| | | | |  | | By Chelsea Cirruzzo and Ben Leonard | | Presented by |  | | | | | | | 
Abortion-rights supporters rally for reproductive rights and emergency abortion care outside the U.S. Supreme Court in April as it hears arguments regarding EMTALA. | Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images | SPOTLIGHT ON EMERGENCY ABORTIONS — The Biden administration has been wielding federal law to preserve abortion access in medical emergencies in states that have otherwise banned the procedure. But that strategy has so far had limited impact — and a Supreme Court decision this month could narrow its impact further, POLITICO’s Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly report. Republicans in Idaho asked the Supreme Court to decide whether state bans or federal law take precedence. But the ruling is unlikely to be the final word. No matter how the high court rules, medical groups say there will continue to be widespread fear and confusion in states with abortion bans about whether and when they can treat patients in emergencies. Legal experts and doctors on the front lines in states with abortion bans say the threat of being thrown in prison under red-state abortion bans looms much larger than a possible fine from the federal government. Providers — torn between the two — are in many cases hewing more closely to state than federal law and denying critical emergency care in crisis situations. “Some of these hospitals would rather be seen as denying care to a patient than providing an abortion that maybe was potentially illegal,” Dr. Emily Corrigan, an OB-GYN based in Boise, Idaho, told POLITICO. Anti-abortion advocates see this push for more clarity on when they can provide abortions in medical emergencies as an end-run around state abortion bans, arguing that allowing doctors to use their “reasonable medical judgment” to decide when to perform the procedure is protective enough. They fear that a Supreme Court ruling for the Biden administration on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, would not only allow, but in some cases require, doctors and hospitals to perform abortions in non-emergency situations for fear of losing federal funding. Erin Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said those financial penalties are “quite severe for both doctors and hospitals.” “It would mean that they’re not able to participate in Medicaid and Medicare. I don’t know of many hospitals — or of any — that are willing to give that up,” she said. The White House declined to share the number of EMTALA violations reported since the Dobbs decision, the number the administration has investigated, the number of facilities found to be out of compliance and what happened to those facilities. Jen Klein, the director of the White House’s Gender Policy Council, said the administration “will continue to work with doctors and hospitals to help ensure that every patient receives the emergency medical care required under federal law.” WELCOME TO THURSDAY PULSE. 50 Cent was in Da House (literally — he visited the House of Representatives) yesterday. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to ccirruzzo@politico.com and bleonard@politico.com and follow along @ChelseaCirruzzo and @_BenLeonard_.
| | | | A message from the American Health Care Association: America’s seniors need our help – now. The Administration’s federal staffing mandate will force more nursing homes to close and displace hundreds of thousands of residents. Nursing homes need targeted investments, not blanket mandates. Learn more about our workforce solutions. | | | | | | | 
The Senate failed to pass the Right to Contraception Act on Wednesday. | Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images | CONTRACEPTION BILL BLOCKED — A bill to protect Americans’ access to birth control failed in the Senate on Wednesday, Alice reports. It was the latest in a series of legislative efforts by Democrats to protect reproductive rights leading up to the November election. Only Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) broke with the GOP to vote in favor of the legislation, which failed 51 to 39 — short of the 60 votes needed to advance. The vote comes on the heels of former President Donald Trump telling a local television station that he’s “looking at” restrictions on contraception and just ahead of the two-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision that ended the federal right to abortion. Trump quickly walked back his comment in a social media post, vowing never to “ban” birth control. But Democrats point to Trump’s comments as part of the broader fallout of losing Roe v. Wade and argue that Republicans will limit access to contraception if given the chance. FIRST IN PULSE: PUSH FOR PARITY — A group of Senate Democrats is pressuring the Biden administration to finalize rules requiring insurers to provide mental health care on the same terms as other care amid pushback from a powerful group of employer organizations, Ben reports. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut is leading an effort alongside Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont, Alex Padilla of California, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Ed Markey of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, urging the Biden administration to stay the course. They argued in a letter to the administration that the measure would make a significant dent in the nation’s mental health and substance-use disorder crises. “The Biden administration’s proposed rules from last summer would be a game changer,” Murphy told Pulse, saying insurers often “dodge compliance.” “It’s time to finalize these rules and hold insurers accountable.” Several mental health advocacy groups have also advocated for the administration to finalize them swiftly. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. The ERISA Industry Committee, the Partnership for Employer-Sponsored Coverage and the Chamber of Commerce, among others, recently wrote to the administration arguing the proposal would be “unworkable” and undermine access to care. Insurers have also slammed the proposal, saying it wouldn’t address underlying workforce shortages, which they say limit access to care. The proposal would include fines if insurers don’t close loopholes the administration says they’re using to limit what they pay for mental health care. Looking forward: The Treasury Department has targeted June to finalize the rules, though it’s not clear exactly when they will be wrapped up.
