Dive Brief:
- The American Hospital Association is urging HHS to reconsider a proposed rule that would require providers to maintain standards that protect employees' religious and moral rights.
- Tom Nickels, AHA EVP, wrote in a comment on the rule that while AHA is respectful of the conscience objections of hospital employees and medical staff, the proposal should not be implemented as written.
- At issue is hospitals' obligation to provide needed care, an overly burdensome reporting requirement that effectively creates "a presumption of noncompliance" and concern the proposal may endanger "procedural protections for a recipient of funding," according to AHA.
Dive Insight:
The proposed rule also grants responsibility to the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to ensure that those participating in HHS programs are complying with federal laws that protect rights of conscience. OCR would be granted authority to "initiate compliance reviews, conduct investigations, supervise and coordinate compliance by the department and its components, and use enforcement tools otherwise available in civil rights law to address violations and resolve complaints."
"OCR should not invent new, distinct or additional policies and practices that add unnecessary complexity and burden or prefer conscience protections over other civil rights. Rather, OCR should use existing civil rights frameworks as the model for the conscience protections at issue," Nickels wrote.
But in the proposed rule, HHS argued that the status quo was inadequate, saying "such an approach would create a significant risk of unaddressed violations of the conscience rights of persons, entities, and healthcare entities."
AHA is also concerned that the proposed rule may endanger federal reimbursement if OCR takes action against a provider. In order to not cause "inappropriate disruption of health services," HHS should ensure that due process protections are included in any rulemaking.
"The regulations should reinforce those rights with a clear acknowledgement of the procedural protections applicable to any action by the Department that would adversely affect a recipient’s continued receipt of, or future eligibility for, federal funding," Nickels wrote.
Senate Democrats also raised concern that the proposed rule is written in a manner that "attempts to dramatically expand existing harmful refusal laws in ways that are intended to encourage health care providers and institutions to discriminate against patients." The comment, signed by 18 lawmakers including Senate HELP Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray, D-WA, urged HHS to withdraw the proposed rule.
A group of 19 attorneys general led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also urged the department to withdraw the proposal, saying it would "increase the risk of harm to patients and be inconsistent with the text of several federal and state laws and the Constitution."
More than 71,000 comments were received by HHS on the proposed rule.