Connect with us

Montana

Montana proposes restricting Medicaid-funded abortions

Published

on

Montana proposes restricting Medicaid-funded abortions


Katheryn Houghton

Montana’s conservative leaders, stymied by the courts from passing legal guidelines that impose vital statewide abortion restrictions, search to tighten the state’s Medicaid guidelines to make it tougher for low-income girls to obtain abortions.

The Montana Division of Public Well being and Human Providers is proposing to outline when an abortion is medically needed, restrict who can carry out such companies, and require preauthorization for many instances.

The push to vary the rules is borne of a perception by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte’s administration that well being suppliers are utilizing present guidelines that permit Medicaid reimbursements to cowl abortions that aren’t medically needed.

Advertisement

“Taxpayers should not foot the invoice for elective abortions,” stated Gianforte spokesperson Brooke Stroyke.

Medical professionals have stated the time period “elective abortions” can misrepresent the advanced causes somebody could search an abortion and constrain well being suppliers from making their greatest scientific judgment. Laurie Sobel, affiliate director of Ladies’s Well being Coverage at KFF, stated that seems to be the intention of the Montana proposal’s give attention to defining medically needed abortions.

“It seems like Montana’s making an attempt to curtail abortion entry underneath Medicaid and take the dialog of ‘medically needed’ away from a doctor and a affected person,” Sobel stated.
Democratic lawmakers and plenty of well being suppliers have stated present state guidelines guarantee suppliers think about and doc why an abortion is required to guard a affected person.

Democratic state Rep. Ed Stafman, who not too long ago chaired the Kids, Households, Well being, and Human Providers Interim Committee, stated the proposed modifications are pointless as a result of the state already complies with federal Medicaid guidelines on abortion.

“It is clear that that is a part of the anti-abortion agenda, Stafman stated.

Advertisement

States are barred from utilizing federal funds to pay for abortions besides in instances of rape, incest, and when a girl’s life is in danger. Nonetheless, states have the choice of utilizing their very own cash to permit reimbursements underneath the joint state-federal Medicaid program in different circumstances.

Montana is considered one of 16 states that permit using state Medicaid funds for abortions deemed medically needed. A research revealed in 2017 within the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology discovered that states with Medicaid protection of medically needed abortions had a decreased threat of extreme maternal morbidity for that inhabitants, 16% on common, in contrast with states with out that protection.

Montana’s proposed modifications are extra restrictive than the principles in most of the different states that permit medically needed Medicaid abortions. No less than 9 states that use state funds to pay for Medicaid abortions don’t require well being suppliers to report the circumstances for an abortion, in keeping with a 2019 U.S. Authorities Accountability Workplace report on state compliance with abortion protection guidelines.

For instance, California’s Medi-Cal program doesn’t require any medical justification for abortions, and requires preauthorization solely when the affected person must be hospitalized.

A lot of the states that allow medically needed Medicaid abortions, together with Montana, are underneath court docket orders to fund the process as they’d different normal well being companies for low-income folks.

Advertisement

Montana’s protection is tethered to a 1995 court docket case that decided the state’s Medicaid program was established to offer “needed medical companies” and the state can’t exclude particular companies. The state’s present eligibility guidelines governing when a Medicaid-funded service is medically needed embrace when a being pregnant would trigger struggling, ache, or a bodily deformity; end in sickness or infirmity; or threaten to trigger or worsen a incapacity.

Underneath the well being division’s new proposal, abortions could be decided to be medically needed solely when a doctor — not one other sort of supplier — certifies a affected person suffers from an sickness, situation, or damage that threatens their life or has a bodily or psychological situation that will be “considerably aggravated” by being pregnant.

Elsewhere, courts have rejected some states’ makes an attempt to create a definition for medically needed abortions other than present Medicaid requirements as constitutional violations of equal safety. The Alaska Supreme Courtroom struck down a 2013 state regulation altering the definition of a medically needed abortion as a result of it handled Medicaid beneficiaries who needed an abortion in a different way than these looking for pregnancy-related procedures like a cesarean part. And New Mexico’s excessive court docket stated in 1999 {that a} state rule limiting Medicaid-funded abortions utilized totally different requirements of medical necessity to women and men.

Montana opponents of the proposed modifications have threatened to sue if the rules are adopted.

The state’s Medicaid program covers greater than 153,900 girls. From 2011 via 2021, this system paid for five,614 abortion procedures, which generally represents practically a 3rd of all abortions within the state, in keeping with state knowledge.

