Allergan, in partnership with 22 medical and medical professional organizations, has launched the Stop Medical Taxes Coalition (stopcosmetictax.org) to oppose the Senate healthcare reform bill’s proposed 5% cosmetic procedure tax. Patients can email their concerns about the proposed tax to their senators through the site, which also includes a petition drive and a letter sent to senators by the coalition on November 30, 2009.
Allergan is also providing fliers that physicians can post in their offices to alert patients to the proposed tax. Opponents of the tax, including the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, argue that it unfairly burdens middle income, working women.
“Elective surgery taxes discriminate against women, given that 86% of cosmetic surgery patients are female, of which 91% are between the working ages of 19 and 64 years of age,” said Michael McGuire, MD, ASPS president. “Moreover, contrary to popular belief, cosmetic surgery is no longer an exclusive luxury afforded by the very wealthy, but rather a mainstream and reasonable option most common amongst the working middle class.”
In a 2005 American Society of Plastic Surgery survey of people planning to undergo cosmetic surgery, 60% of respondents reported an annual household income of $30,000-$90,000.
In 2004, the state of New Jersey passed a 6% tax on elective cosmetic procedures. Its shortcomings have been highlighted by many critics. Chicago-based facial plastic surgeon Steven Dayan, MD, FACS, notes that, “a similar bill was signed into law in New Jersey in 2004. However, it has fallen far short of its expectations. Having collected 59% less than what was projected and costing three to four dollars in government expense for every dollar collected, its failings have resulted in its repeal led by assembly member Joseph Cryan, the original sponsor. However, Governor Corzine vetoed the repeal, and the law remains in place.”
Though the Senate bill claims that the only procedures to be taxed are those that are “not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease,” the ASPS and ASAPS note that the line between “cosmetic” and “reconstructive” is thin and not always clear. State tax auditors would be charged with determining the medical necessity of procedures. In the case of New Jersey, lawsuits challenging the state’s determination of “cosmetic” versus “reconstructive” surgery are one of the factors that led to expenses that outweigh the taxes income.
-Inga Hansen, executive editor
