A new perspective published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine by Farhad Mehrtash and JoAnn E. Manson of Harvard Medical School and Mass General Brigham proposes a practical way out of this impasse. Their answer is a team-based implementation of the 5A’s framework—Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange—endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force for behavior counseling. The core insight is a division of labor: clinicians handle only the brief, high-value steps that require their expertise, while the rest of the care team absorbs the time-intensive work of counseling, resource navigation, and follow-up. The model is designed to fit inside the constraints of real-world primary care rather than demanding an idealized clinic that does not exist.

The mechanics of the workflow begin before the clinician ever enters the exam room. Team members measure vital signs and patients complete lifestyle screening questionnaires, ideally through the patient portal at home or on a tablet at check-in. The screening covers six behaviors: tobacco use, body mass index, physical activity beyond regular work, dietary pattern, alcohol consumption, and sleep duration and quality of at least seven hours per night. Patients also complete the Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants, Shortened Version 2, a validated dietary screener recommended by the American Heart Association that also captures alcohol and physical activity. Crucially, patients also report social barriers such as food insecurity or lack of transportation, which can derail even the best-designed lifestyle plans. The team then summarizes everything for the clinician, who reviews the results to complete the Assess step.

What follows is deliberately compressed. During the Advise step, the clinician explains how the screening results relate to health risks—for example, telling a patient who smokes that their habit increases the risk of cancer, heart disease, and stroke. During the Agree step, clinician and patient use shared decision-making to select one achievable behavior change, such as taking 15-minute walks or cutting back two cigarettes per day. The entire clinician interaction is designed to take under five minutes. For patients facing social barriers, the team first prioritizes connecting them to existing resources such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, local food banks, or Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation before targeting lifestyle change itself, an acknowledgment that advice about diet means little to someone who cannot reliably obtain food.

The Assist and Arrange steps belong to the team. Medical assistants, nurses, health coaches, or community health workers help patients translate goals into specific daily actions and track progress using tools matched to each behavior and to the patient’s digital literacy. Options range from paper-based food journals, weigh-ins, trigger logs, and sleep diaries to apps such as MyFitnessPal, step trackers, and Sleepio. When patients need structured programs beyond brief counseling, teams connect smokers to quit lines via electronic referral and enroll patients with prediabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Clinicians refer patients with diabetes or dyslipidemia, or those needing weight, dietary, or alcohol support, to registered dietitians for individualized medical nutrition therapy, and refer persistent sleep problems to sleep medicine or behavioral sleep specialists for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. In the Arrange step, teams schedule follow-up contacts by phone, portal, or visit to review progress, adjust goals, and track referral completion through the electronic health record.

Concerns that delegation would add to clinicians’ administrative burden appear to be unfounded. In a national study of more than 18,000 physicians, shifting documentation to the team lowered clinicians’ total electronic health record time rather than adding to it. The authors also lay out the financial plumbing that makes the model sustainable. Practices can bill for preventive counseling under codes 99401 through 99404, smoking cessation under 99406 and 99407, medical nutrition therapy under 97802 through 97804, obesity counseling under G0447, and physical activity and nutrition assessment under G0136. When social barriers impede treatment, Community Health Integration services under code G0019 reimburse team members for up to 60 minutes per month of resource navigation per patient. Coverage varies and payment for preventive counseling remains low, but value-based and capitated payment models, which reward preventing downstream chronic disease rather than paying only for counseling visits, make the framework more financially viable. Embedding referral and follow-up tracking in the electronic health record also helps programs persist after temporary grant funding ends, and lifestyle medicine assessment tools such as the American College of Lifestyle Medicine Short Assessment Form are now being integrated into platforms like Epic.

