Paying for Prayer in Healthcare

[Puppycow]

There's a nasty little poison pill in the healthcare reform bill now being considered by congress.
It seems to be a bipartisan effort to pander to Christian Scientists.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has slipped in a provision to the bill that would require reimbursement for prayer services.
. . .
Christian Scientists have been tireless in promoting their spiritual prayer as legitimate medical interventions for years. They have pressured some private insurance companies to reimburse for their prayers, although this trend has reversed recently with managed care. They have also lobbied for state laws to protect their practitioners from being prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. Worst of all, they successfully lobbied the Federal government to cover Christian Science prayer for military personnel. Now they are at work trying to exploit health care reform to further their agenda. The LA Times reports:

The spiritual healing provision was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College.

The measure is also supported by Senator John Kerry and the late Edward Kennedy – both senators from Massachusetts, home of the headquarters of the church.

 

[sugarb]

There's a nasty little poison pill in the healthcare reform bill now being considered by congress.
It seems to be a bipartisan effort to pander to Christian Scientists.

Hmm...first of all? I can't believe they actually put that in there! Good grief.

However...this could be an opportunity in disguise. Legitimize it as medicine, put it under regulatory agencies, then the government has more ability to act when people are being injured and taken advantage of. If they want to be reimbursed by the government, then it seems to me they'd be under the same exact scrutiny that religion based hospitals are under. It sounds bad...but...like I said, it may be a blessing (ha!) in disguise, if true.

 

[WildCat]

What part of the bill? I can't find the word "prayer" in the text of HR 3200.

 

[Puppycow]

What part of the bill? I can't find the word "prayer" in the text of HR 3200.

Try searching for the word 'religious'

Sec. 125. Prohibition of discrimination in health care services based on religious or spiritual content.

 

[WildCat]

Try searching for the word 'religious'

Neither the Commissioner nor any health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange shall discriminate in approving or covering a health care service on the basis of its religious or spiritual content if expenditures for such a health care service are allowable as a deduction under section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on January 1, 2009.

But they could refuse based on the fact that it's not effective, yes?

 

[Puppycow]

However...this could be an opportunity in disguise. Legitimize it as medicine, put it under regulatory agencies, then the government has more ability to act when people are being injured and taken advantage of. If they want to be reimbursed by the government, then it seems to me they'd be under the same exact scrutiny that religion based hospitals are under. It sounds bad...but...like I said, it may be a blessing (ha!) in disguise, if true.

I'll believe that when I see it. The people likely to be injured as a result are the true believers and their children. And they probably won't complain to the "regulatory agencies." Meanwhile everyone who buys health insurance will be paying for it.

Ans there's a separate but related issue regarding the insurance mandate. People with religious objections will be exempt from the requirement to buy insurance. Everyone else is required to purchase insurance. If you wanted to game the system you could "convert" to Christian Science while you are healthy and "convert" to something else when you get sick.

 

[Puppycow]

But they could refuse based on the fact that it's not effective, yes?

Good question. I think that the intention is to require them to cover it regardless of whether it is effective or not. We already know that it's not effective, so it would be sort of a pointless clause if lack of effectiveness could be grounds for refusal.

ETA: If you were a health insurance provider focussed on the bottom line would you disallow it? The law is at best ambiguous about whether it would be legal and the risk of losing a lawsuit seems greater than the cost of just going along with it. Besides, these people presumably refuse other kinds of treatment, so it might even be a net moneysaver.

 

[WildCat]

Good question. I think that the intention is to require them to cover it regardless of whether it is effective or not. We already know that it's not effective, so it would be sort of a pointless clause if lack of effectiveness could be grounds for refusal.

Title IV, Subtitle A: ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."

So it would seem that prayer would wash out in such a test. Not that Hatch and Kerry won't try to legislate it back in if it does.

 

[Puppycow]

Title IV, Subtitle A: ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."

So it would seem that prayer would wash out in such a test. Not that Hatch and Kerry won't try to legislate it back in if it does.

Yeah, research which will be ignored by the people who ignore science and will continue to demand their pseudoscientific "alternatives."

 

[sugarb]

Wait a minute, I might be really, really lost in the healthcare legislation. Did they vote on HR 3200? Or HR 3962 (didn't that pass yesterday?)

 

[Puppycow]

Wait a minute, I might be really, really lost in the healthcare legislation. Did they vote on HR 3200? Or HR 3962 (didn't that pass yesterday?)

Yeah, that's the one. I think it's basically the same thing but maybe with a few tweaks.
HR 3962

ETA: This is the House bill. There's a separate Senate bill. Hatch is a senator so obviously if he inserted anything, it was into the Senate bill.

 

[WildCat]

Wait a minute, I might be really, really lost in the healthcare legislation. Did they vote on HR 3200? Or HR 3962 (didn't that pass yesterday?)

D'oh!

Damn, this is confusing.

At any rate, I can't find the clause in HR 3962. Maybe they removed it in the final version?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This might be a little tangential, but do US hositals generally employ chaplains?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What part of the bill? I can't find the word "prayer" in the text of HR 3200.

More importantly, which bill?

The OP says that both a Senator and a Representative introduced the measure.

It mentions a couple of Democratic Senators who support(ed) it, so I don't think this is about (just) the House bill that recently passed.

Here's the version the House passed (except for the anti-abortion language added in late in the process): http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

The only match to "religious" I find are 2 occurrences both in the religious exception to the "individual responsibility" section (the individual requirement to have insurance).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This might be a little tangential, but do US hositals generally employ chaplains?

I don't know about "generally" but I would say most (or all) of the religiously-affiliated ones do. That accounts for many, but not all the hospitals in the US.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This might be a little tangential, but do US hositals generally employ chaplains?

Many do. I'm designing a hospital right now that has a dedicated Chapel in them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, that's the one. I think it's basically the same thing but maybe with a few tweaks.
HR 3962

ETA: This is the House bill. There's a separate Senate bill. Hatch is a senator so obviously if he inserted anything, it was into the Senate bill.

Yes, you are correct. 3962 is what the House passed yesterday. And yes, the OP makes it sound like it was added into both House and Senate bills, but at least wrt the House, it didn't make it to the final version. Since there is no "final version" yet in the Senate, that remains to be seen (though I doubt it very much).

Remember, in the Senate Finance Committe version (the Baucus Bill), the committee considered some 500 amendments. Just because an amendment was proposed doesn't mean it became part of the bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a nasty little poison pill in the healthcare reform bill now being considered by congress.
It seems to be a bipartisan effort to pander to Christian Scientists.

And of course in the House version passed yesterday, anti-abortion language was added as a bipartisan caving in to the lobbyists of Catholic bishops. I'm more concerned about this issue because it is more likely to remain part of the bill that eventually passes.

It will forbid the public option or private insurance plans that participate in the "exchange" to cover abortions (except in cases of rape, incest or when the woman's life is threatened).

Funny that many of the same people who are against a "government takeover" of healthcare are in favor of Congress making this particular medical decision. (ETA: I find it highly inconsistent that they'll ban insurance coverage for abortion but not ban coverage for erectile dysfunction treatment, fertility treatment, etc.)

 

[Puppycow]

People can still get abortions, they'll just have to pay out of pocket.
At Planned Parenthood it costs about $350–$900.

Condoms, IUDs, birth control pills cost even less.