On June 14th, 2019, the Trump administration issued a near complete regulatory overhaul of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) non-discrimination provisions known as Section 1557. The issued proposed rule began a 60-day public comment period, ending on August 13th, 2019.
 |
| Photo Source: thompsoncoburn.com |
The public may submit comment using the following link to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=HHS-OCR-2019-0007-0001.
Or by regular, overnight, express mail, hand delivery or courier to the following address:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office for Civil Rights
Attn: Section 1557 NPRM, RIN 0945-AA
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 509F
200 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20201
For a background, please visit our previous blogpost here (Laws, 2018): https://adapadvocacyassociation.blogspot.com/search?q=1557.
Stating the Trump Administration’s proposed changes to Section 1557 are a revision would be misleading. A lie actually. The proposed rule seeks to so drastically change the regulatory interpretation and applicable federal agency guidance so much, that one can only adequately describe the changes as eliminating any meaningful sense of protection offered by the Obama Administration’s interpretation.
The case made by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS") for these changes is embarrassingly weak. Relying near exclusively on the Trump Administration’s own refusal to defend the regulation in Franciscan Alliance, Inc. et al v. Burwell, which resulted in an unchallenged injunction issued by Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a second ruling from a federal district in North Dakota - which relied on the Franciscan Alliance decision. By taking an intentionally flawed approach, the listed changes would have a wide impact, including eliminating protections affecting transgender people, women, reproductive care in general, people living with HIV, people with disabilities, people who speak and read any language other than English as a primary language, and more. The move builds upon the Trump Administration’s efforts to not only reshape the judicial landscape in a politically motivated fashion but to do so with precise aims, including eliminating the ACA entirely (see Texas v. United States, another Reed O’Connor ruling – this should tell you something about “court shopping”).
If you haven’t read Nicholas Bagley’s Atlantic piece, “Rise of the Know-Nothing Judge”, you really should (Bagley, 2019). This legal philosophy is being leveraged specifically by both the judges hearing the cases and the political appointments seeking to eliminate these necessary protections in healthcare. The story goes fairly simply as “we couldn’t possibly know what Congress was thinking (despite recent and public statements to the fact on certain votes and legislation) because it wasn’t spelled out explicitly and narrowly.” This is an effort to push issues of patient protections (and other issues) to a dysfunctional Congress. This approach also explicitly seeks to push legislation, which by its very nature is not supposed to be prescriptive, into an exceptionally prescriptive design or risk non-enforcement. Overall, the process removes the role of government in regulating and protecting tax payers entirely when applied broadly. This Administration will achieve the goal of eliminating necessary government intervention by weakening public trust and establishing court precedent to inaction.
In the case of a Section 1557 re-write, HHS ignores previous precedents that stretch back 30 years (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins) to rulings as recent as 2017 (Prescott v. Rady Children’s Hospital) which rely on the plain language of the statue due to previous precedent, not the regulatory interpretation provided by the Obama Administration. HHS goes on further to ignore recent rulings both on issues of sex stereotyping as a form of sex-based discrimination and gender identity as an issue of sex by the nature of gender identity being a part of our medical definition of sex. HHS expands further by stating that even if gender identity were an issue of sex, “Religious Freedom” and its own “Conscience” regulations should allow all entities governed by HHS regulations to deny coverage and care even on the basis sex. As such, that denial of care extends in such a way that would eliminate the pre-existing conditions protections of women in the case of pregnancy history, termination of pregnancy, false pregnancy, and genetic history. Instances of care denial that were routine prior to the ACA’s pre-existing conditions protections requirements.
Kaiser Family Foundation argues the explicit nature of these interpretations including non-protection of sex stereotyping could result in antiretroviral treatment being denied coverage by an insurance company or a provider refusing to provide care to a person living with HIV because of assumed sexual activities with a same-sex partner. The interpretation removes the right of private action so coveted by patient advocates when section 1557’s original interpretation was written; meaning patients would no longer have either an administrative path to seek remedy or an explicit endorsement of HHS to go the path of the courts to seek remedy when harmed by care and coverage denials (Musumeci, 2019).
If this sounds like a wild, wild west situation of health care and insurance structures prior to the ACA, it is. That’s the goal, the campaign promise of Donald J. Trump. While the ACA certainly needs some work, consistently, the American public, regardless of political affiliation has polled support of health care protections the ACA provides. Like a mob thug in sneaking into a back alley, this Administration is using every angle to knee cap the protections afforded by the ACA, with intentional efforts to harm those who need those protections the most.
Lastly, of particular note, HHS states in the proposed regulation, as it has in every other regulatory change affecting civil rights protections, that disparate impact does not equate to intentional discrimination. Having historical data, predictive data that already guides our funding appropriations and distribution that is so pin-point precise the government – nay, THIS Administration relies on some of the very same data to focus funding its own Ending The Epidemic plans (HIV.gov, 2019), how can we not interpret knowingly and intentionally ignoring the same data as “unintentional” when other regulatory moves by this Administration seek to allow providers and insurers to deny care and coverage to PLWH just a whim?
We live in the day and age of Big Data, disparate impact is now intentional impact.
This effort to harm is intentional.
Comment today to ensure your voice is heard! Call your Congress member. Support your patient advocacy organizations by dollar and deed. We’re in a fight for our lives here, one court ruling and one regulation at a time.
References:
- Bagley, Nicholas (2019, July 15). Texas v. United States: Rise of the Know-Nothing Judge. The Atlantic. Retrieved online from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/texas-v-us-rise-know-nothing-judge/593959/
- HIV.gov (2019, June). Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America. Retrieved online from https://files.hiv.gov/s3fs-public/ending-the-hiv-epidemic-flyer.pdf
- Laws, Jen (2018, February 22). Trump & HHS Sanction Healthcare Discrimination. ADAP Blog. Retrieved online from https://adapadvocacyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/02/trump-hhs-sanction-healthcare.html
- Musumeci, MaryBeth, et. al. (2019, June 1). HHS’s Proposed Changes to Non-Discrimination Regulations Under ACA Section 1557. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved online from https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/hhss-proposed-changes-to-non-discrimination-regulations-under-aca-section-1557/
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California (2017, October 13). Case No.: 16-cv-02408-BTM-JMA. Retrieved online from https://www.ebglaw.com/content/uploads/2017/10/Prescott-v.-Rady-Children_s-Hospital-San-Diego_-2017-U.S.-Dist.-LEXIS-160259.pdf
Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.
No comments:
Post a Comment