Advertisement

Presently in Montana, docs, doctor assistants, and superior nurse practitioners are allowed to carry out abortions. No less than one Montana clinic that gives abortions to Medicaid beneficiaries is run by a nurse practitioner, All Households Healthcare’s Helen Weems, who’s suing the state for making an attempt to dam nurses from performing abortions.
Medical suppliers make the choice of whether or not an abortion is medically needed and submit a type afterward to the state well being division.

The proposed change would require suppliers to get state approval earlier than performing an abortion, besides in emergencies, and submit supporting paperwork to justify the medical necessity. That preauthorization course of would entail offering state officers particulars of sufferers’ medical historical past, resembling what number of pregnancies an individual has had, the date of their final menstrual cycle, whether or not they smoke, the outcomes of any being pregnant checks, and whether or not they have ever had behavioral well being points or substance use issues.

Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Deliberate Parenthood of Montana, stated suppliers already accumulate that info however don’t ship it to the state. If they’re required to take action, she stated, that may have a chilling impact which will hold folks from looking for assist or cause them to pay for it out-of-pocket, if they’ll.

“Sufferers may really feel like, ‘Oh, and every part that I let you know, it should be now shared with my insurer for the aim of them making a call about whether or not or not I can have an abortion?’” Fuller stated.

In Montana, a affected person looking for an abortion through remedy sometimes will get that via nurse practitioners or doctor assistants as a substitute of going via one of many few physicians that present that care via Medicaid, Fuller stated. She stated Medicaid sufferers would see longer wait occasions if the brand new guidelines are put in place as they wait to see a doctor. And ready for prior authorization would add to the time in limbo.

Advertisement

Telehealth helps present entry amid scattered assets throughout the large, rural state, however Montana’s proposed modifications would require a bodily examination.

“Sufferers may need to make a extra invasive process. They might need to journey. They need to take extra break day from work,” Fuller stated. “There will likely be sufferers who will resolve to not search abortion care as a result of they can’t afford it.”

Of the 1,418 abortions coated by Montana Medicaid in 2020 and 2021, state information present, one was carried out as a result of an individual’s life was at risk. The remainder have been carried out underneath the broader medically needed justification, with paperwork about these instances together with a quick rationalization for why the process was wanted.
In response to the state’s proposed guidelines, the dearth of supporting documentation for the procedures leads “the division to moderately consider that the Medicaid program is paying for abortions that aren’t really medically needed.”

In 2021, state lawmakers handed and Gianforte signed three legal guidelines limiting abortions {that a} court docket quickly blocked. The Montana Supreme Courtroom upheld the injunction arguing that the state structure’s right-to-privacy provision extends to abortion.

Gianforte and the state legal professional normal have referred to as on the Montana Supreme Courtroom to strike down the two-decade-old ruling that tied abortion entry to the proper to privateness. Republican lawmakers even have filed a slew of abortion-related payments within the legislative session, together with one proposal to exclude abortion from the state’s right-to-privacy protections.

Advertisement

KHN (Kaiser Well being Information) is a nationwide newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about well being points. Along with Coverage Evaluation and Polling, KHN is among the three main working packages at KFF (Kaiser Household Basis). KFF is an endowed nonprofit group offering info on well being points to the nation.
Tweets:





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Montana group welcomes South Dakotans seeking abortion, reproductive care

Published

on

Montana group welcomes South Dakotans seeking abortion, reproductive care


A Montana-based abortion rights group is reaching out to neighboring states announcing abortion and contraception are legal and available there.

South Dakota has a near total abortion ban, which extends to pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Health care professionals say the state’s current abortion exception is unclear.

“Minnesota and Colorado are being so inundated with volume from other states that they might have wait times,” said Nicole Smith, executive director of Montanans for Choice.

Smith said the number of South Dakota women travelling to Montana is quite small. That’s why the group is raising awareness that the state is an option to procure the procedure, which includes a billboard campaign that welcomes those seeking the procedure.

Advertisement

 “In Montana, we can see people same day that they get here, pretty much,” Smith said. “We just want folks to know that we do have a lot of availability and if they don’t want to wait and they can get into Montana—we can probably see them pretty quickly.”

Since September last year, 280 South Dakotans travelled to Minnesota for an abortion and 170 travelled to Colorado for the procedure. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive health group.

The closest abortion facilities to South Dakota in Montana are located in Billings. Smith says clinics also offer abortion medication through telemedicine.

Smith said Montana’s constitution has strong health care privacy rights.

“We have almost unfettered access to abortion in Montana,” Smith added. “There’s no mandatory waiting periods. There’s no mandatory counselling. We have telehealth for medication abortion. We’re very grateful that our constitution has protected those rights—that doctors and providers are able to give best practice medicine to us without politicians interfering in that way.”

