Healthcare Group Urges HHS to Drop Proposed Rule that Would “Compromise Patient Safety”

Compassion & Choices Says Rule Seeks to “Illegally Preempt State Laws” via Federal Regulation

Feb 19, 2020 federal affairs

Compassion & Choices says a new proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Ensuring Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations” would “compromise patient safety” and “illegally preempt state laws through a federal regulation.”

“…two key proposed changes would directly and adversely impact the medical care of patients who need end-of-life medical care,” said Compassion & Choices Policy Director/Senior Legislative Counsel Sylvia Trujillo in a letter to HHS submitted just before the Feb. 18 midnight deadline for comments on the proposed rule. “The proposed rule would (1) remove the requirement that federally funded faith-based organizations provide written notice of their patients’ religious freedom rights…and, (2) rescind the requirement that faith-based organizations unwilling to provide the full continuum of accepted medical care based on religious objections take reasonable steps to refer patients to an alternative provider, if requested…”

“The proposed rule would mean vulnerable individuals at the end of life would suddenly have to worry that select federally funded faith-based organizations may refuse to honor a patient’s healthcare decisions, refuse to provide basic services, and decline to provide the information they need to make an informed medical decision, including seeking an alternative set of providers,” wrote Trujillo. “If the proposed rule is finalized unchanged, individual clinicians and now certain faith-based organizations could prevent a patient with a life-threatening or terminal illness from accessing medical treatment without the patient even knowing it.”

“In addition, the proposed rule seeks to illegally preempt state laws through a federal regulation. There are state laws that require medical providers, including those who are part of federally funded faith-based organizations, to arrange patient transfers when the former object to medical care based on religious beliefs. This shutting down of necessary communication between doctors and their patients by faith-based organizations would compromise patient safety and would severely harm the ability of physicians and other clinicians to provide the standard of care owed to patients,” concluded Trujillo. “A patient-driven approach to handling conscience-based objections is the only approach that respects the values of both the patient seeking medical care, and the faith-based organization delivering those services.”