WSJ: Cosmetic Surgeons Get Reid to Tax Tanning Salons Instead

DECEMBER 22, 2009

Cosmetic Surgeons Get Reid to Tax Tanning Salons Instead

By BARBARA MARTINEZ

Doctors were able to surgically remove the so-called Botax from the Senate's health-care overhaul bill and replace it with a 10% tax on tanning services.

"We suggested that the tanning tax would be a better alternative to the cosmetic tax and hopefully will reduce the incidence of skin cancer down the road," said David M. Pariser, president of the American Academy of Dermatology Association, which represents dermatologists.

The American Medical Association had also opposed the proposed 5% tax on cosmetic procedures -- dubbed the Botax after the antiwrinkle product Botox -- which was among the issues it wanted changed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. After that change and others were made over the weekend, the AMA announced its support Monday for the Senate bill.

A spokesman for Mr. Reid said in an email the tanning tax was "on the table for a while" before the Botax was proposed several weeks ago.

An industry spokesman said U.S. tanning businesses were unlikely to earn enough to provide the government with the roughly $2.7 billion over 10 years envisioned by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. The Botax was expected to generate an estimated $5.8 billion.

There are an estimated 20,000 tanning salons in the U.S., mostly stand-alone shops, and it's impossible to know what total revenue figures are for the industry, said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association. "It's almost laughable" to think the tanning industry's revenue adds up to what Congress is projecting, said Mr. Humiston, who owns a chain of 34 salons in upstate New York.

Mr. Humiston added that salons have been hit hard by the downturn, as middle-class customers cut back on spending. He said he has closed four shops since 2008, and has been discounting heavily to get customers. "Our industry is really beat up," he said. "And now, a 10% tax? Where are we going to get this?"

Mr. Humiston added the tax was a surprise. "We do have a lobbying presence in Washington," he said, "but not to the extent of the medical industry."

The tanning industry said Monday it was getting unfairly burned. But to dermatologists, the switch from a cosmetic tax to a tanning tax was a no-brainer. "Indoor tanning is a practice which is a known carcinogen," said the dermatologist group's Dr. Pariser.

For its part, the Indoor Tanning Association maintains that overexposure to any source of ultraviolet light, including sunlight, is potentially dangerous. Instead, the association promotes "responsible" tanning.

Write to Barbara Martinez at Barbara.Martinez@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A5

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126144830913601141.html