. The question is whether the replacement has proven what it claims.

On that question, the public record is much thinner than Equip’s marketing.

Equip’s model is simple to describe and difficult to validate. It sells virtual, home based eating disorder treatment built around family-based treatment, a multidisciplinary team, peer and family mentors, medical oversight, therapy, nutrition support, and payer reimbursement. It presents this model as evidence-based care delivered without uprooting a patient’s life. It also presents itself as an alternative to the traditional pathway that moves patients among inpatient, residential, partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient, and outpatient care.

And all delivered through the convenience of your laptop screen.

The problem is not that virtual care cannot help some patients. It plainly can. Family based treatment has strong support for adolescents with restrictive eating disorders. Telehealth can expand access. Many families live nowhere near a qualified eating disorder clinician. A home-based model can preserve school, work, family contact, and ordinary life.

The problem is the leap from that defensible proposition to the broader commercial narrative: that a venture backed, payer aligned, virtual platform can stand as a scalable answer to treatment settings that provide supervision, containment, meal observation, and immediate intervention for medically and psychiatrically fragile patients.

Equip has been willing to put residential treatment on trial. Its own record should now be tried.

The Anti-Residential Pitch

Equip’s leadership has publicly criticized residential treatment with unusual directness. Kristina Saffran, Equip’s cofounder and chief executive, wrote that residential settings had become the go to treatment for adults and adolescents despite “no data” on effectiveness. She described watching people cycle in and out of those centers. Equip’s public materials contrast its virtual approach with sending a child away to a residential facility.

Those are not mild statements. They are market positioning. They tell families, clinicians, and payers that residential treatment is not merely costly or unpleasant, but suspect.

That positioning matters because Equip is not an academic critique. It is a company selling the alternative.

When a non-profit advocate says the residential industry needs reform, that is one thing. When a venture backed provider says residential care lacks evidence while asking insurers to pay for its own model, the statement has commercial force. It helps redirect demand. It helps shape payer behavior. It helps define what families are told counts as serious care.

Equip is entitled to criticize residential treatment. But criticism is not proof. A company cannot use the weakness of one sector as evidence that its own model has solved the problem.

The Evidence Gap

Equip’s strongest public evidence appears to be internal or affiliated research, payer reported outcomes, and observational data from patients treated inside its own system. That is not meaningless. It is also not the same as independent proof.

The public record does not show an independent randomized trial proving that Equip’s proprietary five-person virtual model is equivalent to residential treatment, partial hospitalization, or intensive outpatient care for high acuity eating disorder patients. It does not show long term independent relapse data sufficient to support sweeping claims about durable recovery. It does not show that virtual care can safely replace higher levels of care for patients who need supervision, structure, meal support, bathroom monitoring, medical stabilization, or emergency psychiatric containment.

Equip’s studies may show improvement among selected patients. But selection is the issue. Who was admitted? Who was excluded? Who dropped out? Who was hospitalized? Who stepped up to a higher level of care? Who deteriorated? Who was lost to follow up? Who had caregiver support strong enough to make the model work? Who did not?

A treatment model built around home supervision depends on the home. That is not a minor variable. It is the model.

Equip can say its approach is adapted from evidence-based, family-based treatment. However, that does not establish that every expansion of the model, every diagnosis treated, every acuity level accepted, every payer pathway created, and every substitution for facility-based care is equally proven. The public studies do not appear to answer the hardest question: not whether some patients improve with Equip, but whether patients who would otherwise need a higher level of care are safe and adequately treated when routed into a virtual platform.

That distinction is the center of the case against Equip’s public narrative.

The Home Becomes the Facility

Equip’s model does not merely treat patients at home. It turns the home into the treatment site.

That shift is profound. In residential care, staff are tasked to monitor meals, watch for purging, interrupt compensatory behavior, respond to refusal, observe medical deterioration, and provide containment. In Equip’s model, that burden moves into the household. Parents and caregivers become meal supervisors. Families become behavior monitors. Home scales become clinical instruments. Kitchens, bedrooms, bathrooms, grocery stores, and exercise routines become part of the treatment environment.

That can work in the right family. It can also fail for reasons that have nothing to do with motivation. Some parents work jobs that do not allow meal supervision. Some households are divided by divorce, conflict, poverty, addiction, violence, illness, or exhaustion. Some patients are adults whose families have no legal or practical control. Some caregivers are too frightened, too traumatized, too clinically naive, or too financially strained to perform the job the model assigns to them.

Recovery at home is a clinical model only when the home can safely become a clinic.

That is the part of the promise families need to hear clearly. Virtual treatment is not simply a more humane version of higher care. It is a transfer of clinical labor into the household. If Equip excludes patients whose homes cannot support that transfer, its model is narrower than its public rhetoric. If it accepts them anyway, the safety questions become more serious.

