Hidden in the Senate version of health reform is wording that would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments.
Although not expected to be a big expense, this is causing some consternation, as it blurs the line between church and state. And this would likely invite other religious groups to organize, so they can receive federal dollars as well.
Introduced by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), it is somewhat odd that it’s also supported by Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, where the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist resides.
It’s odd because there’s little data that I know off showing that any type of prayer is grounded in rigorous evidence. And when progressives purportedly support initiatives like comparative effectiveness data and evidenced-based clinical practice, it’s curious that something like this slipped in.
In a prescient post, Val Jones noted last year that proponents of prayer therapy want “billing codes and payment processes to support alternative medicine practice,” and believe that “health insurance companies and our tax payer dollars should fully support any medical treatment proposed by a ‘practitioner’ whose treatments have a historical basis and some evidence of a [presumably placebo] effect.”
They may be getting their wish.
These generally leftward-leaning sham therapy advocates, along with the anti-science crusaders on the far right, unite to be significant impediments to President Obama’s goal of restoring science to its rightful place.
And to accomplish the President’s goal, Dr. Val says, “the first place to start is [to keep] quackery out of the health care reform bills.”
Bingo.
Related posts:
- Is Physicians for a National Health Program the biggest threat to Obama’s health reform plan?
- Advice for President Obama’s health care reform plan
- Val Jones: How not to revolutionize healthcare
- How to get doctors to embrace health care reform
- When it comes to health care reform, winners and no losers?
- Should doctors support Congress’ health reform efforts?
- Indian Health Service needs reform
{ 1 trackback }
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Great points, Kevin (and Val!).
But it’s a great example of be careful what you wish for.
These kinds of mandates are endemic in state insurance regulation. It seems like much of the reform effort isn’t going to so much to change *how* we deal with these kinds of issues. Instead, it’s just going to move the place *where* we deal with them from the states to Washington, DC.
The states aren’t going to go quietly. Issues like mandated prayer healing are just the faint rumblings from this new front in the health care reform battle. It’s truly the least reported but perhaps most important political story of reform.
Some related points here: http://bit.ly/4rkE3K
Many thanks,
Evan Falchuk
How do you cover prayer? Who gets paid? Clergy, for praying? .
What code do I use if I put on a big wooden mask and shake a bone rattle?
Pay for prayer? Sounds like a great business opportunity–as least as long as the current psychotic fools inhabit congress.
Why would a Christian Scientist have health insurance to begin with? Seems like they would be saving thousands of dollars that they could use to reimburse prayer practitioners.
This is going to raise interesting questions of the role of any alternative practitioners and treatments in the public option. If prayer is not supported because there is no scientific support making it any superior to placebo, then what about other treatments with a similar lack of support? Reiki, homeopathy, etc? Who decides what is valid and payable and what is not? That isn’t rhetorical… I’d genuinely like to know.
I am a practicing Christian Scientist and my family has successfully relied on spiritual healing for five generations now. My intent in posting this comment is not to “pitch” my preferred system of healing to those who depend on other types of health care, but to explain why I feel it is important that there be a provision for spiritual healing in any forthcoming healthcare legislation.
It would seem fundamentally unfair for someone to be required to pay for insurance that does not cover the type of healthcare he or she utilizes. In a policy climate where some form of mandated universal coverage appears likely, it would only seem fair that anyone required to pay into a system would have coverage for the type of health care that they have found works best for them (without depriving anyone else of their choices). If the individual mandate to buy insurance does not provide for those who rely on qualifying spiritual care, they may receive no benefit for their premiums.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide a different perspective on this issue. Anyone interested in learning more about Christian Science healing may wish to check out the website http://www.ChristianScience.com.
THIS is what one gets when govt gets more deeply involved. Govt means you are delegating healthcare to a politcal process and therefore, subject to special interest group pressures. THIS is the nature of govt beast.
The problem is govt should not be in control of BOTH regulations/standards and payments. If football players were both umpires and players, what kind of sport would it be?
We need complete separation from medical standards and regulation from the payment authorization process.
I suspect when one reads the health bills, you will find all kinds of “goodies” buried by special interest groups. Don’t be surprised and don’t complain bcs if you ask for more govt involvement, you are implicitly asking for more special interest group lobbying.
radcs, I appreciate this opportunity to point out that my Mother and sister would probably be alive today if not for Christian Science.
I choose health care, not Christian Science. .
radcs
You correctly point out that this overtly stupid idea is a logical outcome of mandating insurance—which is just yet another reason why mandating health insurance is an overtly stupid idea–at least for people who value freedom and autonomy and choice.
If we must roll down the road to facism, a better choice for Christian Scientists than to be allowed to have their own place in the goosestepping legions would be to allowed to opt out.
We see here the problem with a coercive “universal” anything in such a pluralistic country as America. It will force both Christian Scientists and the real scientists to pay for that to which they are fundamentally opposed. The nations where socialism works are far more homogenous than this one.
Radcs,
The health care I use is being explicitly written outof the reform bills by religious people. I too, will be forced to buy health insurance which won’t cover the majority of my costs. So yeah, tragic on the unfairness of the world and all, better luck in the next one, right? It’s completely inane that these religious types get to deny my health needs, women’s reproductive choice needs, and then turn around and get their witch doctoring covered. unbelievable.
I don’t want to let too much time to pass before commenting again. Kevin has moved on to other issues, and the people who follow him are moving along as well. More needs to be said about this topic, however, and I humbly ask that members of the medical profession take note with regard to my thoughts about the practice of certain spiritual healing attempts. Please forgive the obvious bias revealed in my previous comment. I’m sure you understand, but even so, it isn’t acceptable.
First, in brief, if Stephen Barrett M.D. is correct, Sen. Hatch has been involved legislatively on behalf of Christian Science before. If the reader is interested, please see the section “Undeserved Political Privilege” found on the following link to the page, “The Origin and Current Status of Christian Science.”
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cs2.html
I think that’s interesting; however, I believe that Christian Science is a red herring in this current instance. It is true that CS practitioners and CS nurse practitioners may benefit financially should this legislation pass as stands, but it’s being dragged through the public mud sufficiently to make me suspicious.
With regard to the practice of certain spiritual healing principles, I would ask the medical professional to consider this: What do you think of the activity of one person telling another person in physical pain that the pain is unreal? Is that not, in other circumstances, considered a form of psychological abuse popularly known as “gas lighting?”
Think of the child in physical pain being told such a thing. “Your pain is not real.” Moreover, not only is the child being told that his or her pain is not real, but it is being said by someone with a calm countenance, and with complete power over the child. How is that not gas lighting in one of its most extreme forms?
Thus, I am not thinking exclusively about children who happen to die as a result of medical neglect, but of the psychological health of every child raised in that kind of environment. At least, with forms of religion involving big wooden masks and bone rattles, the child’s pain is acknowledged. I can’t endorse such practices, but — if nothing else — the child is validated in some fashion and led to believe that something is being done.
I have to walk away from this now. To conclude, Kevin’s blog has to do with the measure of the proposed legislation pertaining to spiritual healing. That is the focus, and must be considered, but I think there is more to weigh than the proposed legislation.