I also support evidence based approach. That is treatments which have been proven scientifically and where possible, peer reviewed..rather than that based on anecdotal opinions of users who may have no real benefits over a placebo.
If someone wishes to trial an alternative treatment, then the treatment should not subsidised by the taxpayers and the individual should be up for the full cost of such treatments. If at some stage in the future the treatment is proven scientifically to have a positive medical effect, then such time such treatments could be considered for subsidies.
There is always the argument about conflicts of interest or commercial benefits or promoting one treatment over another, however, most conflicts can be can be removed if the treatment is scientifically proven and also where it involves a medicine, is on the PBS.
Otherwise, the costs to the taxpayer will continue to increase as more individuals search for (miracle) treatments on the internet and try and source such treatments even if they are not recommended by medical professionals.
It has also been reported that some natural therapies can be very dangerous, such as using chiropractic treatments on infants for conditons which aren't not neuromuscular disorders.
It should be a little like the PBS (from my understanding), where Aust-R can be included on the PBS for subsidy, but Aust-L which may have no proven benefits can't.