next »

[jonesey]

Just when you think it can't get any weirder, the LA Times brings us this:

A little-noticed measure would put Christian Science healing sessions on the same footing as clinical medicine. Critics say it violates the separation of church and state.

Reporting from Washington - Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."

It would have a minor effect on the overall cost of the bill -- Christian Science is a small church, and the prayer treatments can cost as little as $20 a day. But it has nevertheless stirred an intense controversy over the constitutional separation of church and state, and the possibility that other churches might seek reimbursements for so-called spiritual healing.

[lotsoquestions]

I think I'd be somewhat more concerned if the language went the other way, saying that no medical treatment associated with any faith-based organization of any type could be covered.  Here in the bible belt, an awful lot of the family counseling, marriage counseling and so forth is done through groups where the practitioners are licensed psychologists and MSW's but where the center explicitly calls itself a christian counseling center, or something like that.  My understanding is that if you hold certain beliefs (like, say, my faith does not permit divorce), you might want to be served by a counselor who understands those beliefs and why you hold them, rather than labelling you as perhaps depressed or mentally ill because you hold them.  I would imagine that would hold across the board for many other cultures as well (Islamic, Hmong, etc.) 

[navydad]

Lotsoquestions seriously misses the point here. This provision isn't about payment for the services of legitimate mental health practitioners who practice from a religious perspective. As long as they practice ethically and professionally and respect the religious views of their clients (which usually is the case, I think), then there should be no problem with practicing from a religious perspective. But even explicitly religious practitioners are expected to use treatments that have some demonstrated efficacy. This provision is about health insurance paying someone to pray. At a time when psychologists and other therapists are being pushed to use empirically based treatments in order to get paid, the notion of paying for prayer is appalling. Show me some well designed, double blind studies that demonstrate the efficacy of prayer and we can talk. (P.S., they don't exist)

On the other hand, a while back I founded a schismatic sect that worships the Flying Cappellini Monster. It occurs to me that I can develop a practice as a spiritual healer from the FCM perspective. Our form of prayer involves cooking, with an emphasis on soups (the True use of the Angel's Hair), so much of my work could take place at home (low overhead). I wouldn't need to pay for license renewal, I wouldn't have to take (and pay for ) continuing education courses, I wouldn't have to carry professional liability insurance, and it wouldn't matter that my prayers are utterly ineffective. Sign me up!
 

[scampster]

Can someone explain to me why a prayer treatment has any cost associated with it whatsoever?

Are people really paid to pray?

[goldenapple]

Can someone explain to me why a prayer treatment has any cost associated with it whatsoever?

Are people really paid to pray?

According to the L.A. Times article:

"
The Christian Science Church, which was founded in Boston in 1879, has pushed throughout its history to secure official recognition for its paid prayer practitioners. Their job, as outlined by the church's founder, Mary Baker Eddy, was to pray for healing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those of medical doctors.

In the early 20th century, the church sought recognition from state regulators so the practitioners would not be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. Criminal courts have convicted Christian Scientists in cases where children have died after visiting prayer healers instead of receiving conventional medical care. The church says no such incidents have occurred for two decades.

About 90 years ago, private insurance companies began paying for Christian Science prayer treatments, but more recently, managed-care insurers declined reimbursements, insisting on paying for care that produced proven medical results."

[outlier]

Lotsoquestions seriously misses the point here. This provision isn't about payment for the services of legitimate mental health practitioners who practice from a religious perspective. As long as they practice ethically and professionally and respect the religious views of their clients (which usually is the case, I think), then there should be no problem with practicing from a religious perspective. But even explicitly religious practitioners are expected to use treatments that have some demonstrated efficacy. This provision is about health insurance paying someone to pray. At a time when psychologists and other therapists are being pushed to use empirically based treatments in order to get paid, the notion of paying for prayer is appalling. Show me some well designed, double blind studies that demonstrate the efficacy of prayer and we can talk. (P.S., they don't exist)

Yeah, but most drugs for depression work no better than placebos, and those are covered. Profits for big pharma vs. payments to wingnut religion. I say pass the damn health care bill, with the public option, and fight this part out in court later.

