January 6th, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, the Bush administration pushed through a last-minute healthcare regulation that limits patients’ (particularly women patients’) access to healthcare.  Under the regulation, healthcare providers can refuse to give patients information about all of the treatments available to them; deny them a particular medication; and refuse to provide certain services, if the provider claims he or she has an objection under moral or religious grounds. 

Healthcare organizations,rulemakers, and citizens across the country are voicing their opposition to the new regulation.  The latest objections in Pennsylvania come from Gov. Rendell and the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Says a press released issued today by Gov. Rendell:

Governor Edward G. Rendell expressed disappointment today that President Bush and his administration — now in their waning days — would push forward a regulation that could compromise patient care and limit a woman’s access to medical treatments.

“I’m very disappointed that the Bush administration pushed forward this midnight regulation that establishes a ‘refusal clause’ rule that could have serious, detrimental impacts on patient care and women’s reproductive rights,” said Governor Rendell.

“If a woman is raped or is the victim of sexual assault, this regulation allows health care workers to victimize them again by denying treatment. For women living in rural areas, that could mean driving 60 miles to another health care provider for treatment.

“I strongly encourage President-elect Barack Obama to repeal the regulation as soon as possible after taking office on Jan. 20.”

Read the rest of the release at Gov. Rendell’s website.

Writes the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today in an editorial titled “Misguided rule: Bush makes mischief for health care seekers:”

President-elect Barack Obama has a lot to do starting on Jan. 20, and he can thank the Bush administration for putting one more item on his to-do list.

The latest parting shot came in the form of a new regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services that expands the rights of health-care workers to refuse to participate in procedures they find morally objectionable.

Current law long has allowed doctors, nurses and others to refuse to take part in abortions if their religious beliefs dictate, but this new so-called “conscience protection” will be extended to everyone involved in health care, including office receptionists and volunteers.

Abortion is the first procedure that comes to mind in this discussion, but it is not the only one by any means. A medical staff member who objected to the use of contraceptives could refuse to provide information to a patient; one who objects to homosexual relations could make it difficult for an individual to obtain a test for HIV or AIDS; a doctor who does not believe in invitro-fertilization could avoid advising a couple that the option might help them become parents.

Should a patient calling a doctor’s office to inquire about options for contraceptives be required to engage in a debate with a staff member who believes any interference with fertilization is a moral affront?

Under the cloak of protecting the religious rights of health-care workers, the new regulation potentially violates the rights of patients to appropriate and complete medical information.

Until now, clinics that receive federal funding have been required to advise pregnant women of all options, including carrying a baby to term, adoption and abortion. Under the revision, clinics that have no intention of doing so nonetheless may apply for taxpayer support. Like it or not, a woman’s right to choose remains protected under the law of the land.

Also problematic is vague language in the regulation, which has left clinic operators wondering whether it means they won’t be able to ask potential employees about their views in order to ascertain whether they would perform their work in concert with the organization’s views and objectives.

The rule is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 19, the day before Inauguration Day, but the incoming Obama administration can suspend implementation. Then, after the new president takes over, Tom Daschle, his nominee for secretary of health and human services, could restart the rule-making procedure and undo the Bush administration’s intention.

That seems the quickest way to offset the harm that this misguided regulation would accomplish.