From a sniffle to surgery, there is an unrealistic expectation that insurance will foot the bill, including the broad spectrum of alternative medicine choices. Novel approaches to the treatment of anxiety, depression and stress management are now more visible and accepted.  One emerging therapy known as float therapy is putting its collective hopes, dreams and grass roots dollars into research, for a disillusioned end game goal of going head to head with big pharma and the behemoth insurance industry with high hopes that insurance coverage will be the answer to the long term survival, awareness and usage of floating.

The 2022 international float therapy conference was punctuated by a vision for float therapy to become a recognized medical intervention, covered (in full) by insurance, spearheaded by a leading float researcher and a non profit research organization focusing on the anxiety reducing properties of float therapy. Interestingly, those suggesting and promoting this vision of total insurance coverage are either non-licensed or non-practicing health care clinicians, with no real world experience of the complexities and inequalities of the insurance game. Yet, leadership organizations within the boutique, cottage industry of float centers are banding together with a complete absence of a lived experience within an upside down, for-profit system which finds the most cost cutting solutions that mostly benefits the insurance company, not the patient, or floater in this instance.

Looking at the bigger picture, the past decade has experienced a mass exodus of primary care doctors, specialists, physical therapists, chiropractors and other health care practitioners opting out of insurance contracts for this very reason. It’s complicated for both the provider and patient. Most are realizing that high deductible, catastrophic health insurance is the wave of the future and many are having to pay out of pocket for most services, including escalating copays.  To think that float therapy would be covered 100% in any of the dozens of insurance premium iterations, is misleading.  Further, to think that insurance companies are seeking a new modality to pay providers, is also misleading. 

As health care costs under the affordable health care act have ironically skyrocketed, there are many who want to know if floating and other alternative health care services similar to it, are covered by their insurance.  Unfortunately, the answer is no and with this answer, brings up questions about the very nature of insurance and what should/shouldn’t be the responsibility of the individual vs. that of a for-profit insurance company or government program such as Medicare that doesn’t even cover dental or vision to those that have paid into the system for decades.  This raises further questions and concerns about the purpose of having insurance and who determines what therapy, how much of that therapy is warranted, and at what rate that therapy is reimbursed.

Most people, when they search for insurance, follow an antiquated method of seeking the lowest deductible and lowest copay to address the lion’s share of any given claim.  The reality is that if you do the math, the monthly premium costs for this thinking is actually more than a plan that has a high deductible.  Strangely, the low deductible, low copay plans are not so low anymore, either.   What used to be a $20 copay is now $50 or more.  Rates keep rising every year, regardless of personal usage and options for care continue to dwindle in size and quality. 

Since 9/11, our society has been riddled with anxiety and fear, only compounded by Covid.  There are pills for everything, which appeals to our quick fix, symptom-based thought process. Insurance understands pills and has choices for cheaper generic ones. Yet, while there has been a resurgence of interest, accessibility and research for alternative methods such as mindfullness, meditation, yoga, breathwork, sound healing, cbd, microdosing, and of course float therapy, should an insurance company be the one deciding non-mainstream, alternative therapeutic choices? 

Float therapy is not a medically necessary procedure.  Unlike other therapies that are used to treat medical conditions such as physical therapy for injury recovery or chemotherapy for cancer treatment, float therapy is not essential for physical health. And whether for physical or mental health, float therapy also does not require a “float therapist” who is licensed, follows a standardized system of tracking progress and follow the client through a treatment program.  Further, there are elusive standards of care within the industry, with most centers (often known as spas) often intermingling other therapies under one roof, such as cryotherapy, infrared therapy, halo therapy, cold immersion, massage and oxygen therapy being bundled together for sales strategies without an accounting of progress for a condition other than “wellbeing”.   Those centers that offer just float therapy are in the significant minority.  

The Float Tank Association has been an industry guide for decades.  The FTA is presently in a process of reorganizing and restructuring. Despite its low member cost for entry, the membership numbers are very low. There are multiple reasons for this, including competing non-profit organizations, all overlapping in their purpose, outreach and member benefits.  For instance, in most industry organizations, it is the national or state industry association that hosts yearly conventions.  The recently established non profit float conference association plays this role and in the process of constantly advertising for it, the role and importance of the float tank association continues to gets eclipsed.  Further, an industry association typically answers questions about the what’s why’s and how’s of how to carry on safely and profitably, including best practices like orientation videos, tank maintenance, sanitation, contraindications, benefits, timing and dosage, and other important FAQ’s. However, there is a private float centric Facebook group that fills this overlapping role and is in the faces of float tank center owners on a daily basis, significantly taking away from the visibility and necessity of the FTA.  Now there is a float research collective, another float centric non-profit agency, aggressively trying to form a grass roots effort to raise funds for research in addition to trying to secure grants. Many within the industry are having to choose how their money and attention is allocated. Most choose the sensationalism of the latter, vs the professional industry role of the float tank association.  

Lastly, as the industry chases the insurance train, one must view economic behavior and ways in which float spas price their services. Presently, many float spas use deep discounting tactics to attract customers.  Groupon, Living Social, Facebook and Instagram, advertising $35 floats which are normally $60-$90, creates the perfect storm for the devaluation of an industry.  People wait for the deals.  Then spa one sees that spa two is doing a deal down the street and they try to drive the deal down even further and before you know it, everyone is waiting for the deal and expecting a service for a fraction of the price.  This is not a system based on longevity, but short term profit.  Insurance companies will view this behavior and set the tone at the lowest negotiated price, which in this case will be the lowest Groupon discount. Similar to all other insurance covered benefits and/or providers, there needs to be enough of a supply of float centers nationally to qualify to be a service available to the public.  Yet, there is a disturbing trend in the post Covid years that more centers have closed than opened their doors. 

While insurance coverage for floating may be of limited benefit for the consumer, it presents a troubling situation for the bottom line of float center owners, who generally have big hearts and want to save the world, but also high overhead and maintenance costs as compared to massage, for instance. Some float centers seem to be on the right track and are creating their own version of “insurance” by establishing programs and discount packages for frequent floating.  Making floating more accessible and affordable through programs that encourage regular use, avoids the middleman of the insurance company, dictating their own version of usage and cost based on a third party understanding and application.  Thus, while float research is a good means for establishing viability, credibility and awareness, the end game purpose of research must also be considered in the mix. With all this in mind, it appears that the best way to maximize value to both the consumer and float center small business owner is to not involve insurance but to have the float industry collaboratively design and utilize a model better suited for float industry survival. 

Author Dr. David Berv is the chief experience officer at The Float Zone in Richmond, VA and has first hand experience with insurance companies for 30 years.