The Business Model Behind the Clinical Claim

Equip’s financial structure sharpens the concern. Public releases and reports identify F Prime Capital, Optum Ventures, .406 Ventures, The Chernin Group, Tiger Global, General Catalyst, Katie Couric Media, and Alex Morgan among Equip’s publicly named investors, with Kerry Washington later announced as an advisor and investor. Equip’s public and regulatory record also shows substantial later equity financing: a 2024 Form D amendment reported approximately $35 million sold to five investors, and a September 2025 Form D amendment reported approximately $54.1 million sold to twelve investors. Those later Form D filings do not publicly identify the investors.

That capital does not come without expectations. Venture backed health care companies are not built to remain small, cautious, and slow. They are built to scale. Scaling a virtual eating disorder provider means adding lives, adding states, adding payer contracts, expanding diagnoses, increasing referrals, standardizing protocols, and demonstrating that care can be delivered at lower cost than facility-based treatment.

Again, none of that is inherently improper. But it creates pressure. And in health care, pressure travels.

It travels into admission criteria. It travels into marketing claims and payer conversations. It travels into outcome metrics. It travels into decisions about which patients can be treated virtually and how long a company waits before recommending a higher level of care.

The Optum Ventures investment is especially important. Optum Ventures led Equip’s Series A offering. Optum is part of the UnitedHealth Group ecosystem, one of the most powerful payer and health services structures in American medicine. Equip also publicly identifies UnitedHealthcare and Optum among insurance plans connected to coverage. A payer connected investor in a virtual model that can reduce use of residential or partial hospitalization care is not proof of misconduct. It is, however, a bright red discovery target.

The question is direct: Was Equip marketed to payers as a clinically superior model, a lower cost substitute, or both?

Aetna’s public discussion of its value-based arrangement with Equip adds weight to that question. Aetna described the collaboration as a way to standardize outcomes, reduce disruption, and control costs. It reported patient progress and symptom reductions among Aetna members treated by Equip. It also framed the arrangement as a value-based success.

That may be good payer management. It may also be the precise place where clinical judgment and cost containment begin to blur.

The broader question is not limited to Optum or Aetna. Who benefits when higher levels of care are avoided? Payers benefit from fewer residential, PHP, and IOP claims. Virtual providers benefit from payer referrals. Investors benefit from scalable treatment with lower facility costs. Families may benefit when virtual care is clinically appropriate. But patients may be harmed when a lower cost model substitutes for needed containment.

If a patient is routed to Equip because virtual care is clinically appropriate, that is one thing. But, if a patient is routed to Equip because residential or partial hospitalization is expensive, difficult to authorize, or disfavored by the payer, that is another. The public record does not answer that question. It demands that the question be asked.

What Virtual Care Cannot Do

Equip’s model rests on an appealing premise: recovery should happen in real life. But eating disorders often thrive in real life. They hide in bathrooms, bedrooms, kitchens, grocery stores, exercise routines, laptops, family conflict, secrecy, shame, manipulation, and medical instability. The disorder is not merely a thought pattern that can be discussed over video. It is behavior, physiology, risk, concealment, and control.

Virtual care cannot sit at the table for every meal. It cannot watch a patient after dinner. It cannot prevent purging in the bathroom. It cannot stop compulsive exercise in the bedroom at midnight. It cannot verify every weight. It cannot take vital signs unless someone reliable takes them. It cannot create a safe household where one does not exist. It cannot supply twenty-four-hour containment when a patient is suicidal, medically unstable, actively restricting, purging, fainting, manipulating weight, or refusing food.

Medical instability is not a branding problem. It can mean bradycardia, orthostatic instability, electrolyte disturbance, dehydration, syncope, refeeding risk, laxative abuse, acute self-harm, or suicidality. Those risks do not become manageable because treatment is convenient. They require accurate detection, rapid escalation, and honest limits.

Equip can respond that those patients require hospital stabilization or a different level of care. That answer is clinically necessary. It also narrows the model. It means Equip’s public promise depends on careful exclusion, rapid escalation, and honest recognition of what virtual care cannot safely manage.

That is where the public rhetoric becomes dangerous. The broader the attack on residential care, the easier it becomes for families and payers to hear that higher care is outdated, excessive, or unnecessary. The broader the claim that recovery can happen at home, the easier it becomes to underestimate the patients for whom home is not a treatment setting. It is the site of the illness.

The Missing Denominator

Equip and its payer partners have reported favorable outcomes. But every outcome claim in behavioral health lives or dies by its denominator.

How many patients entered treatment? How many completed it? How many left early? How many required hospitalizations? How many stepped up to residential, PHP, or IOP? How many had emergency interventions? How many relapsed six months later? How many were excluded before admission because they were too medically unstable, too psychiatrically acute, too unsupported at home, or too difficult to monitor? How many families could not perform the work the model requires?

Without that denominator, success rates risk becoming marketing assets rather than scientific findings.

This is especially important because Equip has criticized residential treatment for cycling patients through care. If Equip wants to make relapse, readmission, and revolving door treatment part of the indictment against residential providers, then Equip must disclose comparable data for its own model. Not just symptom improvement among engaged patients. Not just progress among payer members. Not just weight restoration among those who remained in care. The complete denominator.

