VANITY: Refusing to Provide Services with Regulatory References

[Badabing Badablonde]

I don't get to post too often because I am usually at work. But in regards to the recent outrage on providing birth control, I just wanted to provide a shortcut to our FR mavericks who are doing such an excellent job of defending an agency/office/company's right to refuse to pay for medical or health-related services for which that entity holds moral of religious objections.

My agency is required to review contracts, rates, and elements of state healthcare programs against the following regulations:

1932(b)(3)(B)(i)
42 CFR 438.102(a)(2)
SMD letter 2/20/98

1932 is a section of the Social Security Act. The 438 section of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) is a section that deals primarily with managed care, but the provisions are typical across all elements of service delivery in Medicaid and Medicare. SMD is simply a state Medicaid letter.

Basically, these regulations state that an MCO, inpatient health plan, or ambulatory health plan that would otherwise be required to provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage of, a counseling or referral service is not required to do so if the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP objects to the service on moral or religious grounds. We protect these provisions, and will not approve any contracts or policy that does not reflect these protections.

In addition, 42 CFR and Title XXI allows for states to implement unborn or prenatal amendments to their CHIP state plans. Simply, this means that services can be provided to pregnant women who meet the financial criteria for services if that service benefits the health of an unborn infant. I find this interesting. Our tax dollars pay for healthcare, as defined in the CFR and The Act, for unborn children, recognizing them as individuals who require and can aptly benefit from healthcare. Not a fetus, not a blob of tissue, but a viable human being.

Wish I could post more, but you get my drift. As always, I leave this to my fellow FReepers to provide the meaningful discussion.

[Badabing Badablonde]

I should clarify that it is 42 CFR 457 that covers CHIP services.

[circlecity]

"..job of defending an agency/office/company's right to refuse to pay for medical or health-related services for which that entity holds moral of religious objections."

A minor criticism here - there is no way that contraception qualifies as a "medical or health-related service".

[muawiyah]

Regulations, in general, are subordinate to law. The Obots think they changed the law. Of course they didn't. Nobody but Tony Wiener read it ~ and he wrote it all ~ and he went stark raving mad.

I'd imagine ObamaKKKare is actually unenforceable

[Badabing Badablonde]

You are incorrect. In the process of reviewing policy or contracts on the federal level, it does indeed qualify.

[muawiyah]

I still wonder what Nancy Pelosi would have done had she actually participated in writing ObamaKKKare ~ would she, in the end, gone crazy and tried to email pictures of her penis to others?

[Badabing Badablonde]

You are incorrect. In the process of reviewing policy or contracts on the federal level, it does indeed qualify.

[circlecity]

Y"ou are incorrect. In the process of reviewing policy or contracts on the federal level, it does indeed qualify."

Then I will restate. There is no way contraception constitutes a medical or health care service under the commonly accepted definition of those terms.

[Badabing Badablonde]

Political operatives, when it comes to current policy and regulations, are basically clueless, and have no idea what they are up against. They all labor under the delusion that their agendas can be enacted with the mere stroke of a pen. If Obama care is ever enforceable, it would take years to re-regulate the current legislation. The AG alone will bog it down for 20 years.

[Badabing Badablonde]

Nice try, but contraception falls under the authority of Family Planning services in Medicaid statutory services, which are considered medical and healthcare related services, and their implementation as such are industry standard. My point is that current regulation recognizes the autonomy of philosophical, moral, and religious grounds in the provision of services.

[circlecity]

"My point is that current regulation recognizes the autonomy of philosophical, moral, and religious grounds in the provision of services."

And my point is that arbitrary goverment definitions have no necessary relation to reality, as calling consequence free recreational sex "medical services" clearly demonstrates.