More

Indiana Medicaid Plan Banning Planned Parenthood Funding Rejected By HHS

Mitch Daniels Planned Parenthood Bill

First Posted: 06/01/11 05:49 PM ET Updated: 08/01/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Health and Human Services Department has rejected the state of Indiana's request to block Medicaid recipients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood.

Indiana lawmakers passed a bill in May that prevents Medicaid from contracting with any entity that provides abortions, which effectively cut millions of dollars in funding from Planned Parenthood. But Donald Berwick, head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), sent a letter to Indiana's Medicaid office on Wednesday saying that the bill violates federal Medicaid law because it discriminates against Planned Parenthood for reasons other than its ability to provide quality health services.

"We assume this decision is not unexpected," the letter says. "As the Indiana Legislative Services Agency indicated in its April 19, 2011, fiscal impact statement, 'While States are permitted to waive a recipient's freedom of choice of a provider to implement managed care, restricting freedom of choice with respect to providers of family planning services is prohibited.'"

The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding of abortion services, except in cases of rape or incest, but Republican lawmakers insist that Planned Parenthood is using taxpayer dollars for abortions.

"The fundamental issue is that when we take tax dollars and fund any entity that performs abortions, we're forcing taxpayers to support a practice that many feel is objectionable," State Sen. Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis), the author of the provision to cut Planned Parenthood's funding, told HuffPost in an interview.

It is unclear what the consequences will be if Indiana fails to comply with federal Medicaid law, but an Indiana government official told reporters in April that violating it could cost Indiana all $4 million of the federal funds it receives for family planning.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana -- which, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has challenged the defunding bill in federal court -- said Berwick's decision "confirm[s] what we've been saying all along."

"This new law is already preventing PPIN Medicaid patients from receiving some services, such as long-term contraceptives, and could ultimately cause 9,300 Medicaid patients to lose their preferred provider of Pap tests, STD testing and treatment, and birth control," said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of PPIN. "The message from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is clear, you cannot prevent Medicaid patients from choosing their family planning providers. I trust the State of Indiana will do the right thing, not only for PPIN patients, but for all Medicaid patients in the state and reverse its course."

"Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of a provider's scope of practice," Berwick wrote in a letter to Patricia Cassanova, the director of Indiana's office of Medicaid Policy and Planning. "Such a restriction would have a particular effect on beneficiaries' ability to access family planning providers."

Indiana's law bars Planned Parenthood offices in the state from receiving federal money because it provides abortions, among other services.

Indiana should change its plan to conform with federal law, or the state could face penalties, the letter said, noting that Indiana has 60 days to appeal. In the past, state Medicaid plans that did not conform with federal law have been changed by states before HHS enforced any penalties.

In addition to Berwick's letter, HHS also posted a notice on Wednesday to other interested parties that sought to make clear that the department would take a dim view of similar efforts to ban specific providers from federal funds.

Indiana officials should have expected the proposed changes to the state's Medicaid plan would be rejected, Berwick wrote.

"We assume this decision is not unexpected," Berwick wrote. "As the Indiana Legislative Services Agency indicated in its April 19, 2011, fiscal impact statement, `While states are permitted to waive a recipient's freedom of choice of a provider to implement managed care, restricting freedom of choice with respect to providers of family planning services is prohibited.'"

The HHS notice, written by Cindy Mann, the director of the Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification, emphasizes that states may bar providers from participating in Medicaid in certain circumstances, such as if a provider is committing fraud or criminal acts.

"States are not, however, permitted to exclude providers from the program solely on the basis of the range of medical services they provide," Mann wrote.

Medicaid is a federal-state partnership that nationwide now covers more than 60 million low-income children and parents, seniors, including most nursing home residents, and disabled people of any age.

Federal law prohibits using any federal funds, including Medicaid funding, to provide abortions. While Planned Parenthood provides abortion services, it also provides other services such as preventative care, cancer screenings, and family planning and is eligible to receive Medicaid funding for its other services.

Planned Parenthood operates 28 clinics in Indiana, four of which perform abortions. The state chapter has said federal funding makes up about 20 percent of its annual budget.

In recent days, HHS has come under lobbying from both Democrats and Republicans on the issue. Last week, a group of Democratic senators called on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to inform Indiana that its ban didn't comply with federal law.

