Bringing to the fore a story that's been bubbling for a little while, the LATimes today adds more reporting about the provision in the Senate's health care reform bill that would allow the so-called public option to reimburse patients for certain "faith healing" treatments. Many are expressing church-state concerns that such payment would amount to government support for religion, as well as promoting medical treatments that have not been validated by science. Proponents – including Democratic and Republican senators – counter that this is merely a non-discrimination measure.
[Massachusetts Senator John] Kerry's spokeswoman, Whitney Smith, disputed that insurers would be forced to cover prayer. Instead, she said, "the amendment would prevent insurers from discriminating against benefits that qualify as spiritual care if the care is recognized by the IRS as a legitimate medical expense. Plans are free to impose standards on spiritual and medical care as long as both are treated equally. It does not mandate that plans provide spiritual care."
[Utah Senator Orrin] Hatch said, "I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare."
If it's true that the amendment would use the IRS' definition of medical expense, this would seem to be an important and under-reported element. But it still leaves the question: how does the IRS determine which faith-based treatments (if they do indeed sanction any) are a "legitimate medical expense" and which are not?
