In their effort to override the President's veto of legislation
to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),
Members of Congress have added to the "compromise" legislation
(H.R. 3963) two little noticed provisions that would undermine
parents' right to consent to--or even know about--medical care
given to their children through school-based health clinics. Such
"medical care" could involve as intimate and delicate a matter as
giving contraceptives to children. If the proposed legislation goes
into effect, federal laws and regulations would make contraception
available to millions of children, for free, while prohibiting
doctors and schools from informing the children's parents.
SCHIP Pays for Family Planning
Currently, SCHIP allows each state to provide "prepregnancy
family planning services and supplies" [1] to eligible children, and
then pass on the bulk of the costs to the federal taxpayer. Within
a few years of the passage of SCHIP in 1997, nearly every state had
taken advantage of this new avenue of funding to offer a wide range
of contraceptive services to children, including oral
contraceptives, contraceptive implants, and "the morning-after
pill."[2] Many of these states also included
provisions in the programs they designed that made it illegal to
notify parents when their children requested contraceptive
services.[3]
The Medicaid Connection
While, by itself, SCHIP allows states to fund family
planning services for teens, according to the way it is frequently
implemented, in much of the country it would go even further and
require such funding if H.R. 3963 becomes law. In as many as
32 states and the District of Columbia,[4] SCHIP works as an expansion
of Medicaid; state officials simply add to their Medicaid programs
children who were previously ineligible under the original Medicaid
rules. In those states, therefore, the proposed SCHIP expansion
bill would also basically expand Medicaid--along with all of its
existing rules and regulations.
Since 1972, Medicaid statutes have mandated that all states
provide contraceptives and other family planning supplies to all
"individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be
considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the
State plan and who desire such services and supplies."[5]
Medicaid has been the number one source of taxpayer funding for
contraception and other family planning supplies and services
nationwide, accounting for 61 percent of all public funds spent on
contraception in 2001.[6] One out of every eight women of
reproductive age has used Medicaid to pay for services and supplies
related to family planning.[7] The proposed SCHIP expansion of Medicaid
into the middle class would be taking what is already the federal
government's largest source of family planning funds and inviting
even more children to join--400,000 more, according to the
Congressional Budget Office estimate.[8]
Parental Notification Problems
Under the language of the latest SCHIP legislation, many more
children would be able to receive contraception without their
parents' knowledge or consent. According to federal law, those who
provide Medicaid benefits are prohibited from sharing
"confidential" information about the patients, regardless of the
age of the patient.[9] Doctors and school nurses who care for
children covered under Medicaid are not allowed to inform parents
about the "confidential" care being given unless the child signs a
consent form. In many states, because the SCHIP expansion of
Medicaid is accompanied by an extension of the regulations that
accompany Medicaid, all eligible children who qualify for SCHIP
funds can get contraceptive services without letting their parents
know about it.
Under the proposed SCHIP expansion, where Medicaid becomes the
vehicle for state SCHIP coverage, it would be easier and less
expensive for children to engage in risky sexual behavior, and
parental and community oversight would be weakened. Medicaid
requires the states to provide contraception to each eligible
minor, regardless of age, who is sexually active and
requests contraception. Under Medicaid-SCHIP, any eligible child
who has reached puberty has a legal right to contraception[10]
and a legal right to confidentiality.[11] This legal and regulatory
regime endures, even though robust findings in the professional
literature clearly show that teen sexual activity is fraught with
serious risks including health risks.[12]
Under the language of the SCHIP "compromise," even more taxpayer
dollars would be available for third-party contractors such as
Planned Parenthood. If anything, Congress should intensify
oversight of the existing family planning clinics. According to
recent media accounts, certain clinics have failed to report
statutory rape, in violation of local mandatory reporting laws,[13] or
have been caught explicitly encouraging children to lie about their
age to avoid the reporting laws.[14]
School-Based Clinics: Sections 506 and
616
Two provisions of the "compromise" bill, sections 506 and 616,
would allow SCHIP and Medicaid funding to go to school-based health
clinics, making it easier and cheaper to provide free contraception
to children without their parents' knowledge.
