Feature

HHS finalizes controversial conscience regulation


 

Health care professionals may not be compelled to provide medical care, including abortion services or even referrals, if they object on religious or moral grounds under a federal regulation finalized May 2.

The regulation also requires health care entities that receive federal funding to alert their employees to their federal conscience rights.

This final rule “replaces a 2011 rule that has proven inadequate, and ensures that HHS implements the full set of tools appropriate for enforcing the conscience protections passed by Congress,” HHS officials said in a statement. “These federal laws protect providers, individuals, and other health care entities from having to provide, participate in, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for, services such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide. It also includes conscience protections with respect to advance directives.”

The regulation was first proposed in January 2018, shortly after the formation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

Application of the regulation extends beyond the clinic and hospital. The regulation notes that, on a case-by-case basis, those providing emergency services such as EMTs or even ambulance drivers could be protected should they choose to exercise their conscience and not provide services based on their religious beliefs.

“With this final rule, the Department seeks to educate protected entities and covered entities as to their legal rights and obligations; to encourage individuals and organizations with religious beliefs or moral convictions to enter, or remain in, the health care industry; and to prevent others from being dissuaded from filing complaints due to prior OCR complaint resolutions or sub-regulatory guidance that no reflect the views of the Department,” according to the regulation.

HHS officials denied accusations that the regulation puts the needs of providers over those of patients.

By “protecting a diversity of beliefs among health care providers, these protections ensure that options are available to patients who desire, and would feel most comfortable with, a provider whose religious beliefs or moral convictions match their own. Even where a patient and provider do not share the same religious beliefs or moral convictions, it is not necessarily the case that patients would want providers to be forced to violate their religious beliefs or moral convictions,” according to the regulation.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union and others see the new regulation as license to discriminate.

“Once again, this administration shows itself to be determined to use religious liberty to harm communities it deems less worthy of equal treatment under the law,” Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. “This rule threatens to prevent people from accessing critical medical care and may endanger people’s lives. Religious liberty is a fundamental right, but it does not include the right to discriminate or harm others. Denying patients health care is not religious liberty. Discriminating against patients based on their gender or gender expression is not religious liberty. Medical standards, not religious beliefs, should guide medical care.”

The regulation does not yet have a scheduled publication date in the Federal Register, nor has it been posted as a preview document on the publication’s website. It will become effective 60 days after publication.

Recommended Reading

Rat race
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Navigating the Oncology Care Model
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
ICYMI: NIH renames, streamlines gene therapy committee
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Patients say primary care video visits are convenient, high quality
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Pretrial screening panels: Do they reduce frivolous claims?
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Statute of limitations in malpractice actions
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Conflicts of interest unreported in five of six oncology guidelines in Japan
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Medicare-for-All gets first legislative hearing
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
CBO’s report on single-payer health care holds more questions than answers
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Systematic review: Patient navigation programs improve outcomes, have financial benefits
MDedge Hematology and Oncology