The public record does not yet supply that level of independent validation.

What Would Prove Equip Right

Equip could answer much of this criticism with evidence. Not slogans. Not affiliated outcome summaries. Not payer success stories. Evidence.

Independent randomized or well-matched comparative studies would matter. Full denominator reporting would matter. As would comparable acuity groups. Long term relapse and readmission data are material. Adverse event reporting and transparent hospitalization and step up rates matter. Independent replication by researchers without financial ties to Equip are imperative. Payer savings data separated from clinical outcomes. Clear criteria for patients who met residential level of care but were treated virtually must be disclosed.

That is what proof looks like.

Until then, Equip has not disproven residential treatment. It has built a business arguing that many patients should not need it.

The Real Indictment

Equip’s vulnerability is not that virtual care never works. That would be false and unserious. The vulnerability is that Equip has built a business around a claim that needs far more independent proof than the public record appears to provide.

Equip has criticized private equity owned residential treatment while raising venture capital. It has presented home based virtual care as evidence based and scalable. It has partnered with insurers in arrangements that explicitly include cost control. It has accepted investment from a payer connected venture fund. It has published or promoted favorable outcomes while the hardest questions about exclusion, dropout, escalation, relapse, adverse events, and long-term recovery remain unresolved in the public domain… and undisclosed.

The issue is not whether Equip is another false hope story to desperate families. The story is that Equip is a test case for a larger transformation in American behavioral health: the conversion of complex, high risk care into virtual, scalable, payer friendly products.

That transformation may improve access for some patients. It may also produce a cheaper treatment pathway that looks most successful when the sickest, least supported, hardest to monitor patients are filtered out, stepped up, or missing from the denominator.

The eating disorder field has already seen what happens when treatment is sold faster than it is proven. Families are desperate. Insurers are cost conscious. Investors want growth. Clinicians are scarce. Patients are vulnerable. In that environment, the company that claims to have solved access, cost, evidence, and continuity deserves heightened scrutiny precisely because the promise is so attractive.

Equip put private equity owned residential treatment on trial. Now, Equip should produce the evidence for its own case.

Publish the full denominator. Publish step up rates. Publish hospitalization rates. Publish adverse events. Publish dropout data. Publish relapse data. Publish payer savings data. Publish the criteria used when patients met residential level of care but were treated virtually. Publish the conflicts.

Then the field can judge whether Equip has built a breakthrough. Or merely a scalable workaround for expensive care.

Category Laundering and Manipulation.

At ICED 2026, Dr. Rebecca Peebles participated in the panel discussion, “From Recognition to Action: Addressing Weight Stigma in Family-Based Treatment.” Apparently, during her part of the presentation, Dr. Peebles utilized this slide:

Dr. Cheri Levinson provided additional information about this slide when she posted on social media, “People with a BMI of 25-37 actually have the LOWEST mortality rates. Oh what?! Being fat is actually “healthy.”

This is where credibility disappears and the argument goes from substance to hyperbole.

It is widely accepted that BMI is not the best indicator of health. But, the conference slide did not merely criticize BMI. That would be easy enough to defend. BMI is crude. BMI is less useful at the individual level for people who are unusually short, tall, muscular, older, or racially and ethnically unlike the populations from which many cutoffs were derived. In 2023, the AMA said that BMI should not be used alone and should be considered with other measures, including visceral fat, body composition, waist circumference, and genetic or metabolic factors.

But that is not the same claim as saying that people with a BMI from 25 to 37 have the lowest mortality. That claim does something different. It takes a legitimate criticism of BMI and uses it to smuggle in a materially broader proposition that the evidence does not support.

The CDC’s recognized adult BMI categories are straightforward:

healthy weight, 18.5 to less than 25;

overweight, 25 to less than 30;

class 1 obesity, 30 to less than 35;

class 2 obesity, 35 to less than 40;

class 3 obesity, 40 or higher.

A BMI range of 25–37 is a rhetorically constructed category, not a medically coherent one. It fuses the categories, “overweight,” all of class 1 obesity, and the lower half of class 2 obesity, then stops before the evidence becomes harder to spin.

That is why the numbers are misleading. It is not a neutral scientific category. It is an advocacy category.

Flegal et al. 2013 did find that the standard overweight category, BMI 25 to less than 30, had lower all-cause mortality than the normal BMI reference group, with a summary hazard ratio of 0.94. But the same paper found that obesity overall, BMI 30 and above, had higher mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, and that BMI 35 and above had an even higher hazard ratio of 1.29. So Flegal cannot honestly be used to say that 25 to 37 is the lowest mortality range.

The more recent U.S. NHIS analysis is also narrower than the slide’s implication. That study, using 1999 to 2018 NHIS data linked to the National Death Index, found adjusted hazard ratios of 0.95 for BMI 25.0 to 27.4 and 0.93 for BMI 27.5 to 29.9 compared with BMI 22.5 to 24.9. But the same article concluded that mortality risk was elevated by 21% to 108% among participants with BMI 30 or greater, while noting important age differences.

