Downloaded - The Austin Chronicle

NEWS women’S health continued from p.22tionsT E xaS vS . PlaNNEd Pa r ENThoodOn Jan. 11, after a daylong hearing, Travis County Judge StephenYelenosky denied Planned Parenthood a temporary injunction,allowing the state to continue operating, for now, the state-funded TexasWomen’s Health Program that excludes the nonprofit. Although thejudge agreed that “probable injury” to Planned Parenthood and its clientsmay result, that is not enough to block the program. Now that the state isfunding the once-Medicaid-funded program, Yelenosky said, there is lesslikelihood that Planned Parenthood will prevail on the merits of the case(one of the elements required for issuing a temporary injunction).At issue is whether the state can ban PP from participation in the newstate-funded TWHP, which officially began Jan. 1, providing basic health carefor low-income, uninsured women ages 18-44 who would not be eligible forMedicaid unless pregnant. Federal Medicaid law prohibits discriminationamong qualified providers. Pete Schenkkan, representing the state’s PPCommission that purports to show not onlythat the TWHP can function without PP, butthat the providers that have signed on tothe new program can actually see manymore clients than did PP, thereby increasingoverall program capacity by more than67,000 clients. “We’ve added more than athousand new doctors and clinics to theprogram since this spring, and we foundthat they are ready and willing to servethese patients,” said HHSC Executive Commission er Kyle Janek in a press release.Women’s health advocates remain quiteskeptical: Why would there suddenly be somany doctors ready to sign on for a programthat has existed for five years? Whywouldn’t they have done so by now? Thereis a relatively simple answer, says HHSCspokeswoman Stephanie Goodman: “thecapacity may have existed in the past, butthe demand wasn’t there,” she wrote in anemail to the Chronicle. Hence the agency’sreport, based on surveys administered toproviders, querying them about their intentionsto serve poor women in the program.HHSC’s numbers haven’t convinced healthpolicy experts such as Stacey Pogue, a seniorpolicy analyst at the Center for Pub lic PolicyPriorities who previously worked for HHSC.In a post to the CPPP’s blog, Pogue notes thatproviders who in the past have seen very fewclients are now claiming they’re ready forhordes of new patients. “Take the Abilenearea, for example,” she wrote. In brief, the PPclinic there (which closed in November) saw601 WHP clients in 2012. The other 16 WHPproviders within 30 miles of Abilene saw acombined total of 285 clients, and the seventhat actually responded to theHHSC survey saw just 106clients in 2012. Nonetheless,the seven providers now projectthat together they canserve 5,750 TWHP clients in2013. “An increase of thatmagnitude is astonishing,”Pogue wrote.Not just astonishing.Unbelievable.“As you know, PlannedParenthood was the single largest provider inthe [WHP], caring for nearly 45% of women inthe program,” PP’s Wheat wrote in an email.“The simple fact is – regardless of what newstatements are issued by the health department– there is not the capacity for otherproviders to absorb the tens of thousands ofPlanned Parenthood patients statewide.”affiliates, argued before Yelenosky that state law also prohibits Texas fromdiscriminating against PP’s participation in the program, because it forbidsjeopardizing federal funding. Assistant Solicitor General KristoferMonson disagreed, saying state law requires the health agency to ensurethat any WHP program not use money to “perform or promote elective abortionsor affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”Over the five years of the Medicaid-funded WHP, Planned Parenthood wasthe largest single provider of services, annually serving 40-50% of all programclients. In dumping PP from the program, the state is orphaning morethan 40,000 women who had been receiving services at PP clinics,although it insists other providers can fill the gap.Despite the ruling, Schenkkan says he remains “confident in the merits ofour case,” and is eager to proceed to trial. For more detail on the hearing,see “Planned Parenthood Denied Injunction,” Newsdesk blog, Jan. 11. – J.S.Fran hagertyWomen Serving WomenDespite the relatively bleak outlook forwomen’s health going into the 83rd session,there are nonetheless two potential brightspots. Under the Dome, talks are ongoingamong lawmakers about how to put some ofthe money slashed from the family planningbudget in 2011 back into the coming“When you’re not beholden to theLegislature … it’s pretty simple:getting women served.”– Fran Hagerty, CEO of theWomen’s Health and FamilyPlanning Association of Texasbiennial budget, says Rep. Donna Howard(D-Austin). “We’re all trying to search forwhat we can do here,” she said. Whilemoney may be found – in federal fundsstripped from the budget last year andmoved to other programs – it seems unlikelythat those funds would be given back tothe family planning budget without restric-placed on providers – that is, PlannedParenthood. “So, I find myself in the positionof wanting to work with those who areworking to get some restoration of thefunds and those who are working to get allqualified providers” back into the system,Howard said. And that may be too tall anorder: “There is still clearly a strong cohorthere at the Legislature who are opposed toPlanned Parenthood,” she said. “I don’tknow what we’re going to be able to do, andI’m very concerned about it.”More assertive – and perhaps more promising– are new attempts to wrest from legislativecontrol all of the federal money thatcurrently remains in the family planningbudget. Known as Title X money (from thefederal legislation), this is the only pot offunding that lawmakers were unable todivert to other programs last year, becausefor four decades this money has been earmarkedspecifically for family planning.But Title X funds need not go directly to thestate government: In a number of states –including California, Utah, Iowa, Ohio, andIllinois – the federal government grantsTitle X money directly to PP or anothernonprofit provider, which then administersthe grant and distributesfunds to qualified providersacross those states.If Hagerty has her way,that’s what will happen inTexas. Hagerty has beenworking for months with hercoalition of providers on aplan to take all Title X moneyearmarked for Texas – moneythat over the last few yearshas gone directly to DSHS,with its disbursement subject to prevailingpolitics at the Capitol. Roughly $14.5 millionin Title X funds will be available nextyear – and Hagerty says her group wouldlike to have it all.Hagerty has spent the last four monthsrecruiting providers to join her lengthy federalfunding application, a process that was,24 T H E A U S T I N C H R O N I C L E JANUARY 18, 2013 a u s t i n c h r o n i c l e . c o mWe makeloving yourneighbor easy.• Convenient local office• Money-saving discounts• Low down payments• Monthly payment plans• 24-hour service and claims• Coverage available by phoneCall for a free rate quote.732-2211 ext. 39041 Research Blvd. Suite 240, Austin(Hwy 183 at Burnet Rd., in the Colonnade Center)Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in allstates or all GEICO companies. GEICO is a registered service mark of GovernmentEmployees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire HathawayInc. subsidiary. GEICO Gecko image © 1999-2013. © 2013 GEICO326-35553822 S. CONGRESS AVE.★ Scheduled Maintenance30, 60, 90K★ Tune-ups★ Transmissions★ Exhaust★ Collision, Paint& Body ShopYOUR BESTALTERNATIVETO DEALERSERVICEWWW.JEEPMASTERS.COMWE BUYJEEPS/DEALERTRADE-INS!