Thanks to my friend J.P. for this curious little article from The Washington Post last week.  An additional related article can be found here , and what appears to be an earlier reporting of this topic from the Los Angeles Times is found here. 

The basic thrust of the article revolves around the Church of Christ, Scientist and the efforts it is spearheading to have prayer considered a form of 'spiritual health care' which would be reimbursable by insurers like any other health service.  Apparently this provision was in a former version of the health care bill in the House of Representatives, but was removed from the bill that passed in November.  However, lobbying efforts are underway to try and have the provisions reinstated as a means of ensuring that "health care reform law does not discriminate against any religion". 

Based on the LA Times article, it would seem that only Christian Scientists would be eligible for reimbursement for "prayer treatments" which are argued for based on their cost effectiveness ("as little as $20 a day").  Apparently at points in the past, some private insurers did reimburse for this treatment, however that appears to no longer be the case.  Other plans, such as some government and military plans, do provide reimbursement for these treatments still.  That was a real surprise to me. 

The LA Times article cites one authority as stating basically that if the patient is the one choosing treatment, and religious treatments aren't given preference or any other sort of distinction, then they could legally be considered on the same basis as other treatment options.  However given the growing trend of holding people accountable when they decline traditional medical techniques and rely on prayer for healing and someone dies as a result, there appears to be a rather substantial head-on collision in terms of what might be legal at the moment and what is going to be the norm for the future.

I find the whole description of prayer as a form of treatment to be rather distasteful from my theological background and understanding.  In more traditional Christian traditions, prayer is not a treatment, any more than talking with a physician about your condition could be considered a treatment in and of itself.  What the doctor tells you to do about it might be a treatment.  But the conversation itself is not.  Likewise, prayer may result in healing, if God chooses to answer the way we would like Him to.  But that would be His prerogative, and the simple fact of being in conversation with Him would hardly seem to count as a treatment.  If you label prayer as a form of treatment, it seems to assume that the prayer itself is eliciting a specific and somewhat predictable response from God.  If I do this, God will do that.  Dangerous theological thinking. 

I pray daily for people who are sick or struggling with any number of issues.  I ask God for His healing, for His comfort, for His peace, and that the situation would be used to open people's hearts to His presence - particularly friends & family members of the person suffering who may not be Christian.  But I don't think of my prayers as treatment.  The Bible commands us to pray, and exhorts us to pray for the sick and suffering.  It even says that these can be particularly powerful prayers, depending on who is praying (James 5:16).  But these are God's issues, ultimately.  We pray in faithfulness, and trust that He will act in the best way - even if the best way is not the way we would prefer. 

The purpose of a doctor's prescribed course of treatment is to heal a particular symptom or condition.  The purpose of prayer is overall fellowship with our Creator God, and as part of that, requests for particular things - safety, health, healing, etc.  It's a shame to think of prayer as being defined in such a limiting way, just as it's a shame to think that people would be paid for doing what we are Biblically commanded to do.