| | | | THE GOLD STANDARD OF HEALTHCARE POLICY REPORTING & INTELLIGENCE: POLITICO has more than 500 journalists delivering unrivaled reporting and illuminating the policy and regulatory landscape for those who need to know what’s next. Throughout the election and the legislative and regulatory pushes that will follow, POLITICO Pro is indispensable to those who need to make informed decisions fast. The Pro platform dives deeper into critical and quickly evolving sectors and industries, like healthcare, equipping policymakers and those who shape legislation and regulation with essential news and intelligence from the world’s best politics and policy journalists.
Our newsroom is deeper, more experienced and better sourced than any other. Our healthcare reporting team—including Alice Miranda Ollstein, Megan Messerly and Robert King—is embedded with the market-moving legislative committees and agencies in Washington and across states, delivering unparalleled coverage of health policy and the healthcare industry. We bring subscribers inside the conversations that determine policy outcomes and the future of industries, providing insight that cannot be found anywhere else. Get the premier news and policy intelligence service, SUBSCRIBE TO POLITICO PRO TODAY. | | | | | | | | | SOCIAL MEDIA, ABORTION PILL ON DOCKET — Decisions could be handed down from the Supreme Court in several health policy-related cases this month, including one on restricting access to a pill used in medication abortion and another on how federal officials can regulate social media posts. Here’s what we’re watching: — Mifepristone: The court heard arguments in March brought by anti-abortion provider groups that want to restrict access to mifepristone, a widely used abortion drug. Justices, however, were skeptical that the anti-abortion doctors could prove concrete injuries that gave them standing to sue. A win for the Biden administration would be a victory for the FDA’s authority to regulate prescription drugs. — Social media: Louisiana and Missouri, plus seven individual plaintiffs, have argued that top Biden officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to remove disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines and election fraud. A win for the plaintiffs could restrict how federal governments interact with social media companies, but the Supreme Court in March didn’t seem sure that federal officials’ emails to social media companies meet the legal definition of coercion. — Chevron: Conservative justices on the high court seemed open to weakening the power of federal agencies by overturning or shrinking the so-called Chevron doctrine, which could give courts the ability to strike down regulations, including those on health care. Legal and health policy experts say this could lead to more challenges to Medicare payment rules, pandemic-era rules on vaccines and FDA regulations on medical devices.
| | | | A message from the American Health Care Association:   | | | | | WHEN TAX CREDITS EXPIRE — Health insurance costs would steeply rise if premium tax credits expire after 2025, according to a new analysis by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Why it matters: According to CMS, 92 percent of marketplace enrollees qualified for premium tax credits, which were enacted in the American Rescue Plan and extended through the Inflation Reduction Act, this year. President Joe Biden has called on Congress to make the tax credits permanent following Republicans’ proposals last year to eliminate or reduce them. According to the analysis, premium costs will rise for most people, becoming apparent in mid-2025 when insurers make their rates public. For example, the analysis says an individual at 144 percent of the federal poverty line would no longer be eligible for zero-premium plans and would see their monthly premium rise to $66 — an annual increase of $792. The CBPP analysis estimates that premiums would rise the most for states with high marketplace premiums already, such as West Virginia, older enrollees who pay higher premiums, and people who make 400 percent of the federal poverty line who would lose subsidies altogether.
| | | | JOIN US ON 6/13 FOR A TALK ON THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE: As Congress and the White House work to strengthen health care affordability and access, innovative technologies and treatments are increasingly important for patient health and lower costs. What barriers are appearing as new tech emerges? Is the Medicare payment process keeping up with new technologies and procedures? Join us on June 13 as POLITICO convenes a panel of lawmakers, officials and experts to discuss what policy solutions could expand access to innovative therapies and tech. REGISTER HERE. | | | | | | | | | The New York Times reports on the findings of a new long Covid report that underscores its seriousness. POLITICO’s David Lim reports on a fatal human case of bird flu reported in Mexico. POLITICO’s Meredith Lee Hill reports on avian flu in an Iowa dairy herd, the first in the state.
| | | | A message from the American Health Care Association: America’s seniors need our help – now.
The Administration’s federal staffing mandate will worsen the ongoing labor crisis in nursing homes, forcing more facilities to downsize or close.
Hundreds of thousands of residents will be displaced – and seniors’ access to care restricted – if lawmakers fail to act.
An unfunded mandate won’t create more caregivers. Congress: Protect seniors’ access to care – before it’s too late.
Learn more about the issue. | | | | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment