Friday, May 31, 2019

The new HHS conscience rule: What it means to physicians and patients



The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a final rule that implements 25 federal conscience laws and strongly protects the exercise of conscience freedom by health professionals and health entities in HHS funded programs.  HHS had issued a proposed conscience rule in January 2018 and finalized the rule May 2 after reviewing some 242,000 public comments, including from the Christian Medical Association (CMA) and Freedom2Care, which strongly support the rule.
In a news release lauding the new rule, CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, 

Friday, May 24, 2019

Plaintiff Christian Medical Association welcomes intent of new HHS rule to restore intent of Congress on sex discrimination




Washington, DC, May 24, 2019--The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org and www.Freedom2Care.org) today welcomed as "a move toward restoring rationality regarding sex discrimination in healthcare" a new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that aims to restore the intent of Congress regarding sex discrimination in healthcare.
CMA CEO Designate Dr. Mike Chupp said, "While we and our attorneys are still reviewing this new rule, we welcome the intent of this new proposed rule as a move toward restoring rationality regarding sex discrimination in healthcare. We physicians know that prescriptions and medical procedures differ based on biological sex and that we must base our medical decisions on objective biology—not ideology.
"We will continue as always to care for all patients with compassion and competence while exercising professional, evidence-based medical judgment, adhering to objective ethical standards and at times, exercising conscience based upon moral standards."
CMA is party to a 2016 lawsuit that resulted in a federal court's preliminary injunction against the previous administration's HHS rule that attempted to redefine sex apart from biology to include internal perceptions of sex. Becket represents the CMA in that case. As also noted in that lawsuit, under the previous administration's rule, "HHS declined to add an explicit carve-out for abortion and abortion-related services parallel to the carve-out included in Title IX…."
The new rule, according to an HHS news release today, "proposes a return to the plain meaning of the words used by Congress in prohibiting sex discrimination."
Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Government Relations and Director of Freedom2Care, noted, "The proposed rule's stated purpose appears to be in line with what the American people have expressed through their elected representatives in Congress regarding sex discrimination, which is to ensure a level playing field for females and males, and also regarding abortion, which is to preserve conscience freedoms in healthcare.
"In the past, unelected agency officials attempted to use the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to force an ideological gender agenda upon virtually all healthcare institutions and professionals, regardless of professional judgment, ethical norms or religious convictions. Effective care for patients requires distinguishing biology from ideology."


HHS issues new rule to restore intent of Congress on sex discrimination

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today takes a step toward restoring the intent of Congress in enacting sex discrimination legislation. The court case mentioned in the HHS news release below, which resulted in a preliminary injunction to stop the "transgender mandate," was on behalf of the Christian Medical Association and other health professionals and several states. 

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Contact:  HHS Press Office May 24, 2019                                                                                    media@hhs.gov

HHS Proposes to Revise ACA Section 1557 Rule to Enforce Civil Rights in Healthcare,
Conform to Law, and Eliminate Billions in Unnecessary Costs

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulatory reform related to regulations issued under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The proposed rule would maintain vigorous civil rights enforcement on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex, while revising certain provisions of the current Section 1557 rule that a federal court has said is likely unlawful. The proposal also would relieve the American people of approximately $3.6 billion in unnecessary regulatory costs over five years.

Conforming to the Text of our Laws

In Section 1557 of the ACA, Congress directed HHS to apply existing civil rights laws and regulations to healthcare and the ACA Exchanges, including a 1972 law (Title IX) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in certain federally funded programs. In 2016, HHS issued a new rule that redefined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include termination of pregnancy and gender identity which it defined as one’s internal sense of being “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

In response to a subsequent lawsuit by several states and healthcare entities, on December 31, 2016, a federal court preliminarily enjoined the rule’s gender identity and termination of pregnancy provisions on a nationwide basis, finding them contrary to the applicable civil rights law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. A second federal court agreed. Because the preliminary injunction continues to be in effect, HHS cannot, and has not since the date of the injunction, enforced the rule’s provisions the court said are likely unlawful. The proposed rule would revise the provisions subject to those injunctions to conform with the plain understanding recognized by the court.

When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “The American people want vigorous protection of civil rights and faithfulness to the text of the laws passed by their representatives,” said Severino. “The proposed rule would accomplish both goals.”

Continued Robust Enforcement of Civil Rights Law

Under the proposed rule, HHS would continue to vigorously enforce prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex in healthcare, as Section 1557 provides. The proposed rule would also retain protections under the 2016 regulation that ensure physical access for persons with disabilities to healthcare facilities, and appropriate communication technology to assist persons who are visually or hearing-impaired. HHS’s proposed rule would also retain protections for non-English speakers, including the right to meaningful language access to healthcare, qualification standards for translators and interpreters, and limitations on the use of minors and family members as translators in healthcare settings. Regulated entities would also continue to be required to provide written assurance to the Department that they will comply with Section 1557’s civil rights provisions and the proposed regulation.