The evidence that each targeted intervention works is substantial. Delivering the Assist step for tobacco cessation increased the odds of quitting by 40 percent, and the Arrange step by 46 percent. Brief alcohol counseling in adults screening positive for unhealthy use reduced consumption by roughly 1.6 drinks per week and lowered the odds of exceeding recommended limits by 40 percent at six to twelve months. Medical nutrition therapy reduced total cholesterol by 4.64 to 20.84 milligrams per deciliter, LDL cholesterol by 1.55 to 11.56, and triglycerides by 15.9 to 32.55. The Diabetes Prevention Program’s lifestyle intervention, targeting seven percent weight loss, reduced diabetes incidence by 58 percent in adults with prediabetes over three years, an effect that persisted as a 27 percent reduction after fifteen years. Even small doses of activity matter: adding just five minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity may prevent six to ten percent of all deaths, with the greatest benefit—roughly thirty percent lower mortality—among the most sedentary. And in a randomized trial of 642 adults across 35 primary care practices, four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy significantly decreased insomnia severity at six months.

The gap between this evidence and everyday practice is enormous. While 65 percent of smokers receive cessation advice, only 13.4 percent of visits include dietary counseling and just 5.3 percent include physical activity counseling. Only a quarter of patients with diabetes receive any lifestyle counseling, and fewer than 5 percent of adults with prediabetes are referred to the Diabetes Prevention Program. The authors attribute these failures to payment models that reward procedures and hospital-based care over prevention, combined with practices lacking the time, staffing, and payment support to implement evidence-based programs. Yet team-based referral systems demonstrably improve enrollment: a St. Louis program using community health workers enrolled 30 percent of referred patients in the Diabetes Prevention Program and a blood pressure self-monitoring program, and expanding medical assistants’ roles within team-based workflows raised smoking cessation counseling rates from 45 to 89 percent, sustained beyond one year.

A common objection is that most practices lack the staffing such models assume. Only 11.4 percent of practices reach the recommended two-to-one medical-assistant-to-clinician ratio, and more than half employ just one medical assistant per clinician. The framework’s answer is flexibility: because it does not depend on any specific role, it adapts to whatever staff a practice already has, whether nurses, health coaches, or community health workers. At minimum, a practice with a single medical assistant can deliver all five steps by splitting the workflow across the visit—screening at intake by the assistant, brief Advise and Agree during the visit by the clinician, and Assist and Arrange at checkout by the assistant, who connects patients to quit lines or prevention programs. The model is not merely theoretical for underserved settings: in one randomized trial, medical assistants trained in self-management support and follow-up raised the proportion of safety-net patients meeting at least one clinical goal for diabetes, blood pressure, or cholesterol to 46.4 percent, compared with 34.3 percent under usual care.

The broader significance of the proposal lies in its refusal to treat prevention as an ideal that must wait for a perfect health system. By limiting the clinician’s role to brief assessment and goal setting while leveraging team-delivered counseling, structured referrals, and existing billing mechanisms, the 5A’s framework turns what has long been framed as an impossible time problem into a solvable workflow problem. With up to 35 percent of adults lacking adequate sleep and chronic disease driving the bulk of morbidity and mortality, the authors argue that systematically addressing modifiable behaviors within routine care is one of the highest-yield opportunities in medicine—and one that, with the right division of labor, primary care practices can begin implementing now.

Subject of Research: Team-based implementation of the 5A's framework for lifestyle behavior counseling and chronic disease prevention in primary care

Article Title: Implementing the 5A’s for Lifestyle Behavior Counseling and Chronic Disease Prevention

Article References: Mehrtash, F., & Manson, J. E. (2026). Implementing the 5A’s for Lifestyle Behavior Counseling and Chronic Disease Prevention. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10860-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-026-10860-2

Keywords: 5A's framework, lifestyle medicine, chronic disease prevention, primary care, behavioral counseling, team-based care, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, Diabetes Prevention Program, preventive medicine, health coaching, medical assistants

Founded with the aim of acting as a countermeasure against the diabetes epidemic, the Diabetes Prevention Program has demonstrated that modest lifestyle changes, such as a 5%-7% reduction in body weight, can reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by an astounding 58%. This pivotal finding has not only transformed the understanding of diabetes management but has also provided a pathway for preventive strategies that could be adopted by at-risk populations.

