First, compared to conventional medicine, using alternative medicine to treat disease is more costly for the patient. Hollenberg (2006a) states that most CAM users are women who earn more and obtain higher education. This indicates that people who have a higher wealth status can access good healthcare more easily. For example, according to a case study whose respondents were Canadian and British ovarian patients, over forty percent of patients said they had used alternative approaches previously. Of these, over sixty percent of respondents used more than one mode (Sweet, 2013e). Furthermore, a simple allergy treatment in German would cost approximately more than forty euros at a time, and the same is true in the USA and the UK. Therefore, one might predict that treating serious illnesses might cost more by knowing the cost of allergy. Furthermore, medical care is incredibly crucial to any society. The public deserves to be healthy and have access to qualified doctors. Some poor people not only cannot afford such high treatment costs, but also the treatment result may have an uncertain danger. Secondly, more and more funds are invested in alternative medicine. According to one study, Hollenberg (2006b) predicted that the consumption of alternative medical methods could exceed $13.5 billion in the United States and more than £1.5 billion in the United Kingdom, which represents a large income for a village. This means that research into complementary alternative medicine could waste a lot of the country's funds. Much money should be invested in traditional medicine rather than alternative medicine to provide more opportunities for poor patients to cure diseases. For both elements, therefore, the high costs of alternative medicine may mean that some serious patients cannot do so