[navydad]

"Yeah, but most drugs for depression work no better than placebos,"

Not true. Do you have some evidence for this assertion? Most antidepressants help about 2/3 of people who take them. Placebos help about 1/3. You can look it up.

[madhatter]

Is there a single-prayer option?

[systeme_d_]

Is there a single-prayer option?

HoF!

[outlier]

"Yeah, but most drugs for depression work no better than placebos,"

Not true. Do you have some evidence for this assertion? Most antidepressants help about 2/3 of people who take them. Placebos help about 1/3. You can look it up.

Navydad, it's perfectly reasonable to ask me to support my claim, but not to then post statistics without any reference and tell me to go look it up! If you want to post some evidence yourself, I'd suggest a new thread or PM.

I posted the citation below, but I can't and won't debate the merits of the meta-analysis. This is not my field. My husband told me about it after seeing something online, probably in NerdNews. My point was simply that what treatments are covered is not always based on their efficacy, and while I'm not thrilled with covering "healing sessions," I'd rather see that addressed in the courts as an issue of separation of church and state after the bill passes than have it keep the bill from passing in the first place.

Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, et al. 2008 Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 5(2): e45. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

[navydad]

I apologize for diverting this into a discussion of the efficacy of antidepressants. The literature is controversial, large, and filled with methodological problems. Kirsch et al. have received their fair share of criticism for their meta-analysis, but they certainly bring up significant issues and deserve credit for contributing to a more critical look at the research supporting antidepressant use. If it turns out that antidepressants really aren't more effective than placebo, then insurance should not cover their use. At this point, it seems likely that these medications are less efficacious than the drug companies would have us believe, but more beneficial than a placebo. In any case, all this is irrelevant to the main discussion, which has to do with the federal government essentially mandating that health insurance cover prayer as if it were a valid health intervention. I would not want to see this provision included and then deal with it later. I also would not want to hold health care reform hostage to this one ludicrous provision. I suspect that Hatch, Kerry, and Kennedy sold out to the Christian Scientists for political reasons and that political pressure could get this provision removed. I doubt if many people care enough to raise a real stink, though, so it could end up in the courts.

I am curious, though. Are we to assume that ALL prayer will be covered? Has Zeus cured anyone lately?   

[madhatter]

Has Zeus cured anyone lately?   

Well, being blasted with lightning might be considered a form of ECT, but there are dosage problems.

[navydad]

So is Zeusian ECT an EST for OCD or GAD or MDD or MPD or BPD?

When I get sick, I want people to pray to Venus for me. She's hot and I want an in with her.

I wonder if one can get paid to pray for more than one person at a time. I can't see making much money praying for one person at a time, but multipraying could generate quite a respectable revenue stream. And will reimbursement rates vary depending on the god to whom one is praying? Some gods seem to be remarkably capricious and others are downright unresponsive. Some are tricksters who might decide to make patients sicker just to tweak the healer. And one god (the Abrahamic one) is violent, vengeful, and jealous, so I'd hate to risk being struck down because I prayed to the wrong version of it.

Will insurance pay for not only prayers, but ancillary equipment? Prayer shawls, holy water, peyote, yarmulkes, gold chalices, or those wicked knives the Sikhs carry? Since I worship the Flying Cappellini Monster, how about imported pasta?

[european]

Prayers to Zeus? Seriously. That's not going to feed him. You need to offer him a good steak.

[wet_blanket]

Back when I was dabbling in evangelicalism, I heard more than once that "studies have proven" that prayer works.  Because I was young and honoring my leaders, I never asked for the references to these studies.  Neither did it occur to me that 1) the science that could be trusted to prove the efficacy of prayer couldn't be trusted to account for the origins of humanity, 2) science is designed to disprove, rather than to prove.

There was an episode on the West Wing where someone wanted $115,000 for an RCT on remote prayer.  A non-religous academic was part of the party making the request.  Since the West Wing speaks only truth, I know this must have actually happened.