Over the last several months, there has been an intense debate
about several Medicaid regulations, which had the effect of
restricting the use of Medicaid and SCHIP funds used in
school-based clinics. Under current rules, most school-based
clinics are not eligible for federal reimbursement for
contraceptives or other health care, unless they meet rigorous
criteria.[15] Pending federal regulations--designed to
fight billions of dollars worth of state Medicaid fraud[16]--would make the eligibility criteria even
more rigorous.[17]
In May 2007, a little-noticed provision of the catch-all "U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007" was used to delay the
implementation of such regulations.[18] The House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, held heated hearings on the
regulations on November 1.[19] The SCHIP legislation before Congress
would annul all the recent regulations[20] and explicitly allow
school-based clinics to receive SCHIP and Medicaid funds, under
which family planning services are an eligible expenditure.[21]
Together, these provisions would have the effect of lifting many
of the federal restrictions governing the use of Medicaid or SCHIP
funds in health clinics that are "school-based." This would make it
easier for clinics and third-party contractors such as Planned
Parenthood[22] to distribute contraceptives in the
schools at a discounted rate[23] and--in those states in
which SCHIP extends Medicaid coverage--without parental
knowledge.
Conclusion
The SCHIP "compromise" would make Medicaid-based family planning
programs available to potentially millions of children. It would
widen the scope of the same Medicaid "confidentiality" rules that
make it illegal for a child's doctor or health care provider to
contact the parents of covered children when they notice the
children are seeking contraceptive services or engaging in risky
sexual behavior. Finally, the legislation would nullify a number of
regulatory barriers, making it easier to distribute taxpayer-funded
contraception directly to children through clinics based in the
schools.
On SCHIP, Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and
design a better policy for the coverage of uninsured children. Such
a policy would expand, not contract, parental freedom over their
children's coverage. It would expand, not contract, the choices
available to families. It would deeply respect, rather than
cavalierly dismiss, the ethical, moral, and religious convictions
of Americans in the provision of health services for their
children.
Daniel Patrick
Moloney is Senior Policy Analyst in the DeVos Center for
Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Section 2110(a)(9) of the Social Security
Act.
[2]Rachel Benson Gold and Adam Sonfield,
"Reproductive Health Services for Adolescents Under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program," Family Planning
Perspectives, v. 33, no. 2, March/April 2001, pp. 81-87, at
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3308101.pdf.
[4]Ten
states (Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) and the District of
Columbia simply apply Medicaid rules. Twenty-two states (Arkansas,
California, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia) have a program that
combines Medicaid components with state-designed components. See
"State Children's Health Insurance Program Plan Activity as of
January 18, 2007," Heritage Foundation chart, at www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/images/B2029_map1-lg.gif.
Not all of the combination programs provide the same health care
coverage in the same way. For instance, some cover family planning
by extending Medicaid, while others cover family planning under the
state-designed portion of the plan. But wherever a component of a
combination plan involves an extension of Medicaid, Medicaid rules
apply.
[5]Section 1905(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security
Act. Emphasis added.
[7]Medicaid's Role in Family Planning,
Kaiser Family Foundation and Alan Guttmacher Institute Issue
Brief No. 7064-03, October 2007, at www.guttmacher.org/pubs/IB_medicaidFP.pdf
(November 15, 2007). Family planning services and supplies include,
inter alia: condoms, oral contraceptives, injectable
contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, spermacides, the diaphragm,
"the morning-after pill," tubal ligation, and contraceptive
counseling.
[9]1902(a)(7)(A) and 1902(a)(8) of the Social
Security Act; 42 CFR 441.20. The interpretation of the statutes
prohibiting states from passing parental notification and consent
laws was upheld by the Supreme Court. See T.H. v. Jones 425
F. Supp. 823 (1975), 425 US 986 (1976). See also Abigail English
and Carol A. Ford, "The HIPAA privacy rule and adolescents: legal
questions and clinical challenges," Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health v. 36, n.2, March/April 2004, at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_2_36/ai_n6069101/print
(November 27, 2007); and "Parental Consent and Notice for
Contraceptives Threatens Teen Health and Constitutional Rights,"
Center for Reproductive Rights Domestic Fact Sheet No. F008,
November 2006, at www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_parentalconsent.html
(November 15, 2007).