That is the evidentiary problem. The slide and argument appear to rely on the most favorable interpretation of the overweight literature, then extends it into obesity ranges where the supporting evidence weakens and reverses.

Unquestionably, the rhetorical sequence is efficient. First, attack BMI as imperfect. Second, invoke the 1998 cutoff change to make BMI categories look arbitrary. Third, cite Flegal for the proposition that “overweight” people had lower mortality. Fourth, visually expand the favorable zone on a graph until it appears to cover a much wider range. The audience receives one simplified message: higher weight is not associated with worse health and conventional BMI categories are suspect.

But each step requires a correction.

The 1998 NIH/NHLBI guideline did classify BMI 25 to 29.9 as overweight and BMI 30 or greater as obese, and it treated adults with BMI 25 or greater as at risk for associated morbidities including hypertension, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Before that transition, U.S. reporting had used higher sex-specific overweight thresholds, including BMI 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women. That history may show that BMI categories are policy judgments layered on epidemiology. It does not prove that BMI 37 is part of a lowest mortality range.

Further, the Flegal study is a mortality study, not a comprehensive health study. It examined all-cause mortality, not diabetes incidence, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, mobility limitation, fertility complications, liver disease, medication burden, surgical risk, or quality of life. Mortality is a blunt endpoint. A person can be alive and still have those health issues. Converting “not dead during the study window” into “healthy” is not epidemiology. It is overreach.

Nor does “BMI is imperfect” mean “BMI is useless.” The CDC says BMI is a screening measure that should be considered with other factors when assessing health. The AMA took essentially the same position: BMI has limits, but it can be helpful in certain scenarios when its benefits and limits are understood.

That is the honest conclusion. BMI alone is inadequate. But a nonstandard 25 to 37 range is worse. BMI is at least a disclosed measurement. 25 to 37 is a constructed talking point. A serious health assessment does not replace BMI with ideology. It replaces BMI alone with clinically meaningful data.

The eating disorder community deserves facts, evidence, scientific and medically based knowledge. Not empty rhetoric and not manipulated numbers to support a false narrative.

Families suffering from eating disorders deserve the unvarnished truth. Those families, those who live with, suffer from and sometimes, have to endure the unthinkable are why this community exists.

Manipulation of research and statistics to support a false narrative should not be tolerated. The community deserves better. Families deserve better.

Recently, one of the creators of the Inclusive Eating Disorder Certification Program questioned how I can speak so vehemently about collaboration when I am, in that person’s view, so divisive in the eating disorder community.

That question deserves an answer because it exposes one of the field’s most persistent evasions. Many people in the eating disorder community use the word collaboration when they mean agreement, access, approval, politeness, ideological alignment, or silence. They do not mean objective testing of claims nor public disagreement nor bringing clinicians, researchers, families, former patients, regulators, and grieving parents into the same room and forcing uncomfortable facts into view.

They mean … stop making people uncomfortable.

That is not collaboration. That is compliance. It is performative. And I reject that premise.

Collaboration does not require making peace with dysfunction. Nor does it require vacuous flattering of certification programs, credential vendors, professional organizations, treatment platforms, social media advocates, or ideological factions that have all failed to produce measurable accountability in a field where our loved ones continue to die. Collaboration does not require pretending that every certificate confers expertise, every advocate with a platform has wisdom, or every institution fluent in inclusion is clinically serious.

Serious collaboration begins with reality. And reality is divisive only to those protected by illusion.

The eating disorder field has a long history of confusing tone with integrity. Raise direct questions about mortality, treatment failure, private equity, unregulated coaching, credential inflation, ideological capture, weak standards, or professional self-protection, and parts of the field suddenly discover false civility. The same people who tolerate fragmentation, silence, opaque outcomes, and avoidable harm become deeply concerned about whether the person naming the problem is pleasant enough.

That is insufferable and should not be tolerated.

Our loved ones continue to die. The body count escalates. Families are being misled. Patients are cycling through levels of care without durable recovery. Parents are paying enormous sums of money for treatment they cannot evaluate. Clinicians are practicing inside reimbursement systems that often dictate care more aggressively than science does. Militant activists are attempting to bastardize the DSM-V to fit their short-sighted understanding of eating disorders. Treatment companies market hope while withholding the outcomes data that would allow the public to judge whether that hope is justified. Certificates multiply while families struggle to distinguish education from regulation, training from authority, and branding from protection.

If exposing those realities constitutes being divisive, then the division was already there. I did not create it. I just refuse to decorate it or surrender to it.

Without common goals and objectives, there can be no collaboration. Diametrically different goals are the death of collaboration.

Collaboration is not indiscriminate. People cannot collaborate through evasion. People cannot treat bad evidence as merely another perspective. A community is not required to accept a biased certificate as a substitute for licensure, medical competence, supervision, public discipline, or enforceable patient protection. A community should not become a chorus of reassurance while mortality remains the quietest fact in the room.

