Insurance Exchange Should Include Spiritual Care Services
July 19, 2011 -- “With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have an opportunity to design and build an Exchange that meets Oregonians’ needs. Oregon will develop a strong, patient-centered Exchange that ensures choice, value and access.” So begins the mission statement for an insurance exchange.
It’s found in the executive summary of Building Oregon’s Health Insurance Exchange, A Report to the Oregon Legislature authored by the Oregon Health Policy Board.
Before the 76th Legislative Assembly adjourned last month it passed Senate Bill 99, which creates the Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corporation, charged with setting up and managing the health insurance exchange. My hope is that it will meet all Oregonians’ needs.
Some studies indicate that 40 percent of Americans have sought alternative solutions for their health, and experts in the medical field are considering how consciousness affects health. A recent study released by Dr. Amy B. Wachholtz, a psychiatrist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, finds that 49 percent of Americans have used prayer to deal with a health concern. So when it comes to implementing healthcare reform, it's important to enable consideration of other forms of care. As a Christian Scientist, my chosen form of care is often left out of the conversation, even though it has been a reliable system of healthcare available to Oregonians for over 140 years.
Many people in Oregon practice alternative healthcare. I know of many Oregonians who use Christian Science as their preferred healthcare system. In order to meet their needs the Exchange Corporation should consider making benefits available for spiritual care services that are deductible under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. This language narrowly describes what's meant by spiritual care by referring to the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of “medical care.” That definition has been interpreted to extend to services provided by Christian Science practitioners, Christian Science nurses and Christian Science nursing facilities, as well as other religious practices that are aimed at restoring health.
The services of Christian Science practitioners, Christian Science nurses and Christian Science nursing facilities are patient-centered and patient-directed. They are not provided by the church, but by care providers whose services are available to the public. These providers are compensated by those who request their help. They do their own billing and follow criteria imposed by insurance plans.
The services of Christian Science providers have been covered under private and government insurance plans for many years. For example, Medicare covers physical care provided in a religious nonmedical health care institution. TRICARE and four plans under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program cover various aspects of Christian Science care. The Oregon Public Employee Benefit Board definition of “benefit plan” includes “ comparable benefits for employees who rely on spiritual means of healing”.
I encourage the Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corporation to evaluate making spiritual care services available through the exchange. The needs of all Oregonians should be carefully considered as the Corporation fulfills its duties within the parameters of state and federal law. This approach will promote the goals of healthcare reform by providing the public access to a low cost form of care that contributes to healthy outcomes.
John Clague is the Christian Science media and legislative liaison for Oregon.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Printer-friendly version
Comments Welcome
If you'd like to submit a comment on any of the stories that appear in The Lund Report, you'll need to become a subscriber and share your name and email address with us.
You can also send us story tips anonymously.
When my husband worked for AT&T in the 80's our health insurance covered Christian Science practitioners. Whenever I had a physical difficulty I was able to submit my Christian Science treatment bills. My husband who is not a Christian Scientist was able to submit his medical bills. Since AT&T was huge company at the time they were able to carry a Christian Science Rider. I have relied on prayer to face any challenge that I have had. It makes sense for insurance to cover all, especially when you are helping pay for it. I want to see all embraced in health care.
I am a 56-year-old Oregonian with no credentials to wave except my extraordinarily good health, which I attribute to the grace of God, to a certain degree of self-responsibility, and to the good sense to avoid the fear-based profiteering industry that goes by the false and pretentious name of "health care".
Of course my case is to be considered anecdotal, same as the case of my dad, whose trust of institutional medicine proved fatal and demoralizing.
I am liberal enough to assent to public-supported programs to which the majority subscribe, without knee-jerk reaction against the specter of "socialized medicine". As a member of society, I'm willing to bear the burden of others' addictions. But I object strenuously to a single party line approach to public policy which precludes healthy diversity of world view and life choice.
If by whatever illogic there is to be mandatory public support of the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the meat mechanics, then it is only fair that there likewise be public support of people's chosen alternatives. There is not even any substantial economical argument against it: Christian Science care is ridiculously cheap compared to the cost of the mainstream medical alternatives that suck the lifeblood out of us, right to the bitter end.
Pete Martin
I appreciate Dr. Bayer's concern for patients in Oregon that need basic care, and share his appreciation for single-payer health care. Mr. Clague's point still stands: Christian Science care is an alternative that can save the system money because, as Anonymous guessed, Christian Science care is among those alternative treatments which cost significantly less than today's medical care, even basic care. Also, perhaps a fallacy exists in contrasting "alternative care" with "basic care," as if alternative care was elective, an added luxury. I feel fortunate to have learned of Christian Science and its spiritual approach to health care while I was attending the University of Oregon. For over thirty years now I have not needed the services of a medical practitioner, apart from some dental work, which has reduced the burden on Oregon's health care system and saved me money as well. During this time I used the services of several Christian Science practitioners for treatment of injuries, anaphylactic shock when stung by a large colony of bees, and hayfever. In other words, for basic care, and with good results each time.
Jerry Jordan McIntire
John-point well taken!
When you consider, strictly from a financial perspective, the value that Christian Scientists have realized from finding health and wholeness from a spiritual practice with the support of individual practitioners—it’s HUGE! 140 years of documented healing success!
Our family growing up with 4 kids, and my own with 4- realized huge benefits. All raised to healthy adulthood without medical care. Had there been a socialized health care program, we would have opted out anyway and saved the government probably in excess of $30-40,000. Now, to have to pay without financial reimbursement to OUR preferred care seems a little taxing?
Of course, the TRUE benefit is a clearer understanding of God and man~~~~
Alexis Wittman
-formerly of Portland, now of Greenville, SC
This article makes some good points that I hadn't thought of. Since these people are mandated to have health insurance like everyone else, and pay taxes like others do, they should have the benefit of the health exchange like all those who use conventional medical care. I don't know what the payments are for Christian Science care, but most alternative care is less expensive to cover than traditional hospital care, so it should be a win/win for the insurance providers and the users.
I am a 56 year-old board-certified internist and I disagree with Mr. Clague's opinion. There has never been and will never be enough money for basic medical and surgical care for all Americans under our current market system. Using tax dollars for alternative care when most can't get routine care is foolish and irresponsible. As other countries have shown, one needs single-payer health-care delivery for all, to guarantee the most basic care. Let's find some political backbone to deliver routine basic care to all Americans first. Let's make a commitment to fix our dismal public health statistics like infant mortality and access to primary care instead of chasing the next alternative medicine blind alley. Just my opinion...
Rick Bayer, MD