Posts Tagged ‘cosmetic surgery tax’

Participate in Our Online Poll About the “Botax”

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

Since we wrote about the proposed cosmetic surgery tax last week, the media has been buzzing non-stop about the “Botax” and other new options that are supposed to help cover healthcare reform.

Plastic and cosmetic surgeons are opposing the tax for a variety of reasons.  Others in support of the tax have suggested that, aside from generating revenue for healthcare, it could encourage talented medical professionals to work in areas of general medicine that need them.

What’s your opinion?

Cosmetic Surgeons in the U.S. Opposing New Tax

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

The elective procedure tax we wrote about last July is now part of the latest healthcare reform bill and could be implemented as early as 2010.  The tax is a 5 percent charge on any procedure, administered by a licensed medical professional, that isn’t necessary to ameliorate a disease, injury or congenital deformity.

Cosmetic and plastic surgeons have offered strong objections to the bill. One such objection is that women, the predominant consumers in this industry, will pay the projected 5 billion dollar revenue almost entirely. The tax is “discriminatory” and therefore, “the wrong way to raise money to pay for expanding health care.”

Others, such as the ASPS, are trying to draw attention to the fact that cosmetic surgery procedures are not a luxury for the rich and famous, but services primarily purchased by the middle class.

A recent press release said the following:

In a 2005 ASPS survey of people planning to have cosmetic surgery within the next two years, 60% of respondents reported an annual household income of $30,000-$90,000 a year. Most importantly, 40% of those reported a household income of only $30,000-$60,000. Only 10% of respondents reported a household income of over $90,000, which clearly refutes the suggestion that elective surgery taxes are “luxury” or “sin” taxes affecting a privileged few.

Follow the links below to learn more about the elective cosmetic medical tax.

  • Nasdaq.com: US Cosmetic Medical Market Faces New Challenge in Senate Bill
  • Bnet: Why Allergan and Medicis Should Embrace Botox Tax

Elective Procedure Tax Probably Unfair to Women

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

politicians discuss cosmetic procedure taxMedia outlets all over the country are making a buzz about the proposed cosmetic surgery tax intended to finance health care reform. The LA Times blog Top of the Ticket says the tax would attach 10 percent onto any elective procedure – your tummy tuck, breast implants, or Botox could be taxed. Writers of the Speaker’s Lobby say the tax proposal is probably “off the table” for now, and that the idea likely came from a treasury department official.

This so-called ‘Botax’  or ‘vanity tax’ is being contested in a few different ways, but here are the two common arguments being reiterated:

Would it be gender discrimination?

The tax would be paid almost entirely by women.  Despite the growing popularity of cosmetic procedures for men, women still make up over 90 percent of the patient demographic in the United States.  Obviously, imposing a tax such as the one in question would unfairly discriminate against women.  Think about it this way: would a tax be imposed on men who purchase expensive tattoos, fashionable clothing, or bodybuilding equipment?  It doesn’t seem likely.

Would it affect the rich or the middle class?

There’s a common misconception that’s probably at work here; it’s that “only the rich and famous pursue cosmetic surgery.”  Experience in the industry will show you otherwise.  A 2004 survey conducted by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons revealed that nearly “a third of people considering plastic surgery reported average household incomes below $30,000.”

Recall this New York Times piece by Natasha Singer titled “Who Is the Real Face of Plastic Surgery?”  Ms. Singer discusses the fact that a large number of patients choose to finance their cosmetic surgeries, just as they would a new car.