The accusation that I am divisive says more about the accuser’s definition of community than it says about my commitment to collaboration. For that matter, what is this community I am allegedly dividing?

The patients? The families? Serious clinicians? Researchers? I have stood with and helped each of those groups.

The certification sector? If so, let me be precise. Certification is not regulation. A certificate may mean someone merely completed a course. It does not mean a state has granted legal authority to treat vulnerable people. It does not mean a public disciplinary body exists. It does not mean families have meaningful protection if harm occurs. In a field where the public already struggles to distinguish therapist, dietitian, physician, coach, advocate, consultant, mentor, educator, and influencer, credential inflation is not harmless. It can become structural erosion sold as progress.

The question is not whether a certification program uses the language of inclusion. The question is whether it improves clinical seriousness, patient protection, measurable outcomes, and public accountability. The question is, will it decrease the crippling mortality rate haunting eating disorders. Those questions must be asked directly.

I do not oppose inclusion. To the contrary. Access to care is an incredibly important issue which must be addressed intelligently. What I do oppose is using inclusion as a shield against scrutiny to perpetuate a close minded or radical political or social justice agenda. I will not gladly suffer anyone who attempts to use the illness that took my daughter’s life as a platform to spew forth their radical political or social justice views. That I will not forgive. Nor allow.

There is a difference between being divisive and drawing necessary lines. A field that cannot distinguish between those things is not mature enough to police itself.

That is exactly where collaboration is needed. But collaboration cannot begin with a conclusion dictated by activist commitments.

The accusation of divisiveness is efficient because it avoids the merits. It also does not answer whether the criticism is true. It does not address whether standards are weak, outcomes are hidden, research is underfunded, coaching is dangerous when it crosses into treatment, certificates confuse the public, or ideology has displaced scientific seriousness in parts of the field.

The eating disorder field does not need fewer divisions if the price of unity is silence. It needs better divisions. It needs a division between evidence and performative conduct. Between licensure and certificate marketing. Between peer support and unsupervised treatment. Between inclusion and ideological capture. Between compassion and institutional self-protection. Between families asking questions and professionals resenting those questions. Between people trying to save lives and people trying to preserve their place and social platform in the room.

A serious community does not fear those divisions. It clarifies them. It embraces them.

I am in this dysfunctional field because my daughter died. That is not a credential. It is not a claim to infallibility. It does not make every judgment correct. It does, however, make one thing impossible: I cannot pretend the stakes are lower than they are so that professionals, advocates, certification creators, treatment executives, or institutional insiders feel more comfortable. Once you are cast into a room no parent should enter and from which they cannot escape, you do not owe deference to people who think public accountability is a breach of etiquette.

So let the record be clear.

I strongly believe in collaboration. But I will not collaborate with cowardice. I will not collaborate with incompetence nor with people who use the language of harm to avoid hard questions. I will not collaborate with credentialing efforts that blur the line between education and public protection. I will not collaborate with those who mistake ideological fluency for clinical depth. I will not collaborate with institutions that protect reputation more aggressively than patients. I will not collaborate with people who believe the worst thing one can do in this field is to be disruptive.

The worst thing one can do in this field is normalize failure.

I will collaborate with anyone serious enough to put patients, families, evidence, mortality, and accountability above personal brand, institutional comfort, political fashion, professional status or profiteering. But I will not confuse collaboration with surrender. I will not soften the truth so the field can continue mistaking civility for progress. Perhaps the community should adopt similar beliefs.

If that makes me divisive, then so be it and I wear that label proudly. Because that type of division is necessary. And long overdue.

The Eating Disorder Community is in Decline and I will not Pretend Otherwise

I am angry.

Not performatively angry. Not professionally offended. Not angry because I lost an argument on the internet or failed to receive applause from a community that mistakes approval for moral authority.

I am angry because my daughter is dead.

Morgan died from anorexia. On October 30, 2016, a brilliant light was extinguished. That date is not rhetoric. It is not branding. It is not “a platform,” as some room temperature IQ marketer once had the gall to call this advocacy.

It is the dividing line in my life. Before it, I was a father. After it, I became something else … a grieving father forced into a world that talks endlessly about compassion while tolerating cowardice, corruption, incompetence, ideological vanity and institutional decay.

The eating disorder community does not like anger like mine because it cannot domesticate it. It cannot convert it into a panel discussion, a diversity statement, a certification module or a social media campaign. It cannot make it polite enough to ignore.

That is why it wants people like me to be quiet.

And yet, I will not be quiet. I cannot be quiet.

After my daughter died, I tried to serve. That is what grieving parents often do when the alternative is collapse. You try to turn pain into usefulness. You tell yourself that if you can help one family, warn one clinician, reach one school, educate one employer or reach one terrified parent, then maybe the unbearable can be forced into some form of meaning.

I gave TEDx talks. I worked with physicians. I organized presentations for Apple and Raytheon. I spoke to school counselors, nurses, churches, treatment programs, television stations and radio audiences. I hosted mental health programming. I tried to bring serious voices into public spaces where eating disorders were still misunderstood, minimized or sentimentalized.

And still, it was not enough.

Eventually I learned far too late what many families have not yet learned. The eating disorder community is not merely underfunded or misunderstood. It is dysfunctional, fragmented and frightened of accountability. It too often rewards performance over substance, ideology over science, credentials over courage and consensus over truth. Worst of all, it has become increasingly comfortable using death as scenery while fighting over status.

The public is told this is a community of care. Families are told to trust the experts, the advocates, the organizations, the conferences, the language and the credentials. But behind the soft vocabulary sits a harder truth. This field remains divided on treatment, weak on accountability, vulnerable to private equity extraction, susceptible to ideological capture and far too willing to treat bereaved families as inconvenient when they ask direct questions.

The result is moral rot with professional polish.

The certification sector epitomizes this reality. Credentials now multiply like weeds. Every faction seems to have a course, a module, a preferred vocabulary and a moral test. Some programs lean clinical. Others appear more interested in political catechism than medical seriousness. One can now encounter training materials that seem more committed to ideological confession than saving lives.

Meanwhile, families still cannot get clear answers to basic questions. What treatment works best for which patient, at what stage, under what conditions and with what measurable outcome? What standards are truly evidence based? Who is tracking deaths? Who is tracking failed discharges? Who is tracking relapse after residential treatment? Who is accountable when a facility markets hope, collects enormous fees and sends a patient home no safer than when she arrived?

The field has conferences, hashtags, consultants, committees, coalitions and continuing education products. It also has frauds and charlatans.

What it does not have is a unified standard of excellence worthy of the dead.

That is the indictment.

When insurance companies dictate care, the community complains. When private equity turns residential treatment into a revenue model, the community whispers. When families are bankrupted, the community sympathizes. When clinicians disagree on basic treatment principles, the community schedules another panel. When misinformation spreads, the community looks the other way if the messenger belongs to the right social tribe. When organizations drift from mission into self-protection, the community ignores it.

But, when a grieving father says the system is failing, some of these same people suddenly pretend to discover standards of civility.

No.

Civility is not the highest virtue in a field where people are dying. Truth is. Accountability is. Competence is. Scientific seriousness is.

The eating disorder community has too often chosen theater. It has chosen language games. It has chosen familiar alliances over public correction. It has chosen to protect reputations more aggressively than families.

I have seen organizations that once claimed noble missions become captive to vanity, ideology or institutional self-interest. I have seen advocates confuse unresolved pain with public wisdom. I have seen professionals hide behind credentials while refusing to confront obvious dysfunction. I have seen activists reduce complex, lethal brain-based illnesses to social talking points. I have seen people who should know better treat mortality as an inconvenience to their preferred narrative.

This is not progress. It is decline.

And yes, I have made my fair share of mistakes. Grief does not make a man infallible. Pain does not make every judgment wise. I have spoken too sharply at times. I have misread people. I have trusted the wrong people. I have reacted when restraint would have served better.

But my mistakes are my own. They do not absolve the community of its failures.

That dodge has been used too often. Attack the messenger. Question his tone. Whisper about his anger. Pretend that if the grieving father is imperfect, then the institution is clean.

It is not.

NEDA did not need to become a stage for ideological conflict. IAEDP did not need outside pressure before obvious issues were confronted. Board certification did not need to become needlessly expensive or exclusionary. Treatment programs did not need to operate inside opaque business structures while families were told to trust the brand. The phrase “terminal anorexia” did not need to enter the field with the casual horror of professional abstraction while families wondered whether the system was preparing to give up on the very patients it had failed to save.

Again and again, the pattern is the same. The community avoids hard accountability until someone forces the issue. Then, after reform becomes unavoidable, the same community pretends the disruption was the problem.

It was not.

The problem was the misconduct. The problem was the silence. The problem was the cowardice before the lawsuits, complaints, public records and exposure.

When I acted, reform followed. Taxes, penalties and interest had to be addressed. Certification reforms moved. Chapters gained independence. Costs were reduced. Therapists were spared unnecessary expense. Research benefited. Conversations shifted. People who had been privately afraid, began to speak. I connected parents with doctors. And visited their loved ones in treatment centers.

Very few said thank you.

That is fine. I did not bury my daughter in exchange for applause.

But I will not accept lectures from people who confuse politeness with integrity. Nor will I accept moral instruction from those who watched dysfunction metastasize and called their silence professionalism.

The eating disorder community needs far less performance and far more courage. It needs fewer ideological purity tests and more scientific humility. Fewer certification pseudo empires and more measurable outcomes. Fewer self-appointed gatekeepers and more public accountability. Fewer slogans and more data. Fewer branded advocates and more grieving families at the center of the record.

It also needs to stop pretending that anger is the enemy.

Anger is not the enemy when children die, families are misled, treatment becomes a business model, public messaging drifts from science and organizations protect themselves before they protect patients.

I am angry because the stakes are life and death. I am angry because this field should be better than it is. I am angry because the public still does not understand eating disorders with the urgency they deserve. I am angry because families still enter this system terrified, uninformed, financially exposed and dependent on people who may or may not be worthy of that trust.

The enemy is complacency. The enemy is cowardice. The enemy is institutional vanity. The enemy is the professional instinct to survive scrutiny rather than deserve trust.

One more parent will soon stand where I stand. One more parent will replay the last conversation. One more parent will wonder what they missed. One more parent will be told it was not their fault and still wake each morning inside a private prison where no acquittal holds. One more parent will discover that grief is not a season. It is a climate.

So no, I will not soften this. I will not stand down. To the contrary. It is long past time for escalation. That is because the eating disorder community is in a continuing decline. And that decline is measured in more lives being taken.

A serious community welcomes scrutiny. A serious community puts mortality first. A serious community builds a public, adversarial, evidence driven forum where the brightest clinicians, researchers, families and survivors debate standards of care in full view. A serious community demands transparent outcomes from treatment providers. A serious community tracks deaths, relapses, readmissions, restraints, failed discharges, insurance denials, financial exploitation and conflicts of interest. A serious community would stop hiding behind compassion while avoiding accountability.

The eating disorder community is not serious.

That can and must change. But it will not change through another slogan, conference theme, awareness week, land use acknowledgment, moral lecture, branded certification or circular panel discussion where everyone already agrees before the microphones are turned on.

It will change when people with something to lose tell the truth. It will change when families stop mistaking credentials for character. It will change when organizations understand that their missions are not ornaments. It will change when clinicians accept that disagreement is not violence and scrutiny is not persecution. It will change when advocates stop using eating disorders as vehicles for every fashionable political obsession and return to the central fact that these illnesses kill.

My daughter died. That is where this begins. And that is where every excuse ends.

I do not write from theory. I write from the room no parent should enter. I write from the silence after the funeral. I write from the years in which grief becomes ordinary and yet still remains unbearable. I write from the knowledge that no award, no speech, no lawsuit, no reform, no public victory and no act of service can restore the life that was taken.

And so, I write. The eating disorder community can continue to resent my anger if it wants. But, I have earned my seat. I have earned it through the most horrific way imaginable. My seat in this dysfunctional community was paid with the dearest blood possible.

And until this community chooses truth over theater, science over slogans, accountability over self-protection and patients over politics, I will keep speaking and fighting.

Not because I enjoy the fight.

Because my daughter is dead.

And too many people who claim to care have become far too comfortable living with that kind of loss … so long as it belongs to someone else.

The latest hobgoblin to perplex the eating disorder community is the use of GLP-1 medications. Competing presentations and articles are being published. Accusations of bias are already bandied about. This raises the inevitable question … was the talk or article biased or was it simply incomplete?

That distinction matters more than it may first appear. To call a presentation “biased” is to suggest a fundamental defect. It implies bad faith, intellectual contamination, or a failure so basic that the speaker’s credibility is diminished. The word often operates as an accusation, and once it enters the lexicon, the conversation itself changes. People retreat into defensive positions. Groups harden. The possibility of productive engagement narrows.

But to refer to a presentation as “incomplete” is different. “Incomplete” does not excuse weakness. It identifies it with precision. It says the subject required more voices, more context, more rigor, more disciplines, more lived experience, more challenge. It leaves room for the possibility that the presenter was building something rather than distorting something. It invites participation rather than condemnation. It allows the field to ask; What is missing? Who was not included? What assumptions were left untested? What would make this stronger?

That distinction, bias versus incompleteness, goes to the heart of a systemic problem within the eating disorder community.

Too often the field does not possess the structures necessary to metabolize disagreement. It does not consistently bring opposing views into disciplined, accountable deliberation. Instead, it allows major questions to emerge through fragmented presentations, isolated publications, advocacy statements, rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, and public controversy. The result is not consensus. It is not clarity. It is not reform. It is serial reaction and in some cases, overreaction.

Terminal anorexia, weight stigma, obesity, residential treatment, involuntary care, medical stabilization, private equity, insurance denial and the role of families. The debate over GLP-1 medications is only the latest example.

Given the stakes, the introduction of GLP-1s into the eating disorder conversation should have triggered a process proportionate to the seriousness. These medications raise profound clinical, ethical, metabolic, psychological, social and even spiritual questions. They implicate body weight, appetite, medical risk, obesity treatment, relapse vulnerability, access to care, stigma, autonomy, coercion, and the meaning of recovery itself.

A mature field would have responded by convening a serious, multidisciplinary process. Not a panel designed to affirm one position. Not a paper written from one perspective. Not a series of advocacy reactions after the fact. A real process.

That process should have included eating disorder clinicians, obesity medicine specialists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, researchers, ethicists, patients, families, disability-rights advocates, theologians, legal scholars, and people with lived experience across different diagnostic and body size realities. It should have directly examined assumptions. It should have asked what is known, what is unknown, what is being inferred, and what risks are being underestimated. It should have distinguished clinical concern from ideological reflex. It should have clarified where caution is warranted and where fear may be substituting for evidence.

