Health care reform to cover "alternative" medicine?

[Puppycow]

Story here

A broader definition of healthcare
Proposals before the Senate would allow treatment plans to incorporate alternative medicines, including acupuncture and dietary supplements. Insurers and some scientists object.

Reporting from Washington - Acupuncturists, dietary-supplement makers and other alternative health practitioners, some of whose treatments are considered unproven by the medical establishment, would be brought more squarely into the mainstream of American medicine under the health legislation now before the Senate.

The legislation would allow doctors to incorporate alternative health providers in some treatment plans. It also includes language that some believe could require insurance companies to expand their coverage for alternative therapies, on which Americans now spend $34 billion a year.

Insurers and some scientific watchdogs say the measure would undermine one of the central principles of the healthcare overhaul: that the system cut costs by eliminating medical treatments that aren't proven effective.

"These provisions are anti-science and anti-consumer," said Dr. Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, who is mobilizing opposition to the Senate bill.

The leading champion of these measures is Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Health Committee, who credits bee-pollen pills with curing his seasonal allergies. He is also the leading recipient in Congress of campaign donations from chiropractors and dietary-supplement makers.

Dr. Novella is one of the Skeptics of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, BTW.

It's one thing for fools to waste their own money on quackery, but I can't support public money going to this.

If opponents of abortion can demand that public money never pay for abortion, it seems entirely reasonable that we demand that quackery should also be excluded.

Besides, it's not just public money, it's going to directly affect your insurance premiums too. The perfectly healthy people who regularly visit a chiro or acupuncturist, or buy homeopathic or herbal supplements will increase costs for the insurance pool. If the taxpayers aren't paying for it, then the premium payers are.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Yet another reason to oppose this trash bill, and it furthermore exposes the stupidity of mandated coverage in general. If I don't want coverage for chiropractic (or alcoholism treatment, or whatever), then who are my neighbors to compel me to have it if I get health insurance?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't see how cost comes into it. Presumably the patient would have a choice between actual medicine and alternative-to-medicine. Unless alternative-to-medicine is more expensive, who loses? Apart from the suckers who choose ineffective treatment. Think of it as natural selection in action.

As for Puppycow's worry about "perfectly healthy people who regularly visit a chiro or acupuncturist, or buy homeopathic or herbal supplements", I do not believe that any insurance plan covers perfectly healthy people.

I'm still against it, but not on the grounds of cost, 'cos as far as I can see there won't be any additional cost. I'm against it because it's freakin' stupid.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yet another reason to oppose this trash bill, and it furthermore exposes the stupidity of mandated coverage in general. If I don't want coverage for chiropractic (or alcoholism treatment, or whatever), then who are my neighbors to compel me to have it if I get health insurance?

But you would not be covered "for chiropractic", you'd be covered for being ill. You could then, if you wished, use the ineffective pseudomedicine of your choice instead of real medicine if so it pleased you.

Now, I think that this is the sort of decision that the government should make for you. I'm surprised, though, that you seem to agree.

 

[FlamingMoe]

But you would not be covered "for chiropractic", you'd be covered for being ill. You could then, if you wished, use the ineffective pseudomedicine of your choice instead of real medicine if so it pleased you.

But it's not like it comes down to an either-or choice. If you choose quackery in the beginning, you can always opt for real medicine later on. I really don't think there are too many nuts like Suzanne Sommers who will stick with stupidity until their death rattle. Unless there is inserted a clause that limits your choice to fakery or real doctors, your premise that there won't be any additional cost is false. Unless, of course, you think the fakery actually works, but I don't think you do.

Now, I think that this is the sort of decision that the government should make for you. I'm surprised, though, that you seem to agree.

I do not agree with the idea that the government should be in the business of providing health insurance. If they do decide to create this massive program, however, they should limit their coverage of unproven treatments to legitimate experimental trials and not mandate certain coverages even if they don't get into the field. If something must be covered, there is a certain risk that the insurer will have to pay our for it, and the cost for coverage will go up accordingly.

 

[WildCat]

But you would not be covered "for chiropractic", you'd be covered for being ill. You could then, if you wished, use the ineffective pseudomedicine of your choice instead of real medicine if so it pleased you.

Now, I think that this is the sort of decision that the government should make for you. I'm surprised, though, that you seem to agree.

It will boost costs because they'll be getting treated by both quackery and the real thing.

And as we've seen over and over when they are cured they'll credit the quackery.

Let them pay for the quackery from their own pockets.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It will boost costs because they'll be getting treated by both quackery and the real thing.

In that case I would object. Unless they had half of one and half of the other.

 

[WildCat]

In that case I would object. Unless they had half of one and half of the other.

That is the case, since they certainly aren't relegated to one or the other.

They'll be hedging their bets by getting chemotherapy and homeopathic "remedies".

 

[portlandatheist]

I don't see how cost comes into it. Presumably the patient would have a choice between actual medicine and alternative-to-medicine. Unless alternative-to-medicine is more expensive, who loses? Apart from the suckers who choose ineffective treatment. Think of it as natural selection in action.

As for Puppycow's worry about "perfectly healthy people who regularly visit a chiro or acupuncturist, or buy homeopathic or herbal supplements", I do not believe that any insurance plan covers perfectly healthy people.