Advertisement

South Dakota voters are set to vote on whether to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution this November. Constitutional Amendment G grants South Dakota women access to abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy. It allows the state to restrict the procedure in the third trimester, with exceptions for health and life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood North Central States believe the measure will not “adequately reinstate” abortion access in the state. Abortion opponents call the measure extreme.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Sheehy, PERC and the future of public lands conservation in Montana

Published

on

Sheehy, PERC and the future of public lands conservation in Montana



A great recent article by Chris D’Angelo reports on the connection between Tim Sheehy, the Republican challenging Jon Tester for his senate seat, and PERC, the Bozeman-based Property and Environment Research Center that promotes what it calls “free market environmentalism.”  

While Montanans might wonder about Sheehy’s background and policy positions given the shifting sands in his explanations, the fact that he was on the board of PERC is not in question — despite his failure to disclose that fact as required by Senate rules which his campaign says is an “omission” that’s being “amended.”   

Advertisement

For those who have long been in the conservation, environmental, and public lands policy arena, PERC is a very well-known entity. As noted on its IRS 990 non-profit reporting form, the center is “dedicated to advancing conservation through markets, incentives, property rights and partnerships” which “applies economic thinking to environmental problems.” 

But to put it somewhat more simply, PERC believes that private land ownership results in better conservation of those lands under the theory — and it is a disputable theory — that if you own the land and resources, you take better care of it due to its investment value.  This has long been their across the board approach to land, water, endangered species and resource extraction.

If one wanted to dispute that theory, it certainly wouldn’t be difficult to do, particularly in Montana where checking the list of Superfund sites left behind by private industries and owners bears indisputable evidence of the myth that private ownership means better conservation of those resources.

In fact, the theory falls on its face since, when “using economic thinking” the all-too-often result is to exploit the resources to maximize profit as quickly as possible.  And again, this example is applicable across a wide spectrum of resources.  In Montana, that can mean anything from degrading rangeland by putting more livestock on it than it can sustain to, as in Plum Creek’s sad history, leaving behind stumpfields filled with noxious weeds on their vast private — once public — land holdings. 

None of this is particularly a mystery, yet PERC has sucked down enormous amounts of funding from anti-conservation sources for more than four decades as it tries mightily to put lipstick on the pig of the all-too-obvious results of runaway private lands resource extraction.

Advertisement

Running one of the most high-stakes senate campaigns in the nation, however, produces a lot of tap-dancing around the truth in an effort to convince voters that you’re for whatever position will garner the most votes come Election Day. 

In that regard, both Sheehy and PERC are scuttling sideways in their positions.  Given the overwhelming support for “keeping public lands in public hands” in Montana, PERC now claims it “firmly believes that public lands should stay in public hands. We do not advocate for nor support privatization or divestiture.”  

Funny that, given its previous and very long-held position that private ownership of lands and waters is the key to conservation.  Likewise, Sheehy’s position, “that “public lands must stay in public hands” is completely the opposite from the one he held only a year ago, and parrots PERC not only in its verbiage, but in its realization of which way public sentiment and the electoral winds are blowing.

Since what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of public lands in the Big Sky State, it behooves us to demand specific policy positions in writing from all candidates for public office — including the race for Montana’s Senate seat.  



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Couple walking across the U.S. reach Montana

Published

on

Couple walking across the U.S. reach Montana


WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS — A couple from Missouri have a goal to walk through every state in the lower 48.

Paige and Torin – known by their social media handle “Walking America Couple” – are in leg three of a five-leg, cross-country journey.

They’ve already traversed through 21 states, and on Thursday, their journey brought them to just outside White Sulphur Springs.

“Even out here in the more rural open space, we still make a lot of friends on the side of the road. People often stop and ask what we’re doing, or stop to see if we need water or food,” says Paige.

Advertisement

Each leg takes the couple roughly six months to one year, though they take short breaks in-between. They’re also completing the entire journey with their dog Jak.

“I think he loves the adventure more than we do,” Paige adds.



Through rain, shine, snow, and severe weather warnings, the couple have not been deterred, their purpose and mission propelling them.

“We would like to set the example that you can find contentment under almost any circumstance,” says Torin. “I started out the journey an incredibly cynical person, and it was through these repeated interactions of kindness with people that I had otherwise written off in the past, that my perspective began to change dramatically,” he adds.

Now, their journey is helping to spread the same happiness they’ve discovered to those they encounter on their journeys.

Advertisement

“We hope to be the example that we’re, as humans, all more malleable than we think,” says Paige.

For more information, click here to visit their website.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending