Botox spared over tanning beds in health fight

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:33pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the rush to fund a U.S. healthcare overhaul, Botox injections to smooth wrinkles will not be taxed, but visiting a tanning salon will be.

Plastic surgeons and Botox maker Allergan Inc successfully fought a proposed 5 percent tax on breast implants, face-lifts and other elective cosmetic procedures in Senate Democrats' healthcare legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped that plan, nicknamed the "Botax" after the popular wrinkle fighter, in changes released on Saturday. It was replaced it with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services.

California-based Allergan launched a major offensive against the Botax plan after it was included as a late addition to the Senate's healthcare reform bill in November.

Allergan Chief Executive David Pyott personally raised objections with lawmakers and the company launched a website and Facebook page to rally tax opponents. The website called the plan "a tax on self-improvement."

Plastic surgeons also lobbied heavily against the Botax. They argued the tax would unfairly hit middle-class, working women who make up a large portion of their patients, not just the wealthy.

"The lobbying was fierce and intense," particularly from physician groups, said Capitol Street analyst Ipsita Smolinksi.

Senators likely decided they did not want to anger doctors whose support they want for the final healthcare bill, she said. Doctors are pushing for changes to Medicare payments that are not included in the Senate bill.

"At the end of the day, you have doctors that are jumping up and down about a provision. Why not take it out if they can plug the hole with something else?" Smolinksi said.

Tanning beds were seen as an easier target because the Food and Drug Administration has warned about cancer risks from the beds' ultraviolet rays, she said.

John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association, said "there are risks to practically anything you do. I don't think that's a good reason to tax a business out of existence."

An estimated 20,000 tanning salons operate in the United States and most are small businesses, he said. Hair salons, spas and other businesses also offer tanning services.

If enacted, the tax will further harm tanning business that has declined during the economic recession, Overstreet said.

Adding the tax "is the kind of stuff that can put a lot of these people out of business," he said.

The Senate healthcare legislation includes taxes and other concessions on various industries ranging from drugmakers and medical device companies to hospitals and health insurers. The funds are meant to pay for wider insurance coverage and other changes in a $871 billion overhaul.

The tanning tax would raise an estimated $2.7 billion through 10 years. The cosmetic surgery tax had been projected to raise roughly $5 billion.

The Democratic-led Senate is aiming for a final vote on the bill by Christmas. The measure will need to be merged with legislation in the Democratic-led House of Representatives, which does not include either tax.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said senators "worked very hard to be fair" and the healthcare bill was a "net tax cut for the American people."

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; editing by Andre Grenon)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
rational wrote:
I find it amazing that the Senate’s solution is taxing the insurance and drug industries more…which means they will raise taxes more…does anyone see an issue with this?

Then Botox…necessity or cosmetic? Botox should be charged more than tanning facilities…why? Because the ultra violet lights can and are used on various skin ailments….Botox? How is it used for real medical issues?

Dec 21, 2009 6:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bf5110 wrote:
It is a proven fact that ultra violet lights can improve your health as it gives you the exposure to Vitamin D into your system. So the solution is to add 10% tax to a health benefit yet NOT to tax on adding POISON into your body? Perhaps it’s because the physician’s can get a kickback from their service and by adding the tax that will remove from their wallets!!

Dec 22, 2009 9:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
ajam wrote:
my understanding is that the tax is only on tanning beds, which have been shown to dramatically increase the risk of skin cancer. uv light therapy as a treatment and administered in a medical setting would not be taxed.
botox has many non-cosmetic uses. it is extremely effective for treatment of spasticity in cerebral palsy and other movement disorders and has shown good results for many migraine patients as well. there are also surgeries that are medically necessary for some patients but considered cosmetic by insurance and would therefore be taxed under the ‘botax’ plan. examples are breast reduction and gastric bypass.

Dec 22, 2009 10:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.