by Mark B. Gibson
Senator Ginny Burdick, a chief sponsor, says House Bill 2758 “seeks to close one of the last remaining loopholes in patient privacy by allowing patients to have insurance communications sent directly to the member receiving services, even if they are not the primary insurance holder.”
Currently, insurance companies send out an “explanation of benefits” letter to the primary policy holder after a doctor’s visit. This statement can include sensitive visit details and information.
“We do not want Oregonians who need medical care foregoing that care because they are worried about who might find out about their doctor visit,” Burdick testified in committee.
She noted the bill “does not impact minor consent statutes in Oregon. Insurance communications are sent after a medical visit has already taken place ... and therefore has no impact on what services can be provided to minors. Oregon law is explicit about age of consent for medical services for minors.
“These have been carefully considered by the medical community and the Legislature to ensure that minors do not face unnecessary barriers to health care and that parents and guardians have the information they need to best care for their sons and daughters.”
In addition to removing a barrier to health care, victims of domestic violence will also be better served under the bill.
Sarah Keefe, Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, testified that “unfortunately, with the current state of insurance communications, it can be dangerous for a survivor and her children to access health care, as an explanation of benefits statement can lead to a survivor being tracked down by her abusive partner.”
Testimony in opposition was scarce. Donna Bleiler, as a mom and member of Radical Moms of Oregon, wrote that under the bill “5, 10 or 14 year olds could request medical information be kept private ... with the approval of school-based health center, giving care without parent consent is feasible.”
It seems unlikely that a 5-year-old would request their medical information sent to them at their own address, and school-based healthcare should be easy to address at the local level.
Janice Dysinger testified that “any time the government steps between the parent and minor child relationship is great cause of concern. Parents have the greatest love, concern and responsibility for the care of their child.” Dysinger has a point, but the vast majority of minor sexual abuse happens at home: Many children do not live in the ideal world she pictures.
Oregon will be well served with the passage of this bill.
by RaeLynn Ricarte
It’s bad enough that an underage girl in Oregon can get an abortion without the consent, or even notification, of her parents. However, it is even worse that she could soon could be using mom and dad’s insurance to obtain these services.
House Bill 2758 was opposed by every Republican after the GOP alternative to allow minors to shield information about doctor visits from parents only in cases of abuse was rejected by Democrats.
The measure that is likely to also gain approval in the Democrat-controlled Senate allows a minor’s consultation with a doctor to be withheld from the policy holder, which could be her parents.
The information would be withheld through a “confidential communications request” by the young patient.
Follow-up paperwork for any services provided would be sent directly to the minor, who would then be responsible to cover charges not paid by the insurance company.
Although proponents of these types of laws seem to always tout their benefit to domestic violence victims, the vast majority of people who utilize them are not in that situation.
For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court case Roe versus Wade legalized abortion in 1973, the key argument of proponents was that women should be able to terminate pregnancies that resulted from incest or rape.
However, only about 1 percent of the more than 57 million abortions that have occurred in the past four decades have been for either reason.
It would be a pretty scary thing for an underage girl to tell her parents that she was pregnant, and there would likely be some negative feedback. However, the family members could then, as they have done for centuries, figure out how to deal with this life-altering dilemma.
It is, after all, the job of parents to counsel their children and to help them through tough times.
There are many psychological and emotional aspects to aborting a baby and it is wrong to deny parents the ability to walk their daughter through this tough time.
After all, it isn’t going to be the government who helps the girl overcome her grief. Or deal with later guilt when she has other children, or infertility issues that deny her another baby.
I have friends, one of whom married the father of the child she aborted, who have struggled as they aged with the decision they made as an immature teen.
Children can’t take meds for a cold to school without letting administrators know, but society seems to find it okay for them to get birth control or abort a fetus all on their own. It is not the role of government to be the nanny of our children. Laws of this nature are divisive and destructive to the family unit, which is the bedrock of society.
Commented