[10]Section 1905(a)(4)(C) and Section 1902(a)(8)
of the Social Security Act.
[11]Section 1902(a)(7)(A) of the Social Security
Act; 42 CFR 441.20.
[13]See Robert D. Novak, "A New Front in the
Abortion Wars," The Washington Post,
Thursday, October 25, 2007, p. A25, at
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402345.html
(November 15, 2007). See also Charlotte Allen, "Planned
Parenthood's Unseemly Empire: The billion-dollar "non-profit,'"
The Weekly Standard, October 22, 2007, Volume 013, Issue 06,
at
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/223livny.asp
(November 15, 2007).
[14]See the report by Life Dynamics, a pro-life
group that investigated several federally funded clinics and found
evidence of widespread noncompliance with laws against statutory
rape: Mark Crutcher, "Child Predators: Exposing the Partnership
Between Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation and
Men Who Sexually Abuse Underage Girls," Life Dynamics Special
Report, at www.childpredators.com/Forms/ChildPredators.pdf
(November 15, 2007).
[16]Based upon studies by the Department of
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the
General Accounting Office. See Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, "CMS Proposes Improvements to Medicaid Payments," Fact
Sheet, at www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=2445
(November 28, 2007). Also available at
www.ppsm.net/mac/CMSCuts/SchoolBasedServicesFactSheetFinal8_31.pdf.
[17]CMS Final Rule CMS-2258-FC, Reg. vol. 72, No.
102, pp. 29748ff, May 29, 2007; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
CMS-2287-P, Fed. Reg. vol. 72, No. 173, pp. 51397-51403, September
7, 2007; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CMS-2213-P, Fed. Reg. vol.
72, No. 188, pp. 55158-55166, September 28, 2007.
[20]The Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R. 3963, Section 616, at www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_schip2.pdf
(November 15, 2007). The section reads: Moratorium on Certain
Payment Restrictions.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall not, prior to January 1, 2010, take
any action (through promulgation of regulation, issuance of
regulatory guidance, use of federal payment audit procedures, or
other administrative action, policy, or practice, including a
Medical Assistance Manual transmittal or letter to State Medicaid
directors) to restrict coverage or payment under title XIX of the
Social Security Act for rehabilitation services, or school-based
administration, transportation, or medical services if such
restrictions are more restrictive in any aspect than those applied
to such coverage or payment as of July 1, 2007. (Emphasis
added)
[21]The Children's Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R. 3963, Section 506, at www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_schip2.pdf
(on November 15, 2007). The section reads: "Nothing in this title
shall be construed as limiting a State's ability to provide child
health assistance for covered items and services that are furnished
through school-based health centers."
[22]Planned Parenthood was explicitly mentioned
in the legislative history of this part of the Medicaid act as
being a potential contractor for providing contraceptives to
minors. Cf. S.Rep. No. 92-1230, 92d Cong. (1972) (cited in 425
F.Supp 878, note 3): "Commenting on section 299E of the Senate bill
amending Titles IV A and XIX of the Social Security Act, the Senate
Finance Committee reported: "The committee amendment would
authorize States to make available on a voluntary and confidential
basis family planning counseling, services, and supplies, directly
and/or on a contract basis with family planning organizations
(such as Planned Parenthood clinics and Neighborhood Health
Centers) throughout the State, to present, former, or potential
recipients including any eligible medically needy individuals who
are of child-bearing age and who desire such services. The
Secretary would be required to work with the States to assure that
particular effort is made in the provision of family planning
services to minors (and non-minors) who have never had children
but who can be considered to be sexually active...'" (Emphasis
added.)
[23]Section 1903(a)(5) of the Social Security
Act.