gag rule
Women protest Trump’s so-called “gag rule” on health care providers in Chicago on May 24. Photo by Charles Edward Miller/Creative Commons

[A]n ongoing fight over federal family planning money has brought together an unlikely group of allies in Vermont.

Twelve organizations — including the state Health Care Advocate, University of Vermont Medical Center and two insurers — have formed a coalition that โ€œstrongly opposesโ€ a proposed federal rule change that would limit how so-called โ€œTitle Xโ€ funding can be spent.

At the national level, the Title X debate is about abortion. But members of the Vermont coalition are concerned about limiting access to basic health care services for low-income residents.

The federal proposal โ€œwill significantly restrict access to necessary care for both women and men, particularly in rural, hard-to-serve areas of Vermont,โ€ coalition members wrote in a statement issued Tuesday.

Title X funding pays for family planning and preventative health services. It is focused on low-income and uninsured patients, and the program serves about 4 million people per year nationally.

By federal statute, Title X money cannot be used for abortions. But in May, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed updated regulations that would restrict Title X funding from going to entities that provide abortions.

In addition to requiring โ€œclear financial and physical separationโ€ between Title X projects and abortion-related programs, the department also said it was moving to โ€œprohibit referral for abortion as a method of family planningโ€ at Title X providers.

In a statement supporting the change, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the proposal โ€œfulfills President Donald J. Trumpโ€™s promise to continue to improve womenโ€™s health and ensure that federal funds are not used to fund the abortion industry in violation of the law.โ€

Sanders said the rule would not cut Title X funds, but rather โ€œwould ensure that taxpayers do not indirectly fund abortions.โ€

The change spurred outrage from the sole Title X provider in Vermont โ€“ Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Meagan Gallagher, the organization’s president and chief executive officer, has called the Trump administration’s proposal โ€œthe most offensive and dangerous attack on women’s rights in this country.โ€

Meagan Gallagher
Meagan Gallagher, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, testifies before the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. File photo by Erin Mansfield/VTDigger

Lucy Leriche, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of Vermont public policy, said Tuesday that the federal proposal is โ€œbasically a gag ruleโ€ regarding abortion services.

โ€œIf a health care center is receiving Title X funds, doctors would essentially have to lie to their patients about what their options are,โ€ Leriche said.

Abortion-counseling issues aside, Planned Parenthood administrators also argue that many low-income patients in Vermont would lose access to services like birth control, cancer screenings, sexually transmitted disease treatment and women’s health exams if the organization loses its Title X funding.

Planned Parenthood gets nearly all of Vermont’s Title X funding allocation, which falls between $775,000 and $781,000 annually. In 2017, Planned Parenthood says it served nearly 10,000 people in Vermont โ€œwho rely on Title X for affordable birth control and reproductive health care.โ€

Theoretically, if the new federal regulations are adopted, the Vermont Department of Health could choose a different provider or providers for Title X services. That’s already been proposed by Vermont Right to Life.

But the newly organized coalition isn’t advocating for such a change. Rather, the group says the Trump administration’s proposal violates medical ethics and will reduce health care services for Vermonters.

โ€œWe call on the federal Health and Human Services Department to withdraw this proposed rule in the interest of public health and for the benefit of low-income patients of Vermont,โ€ the group’s statement says.

Signing the statement were the Bi-State Primary Care Association; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont; MVP Health Care; the Office of the Health Care Advocate; Planned Parenthood of Northern New England; University of Vermont Medical Center; Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems; Vermont Care Partners; Vermont Coalition of Clinics for the Uninsured; Vermont Medical Society; Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care; and VNAs of Vermont.

Access was a common concern among some signatories.

โ€œWhile the UVM Medical Centerโ€™s funding is not directly impacted by this new rule, we are concerned that it would restrict access to care for our patients, their families and neighbors,โ€ said Eileen Whalen, the hospital’s president and chief operating officer.

โ€œWe strongly believe that everyone in our community should be able to get the health care they need from the provider they are most comfortable with,โ€ she said.

Sara Teachout, a spokesperson for Blue Cross and Blue Shield, said the insurer joined the Title X coalition โ€œbecause the federal changes will have a negative impact on the health care services that our members are entitled to receive.โ€

โ€œAccess and insurance coverage of reproductive health services is a policy choice that is protected under Vermont law,โ€ Teachout said.

The state medical society is concerned about โ€œaccess to frontline services,โ€ said spokesperson Jill Sudhoff-Guerin.

The society also is concerned about any rule limiting doctors’ communications about care options. โ€œThe physician-patient relationship is really based largely on trust, and that has to do with being able to give the patient all of the options in an honest, candid way,โ€ Sudhoff-Guerin said.

Mike Fisher, the state’s chief health care advocate, says he has a โ€œsystemwide concern about access to care.โ€

Fisher said Planned Parenthood โ€œprovides a really important community presence throughout the state.โ€ The Title X coalition’s statement should be seen more broadly as โ€œa statement of support for patients who need care,โ€ Fisher said.

He noted the diversity of the coalition’s members, saying it’s not often that those entities agree. โ€œIt’s really important that, when we can speak as one voice, we do,โ€ Fisher said.

Leriche said she believes the coalition’s support is an indication of โ€œhow terrible this new rule is.โ€

โ€œWe are incredibly grateful for the support of our colleagues in the health care industry in Vermont,โ€ Leriche said. โ€œIt really is a remarkable coalition of organizations that signed on. It underscores that everyone providing health care in Vermont truly cares about the patient.โ€

The federal government is taking comment on the proposed rule through the end of July. Comments can be filed via a link at the top of the rule’s Federal Register notice.

Planned Parenthood also is trying to rally support for its cause via its advocacy and political arm.

Twitter: @MikeFaher. Mike Faher reports on health care and Vermont Yankee for VTDigger. Faher has worked as a daily newspaper journalist for 19 years, most recently as lead reporter at the Brattleboro...