Intravenous (IV) therapy clinics are rapidly emerging across the nation, marketing themselves as swift solutions for ailments ranging from hangovers to post-workout recovery. Despite their growing popularity and bold claims of wellness enhancement, medical professionals and regulatory bodies are urging significant caution regarding their widespread use and efficacy.

Many medical experts express skepticism about the promised benefits for the general public. Dr. Sam Torbati, co-chair of emergency medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, has notably characterized the therapy for most individuals as merely producing “expensive urine,” emphasizing that the body efficiently expels what it doesn’t immediately utilize, particularly with excessive fluid or vitamin intake.

Accurately quantifying the number of these IV clinics operating in the United States presents a considerable challenge. This difficulty arises partly because some establishments exclusively provide IV drip therapy, while many others integrate these services as just one component within broader medical spa offerings, blurring the lines of their primary function.

The proliferation of these IV hydration clinics notably accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the American IV Association, an industry group, the period of restricted access to traditional healthcare providers, combined with heightened public concern for immune system health, significantly fueled the demand and subsequent expansion of these alternative treatment centers.

State regulators nationwide are closely monitoring this burgeoning trend, with Ohio serving as a prime example, now boasting approximately 200 such clinics—a phenomenon largely unknown in the state before the pandemic. A significant point of concern for regulatory boards involves the source and legitimacy of the drugs and solutions administered; Ohio regulators have even suspended licenses of businesses found purchasing these critical medical supplies through unregulated channels like social media platforms.

Another contentious aspect revolves around the qualifications of the personnel administering the intravenous treatments. While nurses or paramedics frequently facilitate customer consultations and deliver the IV infusions, many regulatory frameworks stipulate that a licensed physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner must be directly involved in the patient assessment and treatment decision-making process, rather than relying solely on standing orders issued remotely.

Authorities in states such as Kentucky and South Carolina have issued strong statements clarifying their positions. Kentucky officials articulated in March that a patient cannot unilaterally demand an IV infusion any more than they can direct their own surgery. Similarly, South Carolina regulators stated in 2023 that IV therapy should be the result of a valid, provider-driven medical order, expressly “not from a patient-driven menu akin to a fast-food restaurant.”

Despite the broad regulatory scrutiny and medical skepticism regarding general wellness claims, IV therapy does possess legitimate and beneficial applications within clinical medicine. For instance, these treatments can be invaluable for cancer patients or pregnant individuals requiring essential hydration, and specific IV formulations are also recognized for providing significant relief from severe migraine pain, demonstrating their valid therapeutic utility in targeted medical scenarios.