Instead, the field did what it too often does. It processed the issue through fragmentation.

One group speaks. Another group objects. A paper appears. A blog responds. A statement circulates. A conference panel frames the issue one way. A counter-panel frames it another. Advocates describe harm. Clinicians defend nuance. Researchers ask for data. Patients feel unseen. Families remain confused. Positions harden before the field has created a shared table at which those positions can be tested.

And nothing durable is built. This is not structured deliberation. It is intellectual trench warfare. This trench warfare has become the eating disorder field’s primary method of adjudication.

What does not emerge is institutional architecture capable of absorbing disagreement and converting it into accountable consensus. That absence is not a minor procedural flaw. It is one of the field’s central weaknesses.

A field dealing with a life-threatening illness cannot rely on sequential publication as its primary conflict resolution mechanism. Publication has value. Scholarship matters. Commentary matters. Advocacy matters. But none of those alone can substitute for a legitimate consensus building structure. Papers do not cross-examine assumptions in real time. Advocacy statements do not reconcile competing clinical realities. Conference talks do not create binding standards. Public rebuttals do not necessarily produce shared definitions.

They often produce only more hardened factions.

A system that can only process new and consequential concepts through this fragmented process is not demonstrating intellectual vitality. It is demonstrating procedural weakness. It is showing that it lacks the mechanisms needed to test its most important ideas before they migrate into practice, policy, treatment settings, insurance decisions and public discourse.

That matters because ideas in this field are not abstract. They become clinical posture. They influence whether patients are hospitalized or discharged. They shape how risk is understood. They affect whether families are included or marginalized. They determine whether weight loss is celebrated, feared, treated, or ignored. They define whether a patient is viewed as resistant, autonomous, hopeless, harmed, empowered, or in need of urgent intervention.

Language becomes practice. Practice becomes outcome. Outcome becomes life or death.

The eating disorder community cannot continue treating disagreement as contamination. It cannot keep mistaking opposition for hostility. It cannot continue allowing each faction to speak from its own platform while pretending that the existence of multiple platforms equals meaningful discourse. It does not.

Real discourse requires structure. It requires shared rules. It requires the willingness to sit beside a person who sees the issue differently and remain engaged long enough to understand why. It requires humility from researchers, clinicians, advocates, families, and patients alike. It requires the recognition that no single constituency owns the truth. Separate truths may coexist. A serious field must be able to hold both simultaneously.

The current model does not do that well. The current model rewards position taking more than integration. It rewards rapid response more than disciplined synthesis. It rewards moral clarity, even when the underlying issue is clinically and ethically complex. It allows organizations to issue statements, scholars to publish frameworks, advocates to mobilize outrage, and clinicians to continue practicing amid uncertainty … without requiring the field as a whole to reconcile competing truths.

That is not consensus. That is convenience.

The path forward is not silence. It is not politeness for its own sake. It is not pretending that all views are equally supported by evidence. Some arguments are stronger than others. Some claims are dangerous. Some assumptions deserve to be challenged directly. But the challenge must be structured.

The field needs a new model for consequential disagreement. When the next major issue arises the response should not be another isolated paper followed by predictable backlash. It should be a convened process with opposing experts, clear questions, transparent assumptions, defined evidentiary standards, patient and family participation, ethical review, and a published consensus document that identifies agreement, disagreement, uncertainty, and practical guidance.

Not every issue will end in unanimity. It should not. Forced consensus can be as dangerous as fragmentation. But a credible process can at least clarify the boundaries of disagreement. It can say … here is what we know; here is what we do not know; here is where clinical caution is justified; here is where ideology may be exceeding evidence; here is where patient safety requires action; here is where further research is essential; here is how families and clinicians should proceed in the meantime.

That would be progress.

The eating disorder field does not suffer from a lack of passion. It suffers from a lack of integrative structure. It has brilliant clinicians, committed researchers, courageous patients, grieving families, thoughtful advocates, and people of genuine moral seriousness. But intelligence distributed across factions does not automatically become wisdom. Wisdom requires architecture.

The eating disorder community must move beyond the zero-sum game. It must stop treating incompleteness as bias and disagreement as betrayal. It must build the institutional capacity to hold complexity without collapsing into camps. It must recognize that the goal is not for one tribe to defeat another. The goal is to produce better care, better standards, better evidence, better ethics, and better outcomes.

Lives depend on whether the field can learn to do that.

A DAD'S JOURNEY WITH EATING DISORDERS

Musings on Mental Health and the Eating Disorder Industry

Menu

Tag Archives: health

Equip’s High-Acuity Email Came Between Corporate Layoffs

The Morgan Dunn Eating Disorder Education Act

Equip’s Transition

Five Million Dollars is not a Victory. It is an Indictment.

Category Laundering and Manipulation.

The Eating Disorder Community is in Decline and I will not Pretend Otherwise

Menu

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: