Tuesday, July 27, 2010

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would protect conscience rights

Rep. Smith
The Christian Medical Association today endorsed the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," to be introduced by my friend Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, which will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on abortion funding.
This bill would make permanent the policies that currently rely on regular re-approval including: the Hyde amendment (prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage under the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act); the Helms amendment (prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas); the Smith FEHBP amendment (prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees); the Doman amendment(prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia); other policies such as the restrictions on elective abortion funding through Peace Corp and Federal prisons.
The bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause that is part of the Hyde amendment. The conscience clause ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against health care providers, including doctors, nurses and hospitals, because the providers do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Physicians can help stop human trafficking

Sec. Napolitano
On July 22, 2010, Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano launched the “Blue Campaign”—a DHS-wide initiative to combat human trafficking through enhanced public awareness, victim assistance programs, and law enforcement training and initiatives.
During a private strategy meeting with Secretary Napolitano's staff following the public launch of this program, I urged federal officials to conduct a campaign to help healthcare professionals recognize the signs of human trafficking. The Christian Medical Association, for example, has helped its membership increase awareness of human trafficking with online resources.
A study of European trafficking victims revealed that 28 percent had visited a healthcare professional during their captivity, yet none had been reported or rescued as a result. That's why it's imperative to get medical professionals on board with recognizing, reporting and aiding in the rehabilitation of trafficking victims.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Abortion advocates push taxpayer funding of military abortions

A bill that recently passed out of a U.S. Senate committee threatens to further tilt federal policy toward the administration's radically pro-abortion viewpoint. Policy experts at the Family Research Council have issued the following summary:
In the Senate Armed Service Committee Senator Roland Burris (D-Ill.) offered an amendment to strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10 of the US Code.  The amendment, which passed by a vote of 15-12, will break with current longstanding policy and permit the performance of abortions in both domestic and overseas military facilities.   Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) was the only Democrat to vote against the amendment.   A similar amendment to allow abortions in overseas military facilities was most recently offered in the House in 2006 when it failed by a vote of 191-237.  The Burris amendment is more expansive than the 2006 amendment because it allows abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases.
Current law prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense medical personnel or in Department of Defense medical facilities except when the life of the mother is at risk or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. There is no distinction in this policy between military facilities within the United States and those overseas.  A separate provision prohibits the use of DOD funds for abortion except to save the life of the mother.
 U.S. Code Title 10 USC Sec 1093 (In  law since 1996)                             
(a) Restriction on Use of Funds – funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
(b) Restriction on Use of Facilities – No medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
The Burris amendment will effectively turn our military medical facilities into abortion clinics and force American taxpayers to underwrite the use of military facilities, the procurement of additional equipment, and the use of needed military personnel to perform abortions.  In addition, when President Clinton allowed abortions in military facilities from 1993 to 1996, all military physicians (as well as many nurses and supporting personnel) refused to perform or assist in elective abortions and in response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. If the Burris amendment were enacted, not only could taxpayer funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources could also be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed. 
To speak out on this issue, call Senate offices at (202) 224-3121.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

How the new healthcare law can cause you to lose your physician

The partisan healthcare "reform" train has left the station, and patients may soon be realizing their physicians aren't on board. Medicare and Medicaid patients are already feeling the painful impact of the government's squeeze of physicians, and the prognosis for other patients is not good.

My friend Bob Moffit at the Heritage Foundation writes of the impact of Obamacare on physicians:
No class of American professionals will be more negatively impacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act than physicians. Third-party payment arrangements already compromise the independence and integrity of the medical profession; Obamacare  will reinforce the worst of these features.

