The indoor tanning industry feels it’s getting burned by the federal health care overhaul.
A provision of the health care bill approved by the U.S. Senate last month would apply a 10 percent tax to indoor tanning services to offset some of the costs of extending health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
The bill calls for the tax to take effect July 1 and applies to any tanning method that uses ultraviolet radiation. Many health advocates support a tax on tanning because of its direct link to skin cancer, the most common form of cancer in the U.S.
But tanning salon owners say the tax is a first step toward taxing more beauty services in an industry (mostly run by women) already hurt by a lousy economy.
“It’s a stupid law. Today, it’s tanning salons; tomorrow, it will be facials,” said Eddie Gauer, who owns Tanners Cove in Scotts Valley, Capitola and Watsonville.
The tanning tax replaced a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic procedures in the bill after doctors and industry groups intensely lobbied for months, arguing that it discriminated against women, who receive the majority of the procedures (such as Botox), by creating a penalty that implied the practices were unhealthy, like smoking.
The tax was then slapped on the smaller, more fragmented tanning industry, which government officials expect will raise $2.7 billion over 10 years. The cosmetic tax would have raised an estimated $5.8 billion.
According to the Indoor Tanning Association, there are about 20,000 tanning salons in the U.S., not counting the estimated 20,000 nail salons, spas, and gyms that also offer tanning services. Tanners Cove is the only tanning salon in Scotts Valley.
Gauer has been in the tanning industry for 14 years and said that every year, the government does something to the tanning industry.
“Last year, the age requirement was lowered to 16 without a parent’s consent,” Gauer said. “But tanning indoors is safer than tanning outdoors, because it’s a controlled environment. And there’s no better source of Vitamin D. I have some clients who have doctors that tell them to tan for things like psoriasis.”
Gauer said that for his tanning salons, the tax means service charges will go up for his clients.
“It’s unfortunate that they are going to have to go up. But there’s nothing I can do about that,” he said. “The cost of owning a small business is very high as it is. I’m not willing to cut back on my employees’ salaries. There is nowhere else to cut back.”
Non-UV tanning services, such as spray and airbrush tans, as well as UV phototherapy prescribed and performed by doctors and other licensed medical professionals, would be exempt from the tax.
Gauer isn’t reassured.
“Airbrush tanning has gotten more popular, but tanning itself is the business lifeline,” he said.
Some proponents of the tanning tax, including the national Skin Cancer Center, hope it will discourage the use of indoor tanning beds and send the political message that the practice is harmful.
Come March, the Food and Drug Administration will discuss stricter policies and guidelines governing the use of tanning beds. The FDA’s aims align with the World Health Organization, which declared last year that indoor tanning definitely causes cancer.
Gauer countered that in American culture, being tan is beautiful, and nothing will stop people from doing what they want to do.
“There is no political message in this tax. My business is only down 5 percent in this economy, when some businesses are down 40 percent,” Gauer said. “People that tan always will. It makes you feel good and gives you endorphins, similar to how working out does.”
