Sponsored Links

Botox spared over tanning beds in U.S. health fight

Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:07pm EST

(For more on U.S. healthcare reform, click [ID:nN20512341])

* 'Botax' out of Senate bill; tanning tax in

* Surgeons, Botox maker fought cosmetic surgery tax

* Final plan to be worked out by House and Senate

By Lisa Richwine

WASHINGTON, Dec 21 (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 (AGN.N) 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)

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 (2)
releggneh wrote:
Why is Botox not being taxed??? Because Pelsoi uses it so often & she don’t like paying taxes?? I think this is outrageous, this is elective surgery? That means if you look like a hag, you get Botox & then you look like a glued hag!!!! Way to go Pelosi, tax the small business & not the services that keep you looking like the smug Hypocrit that you are!!!

Dec 22, 2009 12:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
talexb09 wrote:
I am a 37 yr old woman. I get my nails done weekly along with a pedi. I pay yearly for tanning services. With this being said I support taxing these type services. God has blessed me with a decent job therefore I choose to do these extra things for myself. There are less fortunate people out there (through no fault of there own) that can’t afford insurance must less these types of services. We as Americans should want to take care of each other. We are the only country that is all about me, me, me. My dad owns a small business so I’m not against the small business owner, but if we choose to live unhealthy we SHOULD pay extra and help others that just want to live.

Dec 23, 2009 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.