Before they can lie under the glow of the UV light, indoor-tanning customers have to pay for the session.

But starting July 1, that price will include something more: a 10 percent federal tax that was included in the health care reform bill.

Lawrence tanning salon owners say what’s good for federal coffers will likely take money and customers away from their businesses. Some owners have initiated protests, including urging customers to sign anti-tax petitions and contacting their congressmen and women.

Kristi Lawrence, owner of Mango Tan, 4000 W. Sixth St., said she has contacted the offices of U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins and Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and found them sympathetic. All three Republicans voted against the health care reform bill approved by Congress last month.

Lawrence said she has also asked customers to sign an online petition against the tax.

Johnny Horne, owner of Jamaica Tan, said he thinks the added tax will lead customers to tan less, hurting his business.

“It’s very scary,” Horne said.

Horne said he bought the salon at 1540 Wakarusa Drive in July 2009, and just started turning a profit.

At his shop, a single tanning session costs anywhere from $8 to $24, depending on the level of UV intensity. But Horne said he prefers to sell packages that span two to three months. A 10 percent tax on a $150 package for 90 days will raise the price to $165. Horne said he worries customers may not be inclined to pay that much.

“That’s how we’ll start running into problems,” he said.

The new tax is expected to raise $2.7 billion in the next decade. It was also designed to discourage tanning and consequently lower tanning-related medical costs over time.

Pam Scott, owner of Endless Summer Tan, 2223 La., said she expects the tax will create some drop-off in her business.

“I just think people will be tanning less,” she said.

Scott and Lawrence said they think the tax is discriminatory toward college students, who are big tanners and don’t have a lot of money.

“It doesn’t make sense to target that demographic,” Lawrence said.

Danielle Self, a Kansas University sophomore, said she is a frequent tanner. She said she doesn’t expect the tax to affect how she tans, and she doesn’t oppose it. She likened it to a “sin tax.”

“It’s just like cigarettes.” Self said.

KU sophomore Nina Moore said she finds tanning prices already expensive and usually tans only during the winter. She said she’s likely to continue to tan, just not as often.