Hi Marleen,
(Re-sending with corrected date, sorry!)
This is a really interesting issue, IMO.
On the one hand I too would *love* to see homeopathy reimbursed by
insurance. On the other hand, IMO there is a definite downside to that.
Just a couple of quick thoughts I've had on the topic:
(1) Any practitioner whose patients are expecting "reimbursement" will feel
a need to treat in a "reimbursable" fashion, i.e. treat according to
guidelines acceptable to the reimbursing parties (the insurance companies).
In the world of "traditional" medicine (sheesh, *whose* tradition???), this
situation has brought us the five-minute office visit, the doctor who
prescribes without examining (or, sometimes, even talking to!) the patient,
the glorification of drugs above, oh, lifestyle management etc., and all
sorts of other wonders which have made "traditional" medicine such a (ahem)
difficult experience for many (both patients and practitioners). Not sure
we really need to be tied into that... And also:
(2) There's something a little weird, IMO, about an attitude that something
as personal, and of such central importance, as one's own health, should be
subject to something as bottom-line-driven as reimbursement by an insurance
company!!!! I grant (emphatically) that for some people these costs are out
of reach, and I believe (emphatically!!!) that anyone in a serving
profession -- e.g. homeopaths! -- should make a part of their practice hours
available to those who need reduced rates, or even free treatment. (And I
mean those who *need* reduced rates, *NOT* those who would rather spend the
money on non-essentials...).
I think this is an area where further thought and discussion could be
fruitful. I don't think we *want* our personal healthcare decisions to be
determined by corporate interests -- do we?
Cheers,
Shannon
on 5/20/03 3:39 AM, Marleen at
marleen.scheers@pandora.be wrote: