Editorial: Let users pay for 'natural' pills, potions

Taxpayers might suffer a collective shudder at the news that a committee advising the Minister of Health on complementary and alternative health treatment wants her to consider public funding of alternative potions and therapies. The suggestion carries the proviso that the treatments would have to be proven safe, effective and cost-effective, which would probably be a hurdle too high for them, but the fact their public funding is being seriously discussed is alarming enough.

Health is a burgeoning industry these days. There seems no limit to the variety and novelty of dietary fads and exotic practices that can be marketed as remedies or precautions for ailments real or imagined. Even scientifically sound medicine is expanding its capabilities at such a rate that health is the hardest expense for public budgets to contain.

To bring even a few alternative therapies under the state's wing would open the public purse to a whole new dimension of claims. Once a few were funded, the pressure from the rest would be remorseless. And since these "natural" compounds seem to be fairly harmless the demand would rocket if they were made available at little or no cost.

It would rocket in part because alternative medicines would gain a certain respectability they do not enjoy now. Subsidised medicine carries a kind of official endorsement because nothing is put on the subsidised pharmaceutical schedule unless the authorities are convinced of its worth. A spokesman for a section of alternative providers welcomes the advisory committee's proposal but not the proviso of proven efficacy. "If they are talking about scientific [proof]," says Patrick Fahy, "I have a major problem with that terminology." They are talking about scientific proof and his industry has a major problem with more than the terminology. They would have to prove their products or practices were objectively capable of alleviating or curing identifiable illnesses.

It is not hard to find people to swear to the efficacy of particular dietary supplements or physical and mental therapies and nobody else is in a position to question their experience. As long as those people are paying for their healthcare, nobody has any reason to question them. But at the point the public is asked to pay, it becomes a different matter. Other people should not have to share the cost of providing a benefit that is highly dubious.

Of course some people these days find orthodox medicine highly dubious yet they are obliged to pay taxes that help to pay for it. And when something goes seriously wrong with their health they will be glad they have had to help pay for a medical service.

Naturopathy, aromatherapy, meditation, herbal treatments and so on are no doubt effective for some people in relieving or preventing relatively minor ailments such as stress of various sorts and common colds. But once the public accepted an obligation to fund invigorating practices, where would it end? Physical exercise no doubt helps to ward off illness, relieve stress and improve health, too. Does that mean the Minister of Health should be considering public funding of gymnasiums? And what about providing us all with free music, flowers, fruit and vegetables. All sorts of things contribute to our health and sense of well-being.

In part the Government has invited this pressure to pay for alternative therapies by taking steps to regulate them. Last December it signed a treaty with the Australian Government to set up a joint regulatory agency which was to go further than questions of safety and check the efficacy of alternative treatments. Once the state starts ruling on the merits of a product it can expect a demand to subsidise any it approves. Alternative remedies are not so potent that they need close regulation, and not so effective that they merit public funding. Those who believe in their benefits appear happy to pay.