In response, eight Republican members of Indiana's congressional delegation sent Sebelius a letter calling on her to support the state's law.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Health and Human Services Department has rejected the state of Indiana's request to block Medicaid recipients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood. Indiana lawmakers passed ...
WASHINGTON -- The Health and Human Services Department has rejected the state of Indiana's request to block Medicaid recipients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood. Indiana lawmakers passed ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,035
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (46 total)
01:39 AM on 06/09/2011
The government uses people's tax dollars to do things that we object to all the time. No one agrees with 100% of what tax revenues get spent on, so trying to defund everything that a segment of the electorate doesn't like or finds morally objectionable is ridiculous. We'd end up with a government that performed 0 functions and paid for nothing.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
beingthebest
try as I might, I'm only human
07:11 AM on 06/04/2011
cougar4247
2 Fans
Become a fan
8 hours ago (11:33 PM)
I don't know if you have ever had an abortion, but, if you had, is your life now free of heartache and pain? Are you now living that carefree and joyous life that PP promises,
----
cougar4247
2 Fans
Become a fan
7 hours ago (11:59 PM)
Does abortion make the raped woman "unraped"? Does it take the woman out of the incestuous situation? In fact since PP does not report these cases to the appropriat­e authoritie­s, they aid and abet the rapist and the men committing incest. How many men have been arrested for rape or incest because of informatio­n provided by PP? PP knows full well that if they return the women back into the incestuous situation the chances are very high that they will reap the benefits of multiple abortions from the same woman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are one sick person and I have no idea where you get your ideas from. To accuse the good Doctors and Nurses of wanting women to be in incest relationships so they could "benefit" is just unreal and further than anyone would dare take it.

Your condescending, and your facts are wrong. You are what is wrong with America today, right there, in a nutshell.
03:14 PM on 06/07/2011
Sorry you can't face the truth. If the "good doctors and nurses" were interested in helping the woman caught up in an incestuous relationship they would report the situation to the police. By performing and abortion, they get rid of all evidence of the incentuous situation. So she goes back home no longer pregnant. What do you think is going to happen in due time? She's going to get pregnant again. My, what a great service those "good doctors and nurses" at PP have provided for her. They sure are looking out for her interests.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
beingthebest
try as I might, I'm only human
08:28 AM on 06/09/2011
See below
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jhnnxn
When discussing tax revenues don't feel, th
08:05 PM on 06/08/2011
Abortion doctors would be destroying evidence in that situation. That would make them criminals wouldn't it? Unless you buy into the "good faith/ utter ignorance" aspect of course
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
beingthebest
try as I might, I'm only human
08:32 AM on 06/09/2011
Here's where both your arguements fall apart. The law states women have the right to make decisions on their own (the exception is underage girls.) If a women choses not to tell her Dr. of a rape or incest, that is her business. She has the right to report it or not. Given what women go through when they do report it, who could blame those that don't. The women has the right to tell a Dr. (in confidence, which the Dr. ca NOT break) what has happened to her, and the Dr. can NOT legally break that confidence.

Now for underage minors, the Dr. is required to report any incest situation to social services, but not a rape.

So legally, neither of your arguments hold any water and if a Dr. followed your desires, they would be sued for breach of confidentiality.

But once again, all of your arguments are based on your belief that women can NOT decide for themselves what is best for them and some authority figure must do it for them.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
theerrantsoul
06:25 PM on 06/02/2011
I simply cannot consider something that is incapable of living outside of a separate human body as a "person"; it's a parasite. What right to life has something that cannot even breathe? In instances where a living human is comatose and cannot breathe without assistance, it's the decision of their next of kin to decide whether or not to continue to give them that assistance -- I feel the same applies whether that assistance is technological or biological. It's a potential person, sure -- but last time I checked, a pile of lumber next to some tools isn't a house, a big, empty hole in the ground is not a lake until after it rains, an acorn is not an oak tree, and turning in incomplete homework to a teacher will get you a bad grade even if the answers are in your head. Let's face it -- human reproduction is an imperfect, unpredictable process. But it's the best we've got. I don't approve of making women a slave to that process for any reason, however tragic.
photo
K August
Research alecexposed
03:17 PM on 06/02/2011
If men were able to get pregnant, this topic wouldn't see the light of day.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:00 PM on 06/02/2011
Interesting point ... I never thought of it quite that way.