Physician payments in the major entitlement programs, Medicare  and Medicaid, are already well below the prevailing rates in the private sector. On average, physicians in Medicare are paid 81 percent of private payment; physicians in Medicaid are paid 56 percent of private payment.[2]  Medicare payment has resulted in sporadic access problems for Medicare patients, and the lower Medicaid payments have already contributed to serious access problems for low-income persons and worsened hospital emergency room overcrowding. In a recent survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, 67 percent of primary care physicians said that under current conditions new Medicaid enrollees would not be able to find a “suitable primary care physician” in their area.
It's not hard to figure out where this trend will leave patients--searching in vain to find a physician who participates in Medicare and Medicaid. And if slashed physician payments are not enough to nudge physicians out of medicine, the new healthcare law piles on layers of bureacracies that interfere in the patient-physician relationship and further emasculate physicians' decision-making ability. Bob offers three examples:
1.  Under section 6301, Obamacare creates a “non-profit” Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. It will be financed through a trust fund, with initial funding starting at $10 million this year and reaching $150 million annually in fiscal year 2013, with additional revenues from insurance fees. In effect, the institute will be examining clinical effectiveness of medical treatments, procedures, drugs, and medical devices. Much will depend upon how the findings and recommendations will be implemented and any financial incentives, penalties, or regulatory requirements.
2. Under section 3403, there will be an Independent Payment Advisory Board in 2012, with 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The board would aim to reduce the per capita growth rate in Medicare spending in accordance with specified targets (based initially on measures of inflation and eventually GDP growth) and make recommendations for slowing growth in non-federal health programs. The board’s recommendations would go into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative proposal. An unprecedented cap on Medicare spending, the process would doubtless reduce Medicare physician payment.
3. Under section 3002, the law extends the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. While it provides incentives for the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, the program is nonetheless burdened with time-consuming compliance and reporting requirements.
What does all this mean to physicians?
Athena Health conducts scientific surveys to determine what physicians think. One of their latest polls, the Physician Sentiment Index, indicates the following troubling indicators:
  • 64% of physicians believe that healthcare decisions are based more on what the payer wants than what is best for the patient. (To feel this impact, imagine you're a cancer patient and the physician prescribes the most effective drug only to be vetoed by the government bureaucracy or insurance company.)

  • 92% of physicians are already frustrated with insurance paperwork. (If you've ever spent a frustrating afternoon at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, imagine doing that every day and you get the drift.)

  • 54% say more government involvement in health care will not help.
  • Only 17% are optimistic about the capability of American physicians to practice independently or in small groups in the future.
What would you do if your job paid less and less, required more and more bureaucratic paperwork, took away your decision-making authority and kept you from helping the people you entered that career to help? Only the most dedicated physicians will persevere in such a climate.
Among those are faith-based physicians, many of whom care for the poor and marginalized. Yet because the same faith that motivates these physicians to care for the poor also motivates them to uphold the sanctity of human life, conscience protections are essential to their continued practice of medicine.
Tragically, the Obama administration has announced plans to get rid of the only federal regulation protecting faith-based physicians from getting forced out of medicine for following moral standards and their consciences. Abortion partisans in Congress blocked attempts to include strong conscience protections in the partisan healthcare law.
So with tens of millions of new patients now slated to be added to the healthcare system under the new law ... with an already acute shortage of primary care physicians ... and with faith-based physicians facing expulsion from medicine for following their consciences, isn't it time to stop this runaway healthcare "reform" train?
After November, a new Congress will have a chance to repeal the healthcare debacle and in its place enact sensible, bipartisan reform that will not only benefit patients but also the physicians who serve them. Vote as if keeping your trusted physician depends on it--because it does.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Washington Post reveals conscience rights gaps in healthcare law


The Washington Post recently ran a surprisingly balanced report on conscience rights,"New health-care law raises concerns about respecting providers' consciences." I had worked with Post reporter Rob Stein as he researched the various perspectives and technical questions about conscience provisions in the new healthcare law. I congratulate Rob on focusing on the key issues and presenting a reasonably balanced summary. Here are a few excerpts:
Deep within the massive health-care overhaul legislation, a few little-noticed provisions have quietly reignited one of the bitterest debates in medicine: how to balance the right of doctors, nurses and other workers to refuse to provide services on moral or religious grounds with the right of patients to get care.
...But some argue that the legislation does not go nearly far enough, given the breadth of the new legislation and possible unanticipated effects. For example, the legislation does not protect workers who oppose abortion from discrimination by any entities other than health plans, leaving federal, state and local governments, clinics, hospitals and others potentially free to compel providers to perform abortions, they say.
"At the end of the day regarding the legislation, a pro-life health-care professional is left with a weak and limited conscience provision that doesn't even prohibit discrimination by governments and institutions," said Jonathan Imbody, vice president for government relations at the Christian Medical Association.
And the legislation does not safeguard doctors, nurses and others who object to anything else, especially care that might be mandated by the federal government as "essential services," such as birth control pills, sterilization, genetic testing and in-vitro fertilization. Read the full article
As with other aspects of the new healthcare law, many Americans are just now realizing how dangerous it is and will be. That's why some Members of Congress whom I've talked with in closed-door meetings are advocating a one-step repeal-and-reform strategy to undo the damage and enact truly healthy healthcare reform.
What to do? Find out where your Congressional candidates stand on healthcare law repeal and reform, and vote accordingly.

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...