Thursday, February 3, 2011

Another Rigged Reg from the Administration?

Amidst all the stories about yesterday’s repeal vote, it’s worth looking at another article in today’s New York Times about a regulatory process going on within the Administration – Robert Pear’s piece on the possibility that insurance policies will be forced to cover contraception as part of a new mandated benefits package under the health care law.  The article notes that the Institute of Medicine is examining what female preventive services should be required, but then includes this intriguing paragraph:

Administration officials said they expected the list [of required benefits] to include contraception and family planning because a large body of scientific evidence showed the effectiveness of those services.  But the officials said they preferred to have the panel of independent experts make the initial recommendations so the public would see them as based on science, not politics.

The wording of this paragraph sounds suspiciously like the Administration has already decided to require coverage of contraceptive services, and is merely using the public process to provide political cover to a decision that was made behind closed doors months ago.

As the article notes, mandated insurance coverage of contraception is not without controversy in some circles on moral grounds – to say nothing of the fact that adding a whole series of new mandated benefits like birth control will raise health insurance premiums (thus breaking candidate Obama’s promise to lower premiums by $2,500 per family).  The Administration’s apparent willingness to admit it has already made its decision on this controversial matter PRIOR to any public consultations being completed does not speak well to its ability to operate with the “unmatched level of transparency, participation, and accountability” promised by the President.

Just last month, the Administration was forced to withdraw other controversial regulations surrounding end-of-life care, after leaked e-mails suggested that Democrats deliberately sought to enact regulatory provisions without providing the public an opportunity to comment on them.  The White House still has yet to provide a full and public accounting of who or what was behind this highly unusual turn of events – and now the New York Times reports on another series of questionable developments regarding the rulemaking process.

For a President that promised to televise all health care negotiations on C-SPAN, this new story about the potential sabotage of another opportunity for public comment on a rule illustrates how far the Administration needs to go to enhance transparency while implementing the massive, 2,700 page health care law.