Kind of in-line with the research and treatment of heart disease. The focus is on men although women are at an equally high risk of heart attack and heart disease.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shannington
You'll get as much respect as you give me.
03:09 PM on 06/02/2011
"If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representa­­tion."
-- Abigail Adams
photo
alterego55
"Always intended to be a factual statement"
04:01 PM on 06/02/2011
Old men making laws for young women and their doctors.
almedoz
Shh! Don't tell my Dad I'm here...
04:35 PM on 06/02/2011
Got to love Abigail - #1042.
3RawBob
venti latte w/3 raw sugars
03:02 PM on 06/02/2011
Indiana is not going to obey the HHS ruling. All eyes now turn to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who previously denied PP’s request to put a hold on the law. She will hear the case on Monday, June 6 and said she will announce her decision before July 1, 2011.
letsbepeaceful
oh no, my micro-bio is now full...
05:07 PM on 06/02/2011
Ok. Then they will lose some $4 million in Federal funds.
3RawBob
venti latte w/3 raw sugars
06:16 PM on 06/02/2011
Indiana may like to have the funds cut off. Presently the Federal Government pays between 66% and 90% of the costs associated with Medicaid patients. Assuming that presently $4,000,000 is paid by the Feds and that money is withheld, most, if not all, vendors will refuse Medicaid patients. Indiana would save approximately $1,000,000 by not having to pay their portion.
photo
alterego55
"Always intended to be a factual statement"
02:57 PM on 06/02/2011
The Republican Party has resorted to legislative masturbation. They pass legislation that makes themselves feel good, but will serve no social purpose.
We've seen it with the attempt to repeal healthcare reform, we've seen it with Ryan's budget proposal to kill Medicare, and now we're seeing it at the state level - passing laws that are unenforceable so they can be highly thought of by the religious right. Indiana, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida - all facing lawsuits because their legislators are overstepping.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bop54jen
03:53 PM on 06/02/2011
Speaking as a Hoosier woman, don't forget the problems this law causes for the women of Indiana...affect goes far beyond lawsuits and hassles in compliance...comes down to birth countrol, std prevention and basic care...what a mess!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanwyck
02:31 PM on 06/02/2011
Good news for women's health. Planned Parenthood offers preventative cancer screening for thousands of women.
02:22 PM on 06/02/2011
The War on Planned Par­enthood: Legislatio­n in Lieu of Stones and Veils

http://tin­yurl.com/3­lobrow
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jolsen
02:20 PM on 06/02/2011
I love how the general consensus seems to be that having an abortion is a pleasant activity that has to be limited. I'm sure that 99% of people see it as the lesser evil.... well, except my wife who says "It's not a choice, it's a child -- so kill it now."

Anyway, I've always thought that we should table the abortion debate until we educate the children we have now, until we feed the ones we have now, and until we support the ones we have now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbishop76
Left of liberal Texan.
07:08 PM on 06/02/2011
I seriously think I love your wife! LMAO
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim NLN
Obama 2012 and beyond!
02:07 PM on 06/02/2011
"The fundamental issue is that when we take tax dollars and fund any entity that performs abortions, we're forcing taxpayers to support a practice that many feel is objectionable," State Sen. Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis), the author of the provision to cut Planned Parenthood's funding, told HuffPost in an interview.

What about all of the things I feel is objectionable. Can we stop funding those also?
02:02 PM on 06/02/2011
Because heaven knows medicaid recipients are not the ones who need Planned Parenthood.
01:48 PM on 06/02/2011
Lets trade. All of the states that don't want their funds going to Planned Parenthood will pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (retroactively of course), and all of the states who support a women's right to choose can use their funds to pay for Planned Parenthood (can do retroactive to 2003 just to be fair). This way the right who who finds the practice of abortion objectionable can trade off with the left which finds the practice of preimminent war justified under false pretenses objectionable.

I don't think IN would mind the cut in family planning services. More low income voters to be brainwashed into voting against their own interests.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rainkitty
Lively up yourself.
01:46 PM on 06/02/2011
Nation pays steep price for high rates of unwanted pregnancy:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/05/19/index.html
01:27 PM on 06/02/2011
The best solution for true planned parenthood would be to remove the current system of gauging the amount of money given in public benefits according to the number of children in the family.As it stands now having more kids equals more money,not a sound fiscal practice.