“We are committed to full enforcement of civil rights laws before, during, and after any rulemaking,” said Severino. “We are also committed to the elimination of regulations that contradict law or raise the costs of healthcare without achieving intended results.”

Removing Costly and Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens

The proposed revisions would eliminate $3.2 billion in unneeded paperwork burdens imposed by the 2016 rule. Covered entities report that the 2016 rule requires them to send billions of “tagline” notices each year informing patients and customers of their ability to have “significant documents” translated in at least 15 languages. When HHS adopted the 2016 rule, it projected notice and taglines costs of about $7.2 million in the first five years. Because the 2016 rule did not fully account for printing and mailing costs associated with these notices and taglines, it underestimated the burden of these requirements by over three billion dollars over five years. Instead of requiring regulated health companies to mail billions of paper taglines to mostly English speakers, the money saved could be used to more effectively address individual needs of non-English speakers such as by providing increased access for translators and interpreters.

The proposed Section 1557 rule estimates an additional savings of approximately $400 million over five years by eliminating duplicative requirements and reverting to well-established language access guidance, resulting in a total savings of approximately $3.6 billion in the first five years after finalization.

“As a child of Hispanic immigrants, I know how vitally important it is that people receive quality healthcare services regardless of the language they speak, and this proposal grants providers the needed flexibility for achieving that goal,” said Severino. “The American people are tired of unnecessary regulations getting in the way of access to affordable healthcare, and today’s proposal would remove $3.6 billion in regulatory burdens that are ultimately being passed down to patients, Severino concluded.


Click to read the proposed regulation Factsheet on Section 1557- PDF.

###

*This HHS-approved document is being submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication and has not yet been placed on public display or published in the Federal Register.  This document may vary slightly from the published document if minor editorial changes are made during the OFR review process.  The document that will be published in the Federal Register is the official HHS-approved document. 

*People using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in these files at this time.  For assistance, please email OCR at OCRMail@hhs.gov or contact the OCR Call Center at (800) 368-1019.

*A Spanish version of this press release and the Factsheet will be provided in the near future.

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Christian Medical Association doctors laud HHS conscience rule as protecting patients and doctors



Washington, D.C.—May 2, 2019—The 19,000-member Christian Medical Association, the largest national association of faith-based doctors, lauded a conscience law-enforcing rule finalized today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a protection for both patients and doctors.
CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, "Our patients need to know that we as doctors can be trusted to conscientiously adhere to objective ethical standards and moral commitments that serve to protect them. They need to know we are not going to lay aside longstanding ethical norms and medical concerns just because ideologically-driven politicians or bureaucrats or hospital administrators might pressure us to do so by threatening our ability to practice medicine."
CMA Senior Vice President Dr. Gene Rudd, an OB/Gyn physician, said, "In recent years, some abortion advocates have proposed effectively banning pro-life physicians from medicine, essentially because we adhere to the Hippocratic Oath. That long-standing objective standard protects our unborn patients while also protecting our born patients from other abuses of medical power such as involuntary euthanasia and sexual abuse. Without pro-life OB/Gyn physicians, who will serve the millions of women and men who also hold to pro-life commitments?
Conscience protection is one of the treasures of our society. It is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, reflecting its importance. Some would want to take this right away from others when they disagree on certain issues. But protection for each person is critical to protection for all. The HHS conscience rules are critical to preserving this freedom.”

CMA Executive Vice President Dr. Mike Chupp observed, "We are committed to serving every kind of patient with compassion and competence, but that's very different from saying we will do any procedure or fill any prescription regardless of ethical or medical concerns. Healthcare professionals of faith and conscience are committed to the mantra ‘Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere but NOT Anything!’ Without conscience freedom in healthcare, whatever ideology the government chooses will be the grounds used to exclude all objectors. The result would be a loss of healthcare access for patients, and especially the patients of faith-based health professionals who often minister to the underserved and marginalized."

CMA Vice President for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody noted, "This HHS rule enforces and educates regarding existing conscience laws passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis, back when Congress was more bipartisan. The rule reminds the government and the health community that we all live in a country that values freedom of conscience and tolerance of diverse views. Conscience freedoms protect liberals, conservatives and everyone in between, on issues ranging from capital punishment to abortion to research ethics. Without tolerance for diversity and conscience convictions in healthcare, patients lose access to doctors, and health professionals lose their careers."

More information available at www.Freedom2Care.org:
·       Stories of conscience violations
·       Previous polling by Kellyanne Conway on conscience (e.g, 92 percent of faith-based physicians said they would leave medicine rather than compromise conscience)
·       CMA comments submitted to HHS on conscience rule

Featured Post

The Equality Act would trample on doctors' religious freedom

Published in The Washington Examiner by Jonathan Imbody  | March 29, 2021 Imagine you are a family physician who entered medical school mot...