I'm still against it, but not on the grounds of cost, 'cos as far as I can see there won't be any additional cost. I'm against it because it's freakin' stupid.

Are you kidding? Why should your tax dollars go into the pockets of chiros, acupuncturists, and homeopaths and keep them in business. The only money these quacks should get is from the private sector.

 

[Puppycow]

As for Puppycow's worry about "perfectly healthy people who regularly visit a chiro or acupuncturist, or buy homeopathic or herbal supplements", I do not believe that any insurance plan covers perfectly healthy people.

Well this is the question. The article suggests that this is a possibility. Because if the chiro finds a "subluxation" or the acupuncturist finds some sort of problem with the Chakras or whatever it is, or a naturopath prescribes a homeopathic cholesterol medication, and insurance is required to accept the quack's diagnosis, it would presumably increase costs. In my experience most people who use CAM use it as a "complement" to regular medicine.

 

[gtc]

Alternative therapies are available in Australia via health insurance.

We have a two-tiered public/private system with tax incentives and subsidies to encourage people to take out private health insurance on top of the public insurance everyone gets.

Most private insurers offer various levels of cover. 'Basic' mostly covers just hospital bills, basic dentistry and use of ambulances. If you want dental work to be covered then you usually need to take out 'Extras' cover. But 'Extras' also covers various kinds of alternative therapies as well.

Whether you need these therapies or not is assessed by the therapist themselves not by a proper medical professional.

So a cancer patient can get proper medical care and naturopathy as well. Or a perfectly healthy person can decide they need chiro or some herbal muck and get that subsidised.

In my experience, health funds get cranky if you point out that all these therapies are crap and just a waste of mine and the taxpayers dollars.

Here is a two megabyte pdf document from one of the major private health funds. This private health fund happens to be owned by the government. Private in this case means that it is not the same as universal public health fund everyone is in.

 

[Puppycow]

I listened to a podcast a few months ago (tried to find it, but can't remember the date or episode number, although it was either Planet Money or This American Life) and the reporter recalled her experience with a group healthcare plan at a company she worked for, where everyone took advantage of the chiro coverage because they just liked to their backs crunched (like a subsidized massage was how she put it). After a year of this, their insurance premiums skyrocketed. It was then that it occurred to them what had happened.
So yes, this could actually happen if chiro is covered. (According to the article in the OP, most states already mandate chiro coverage and 12 states mandate acupuncture coverage)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Are you kidding? Why should your tax dollars go into the pockets of chiros, acupuncturists, and homeopaths and keep them in business. The only money these quacks should get is from the private sector.

I said I was against it. I'm against it whether or not it increases costs, I just wasn't sure whether it would do so.

 

[Francesca R]

It's one thing for fools to waste their own money on quackery, but I can't support public money going to this.

Do you think people who support the creation of a publicly funded health system should now oppose it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_(proverb)

 

[Puppycow]

Do you think people who support the creation of a publicly funded health system should now oppose it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_(proverb)

Tough call.
No, but I think they should oppose this part of it. I'm for universal healthcare but there are much better systems out there.
Singapore's system, for example, is like some kind of Utopian dream healthcare system. Japan's also gets better results for a fraction of the cost.


Many of these groups already have a foot in the door through the states.

Many states require insurers to cover alternative therapies, but the rules vary. For example, 12 states mandate coverage of acupuncture treatments. Every state but four mandates coverage for chiropractors. California mandates coverage for both.

Apparently it's illegal in these states to offer health insurance that doesn't cover chiros and acupuncture.

 

[Francesca R]

Tough call.
No, but I think they should oppose this part of it. I'm for universal healthcare but there are much better systems out there.

Interesting. I suspect it is sufficiently difficult for the US to transition to anything approaching a universal system that those that favour it significantly over the lack of one should favour it "warts and all" and tinker with details later. From that perspective I would not regard CAM as a sacred cow.

 

[BeAChooser]

But you would not be covered "for chiropractic", you'd be covered for being ill. You could then, if you wished, use the ineffective pseudomedicine of your choice instead of real medicine if so it pleased you.

With someone else actually paying the bill in many cases where such a decision is most likely? That's MY objection.

 

[Dr Adequate]

With someone else actually paying the bill in many cases where such a decision is most likely? That's MY objection.

Alas, this may already be the case. Check your own health insurance policy. If it entitles you to woo medicine, then your premiums are partly going to pay for other people's woo.

 

[Beerina]

Health care reform to cover "alternative" medicine?



My theory: Health care reform is about extending the meme narratives justifying government intervention (force is one manner by which a meme spreads, even if it sounds disgusting when thought about rationally), and, as such, has no problem using anything available to inhale to improve its spread potential.

Many health care advocates have a theory that it's better for The People in general, and/or the uninsured in particular, and that this belief is based on science.



Which theory does this observation support? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Kestrel]

Covering alternative medicine doesn't bother me if they add a few other items to the bill:

1. Mandate a universal electronic patient records system.
2. Allow researchers to data mine those records to determine effectiveness of treatment options for any condition.
3. Set up a grant program to pay for the research in step 2.
4. Drop coverage for treatment options shown to be ineffective.