The importance of the DPP doesn’t merely rest on preventing diabetes. The associated DPP Outcomes Study has expanded its horizons to investigate the long-term effects of diabetes prevention, delving into connections with other grave health concerns such as Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, cancer, heart disease, stroke, nerve damage, kidney disease, and eye disease. By tracking the health of over 3,100 former participants from the original DPP cohort since 2002, the Outcomes Study enriches the landscape of chronic disease research with valuable long-term data.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 38.4 million Americans were diagnosed with diabetes as of 2021, accounting for 11.6% of the total population. Coupled with the nearly 97.6 million adults exhibiting signs of prediabetes, these staggering figures underscore the urgency of preventive measures.

As the burden of diabetes continues to escalate, the economic implications also become increasingly dire. The CDC estimated that the direct and indirect costs associated with diagnosed diabetes cases reached around $413 billion in 2022 alone. This financial strain emphasizes the necessity of initiatives like the DPP, which not only aim to prevent diabetes but also mitigate associated health care costs resulting from complications of the disease itself.

In light of these alarming statistics, the cessation of research funding for the DPP appears shortsighted at best and catastrophic at worst. The Endocrine Society has voiced its discontent with the latest funding cuts, urging the administration to recognize the detrimental consequences of eliminating this essential research endeavor. The Society emphasizes that supporting ongoing diabetes prevention research should align with the nation’s commitment to combat chronic illnesses and promote public health.

While diabetes prevention strategies have proven effective, the dousing of funding signals a potentially regressive step in addressing the diabetes epidemic. The DPP and its outcomes research represent decades of knowledge that have equipped health care providers with essential tools to combat diabetes. Without continued funding, the progress made thus far could threaten to unravel.

The loss of the DPP is not merely a setback for researchers, but rather a grave concern for patients who rely on emerging treatments and preventive strategies. The collaborative efforts across 30 institutions in 21 states foster a rich environment for scientific exploration and impactful health interventions. Cutting off funding disrupts this vital research tapestry, jeopardizing the health of millions while simultaneously undermining the progress made in diabetes management and prevention.

Public health advocates and policymakers must pay heed to the call of the Endocrine Society. The organization serves as a staunch proponent for ongoing diabetes research, understanding that the implications extend far beyond individual health. In an era where chronic diseases pose unprecedented challenges, breaking the momentum of research could reverberate across the healthcare system, ultimately obstructing broader efforts to improve population health.

In the international context, the need for diabetes research extends beyond American borders. As diabetes rates continue to rise globally, studies like the DPP provide frameworks for other nations grappling with similar health crises. The cessation of such pivotal research could send ripples throughout global health initiatives that aim to address chronic conditions like diabetes.

There is hope yet; voices from the scientific community, including the Endocrine Society, have consistently worked to put pressure on government entities to prioritize funding for vital health research. Mobilizing public support through awareness and advocacy can compel governmental agencies to restore funding to the DPP, reaffirming a commitment to tackle diabetes head-on and ushering in a new era of progressive health strategies.

As the fight against diabetes evolves, the dialogue surrounding funding for essential research programs needs to remain at the forefront of public consciousness. Making informed health decisions relies heavily on the data generated by studies like the DPP. Sustaining financial investment in this research is not only a necessity for today’s health landscape but a promise for future generations.

Thus, the call is clear: we must rally together, advocate for continued support of crucial diabetes prevention initiatives, and confront the health crises plaguing our populations. In doing so, we affirm a commitment to health, wellbeing, and a future free from the grips of preventable diseases.

Subject of Research: Diabetes prevention, specifically the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).

Article Title: The Stalwart Fight Against Type 2 Diabetes Faces New Threats: Funding Cuts to Critical Research Programs

News Publication Date: October 2023

Web References:

• Diabetes Prevention Program
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• The Endocrine Society

References: None provided in the original text.

Image Credits: No images available or referenced.

Keywords: Type 2 diabetes, diabetes prevention, chronic disease, public health, DPP Outcomes Study, funding cuts, NIH, healthcare costs, metabolic health.