Health Fraud is different when defined by science or payors

We can get bogged down in political or opinionated arguments about what's right or wrong. One example is the argument for or against a universal health care system. Or, whether or not doctors can bill concierge practice fees to medicare patients. Obviously, discussion into topics that evolve from too a subjective definition of Healthfraud will likely compromise the usefullness of the dialogue.
We agree that the science is the bane of so-called alternative medicine (sCAM.) Science says unsubstantiated treatment is associated with a direct or indirect health risk. Science will suggest we not spend money or resources when a predicted benefit cannot justify the cost. Politicking is sCAM's ally. Convincing the masses that they have a right to society-subsidized unscientific treatment, that government "protection" is wrought with conspiracy, that science should take a backseat to "choice" or that any treatment is equally based on science - any of these will win the day for sCAM.
Likewise, any aspect associated with a cut of the Healthcare dollar will have an ally busily politicking.
Thus, the common ground among the opinions is found in those aspects of healthcare where the biosciences can have influence. The only objective, unbiased approach.

Fraud is not black and white, even when science is the basis. There is an important distinction. Fraudulent billing is by the carrier, the payor. Science defines what is investigational or unnecessary. My idea would be to stick to fraud as defined by the science, because proper payment rules are a matter of opinion, perspective, payor and/or local or national legislation.
Our biggest problems are exactly those you define as cross-overs.