Latest news with #healthcarepolicy
Japan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Foreign tourists with unpaid medical bills in Japan to be denied entry
The government on Friday revised its policy on foreign residents and visitors, which includes denying entry to foreign tourists who have failed to pay medical fees during visits to Japan and rejecting visa extensions for foreign nationals who fail to pay premiums for the national health care and pension system. Details of when and how it will be implemented have yet to be hammered out. The policy changes were made during a meeting of relevant ministers at the Prime Minister's Office. Alongside an increasing number of foreign visitors to Japan, there have been growing calls for reform from politicians to address unpaid medical fees and health care premiums — deficits filled by taxpayers' money. During the meeting, Ishiba said the government plans to establish a liaison office at the Cabinet Secretariat to tackle the wide range of issues across different ministries. 'If our current systems are unable to address the realities of globalization and fail to dispel public anxiety, then drastic reforms must be undertaken,' Ishiba said. 'We will make sure to consider the rights of foreign nationals are ensured and provide necessary support so they won't be isolated in our country,' Ishiba said. 'But we will take strict measures for those who don't follow the rules.' The government also plans to check whether social welfare premiums have been paid by host organizations employing foreign workers with the specified skilled worker residential status. If they have been found to have a certain amount of unpaid premiums, they will not be allowed to employ those workers, according to the revised policy. On Thursday, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party committee submitted a proposal to Ishiba calling for a better dissemination of tax and social insurance information to foreign residents. The plans for revisions were also included in a draft of the honebuto annual economic basic policy guidelines, which sets the tone for the national budget planning process for the coming fiscal year. Foreign nationals who stay in Japan for more than three months are required to join the national health care program, known as kokumin kenkō hoken. Those who are hired as full-time employees at companies in Japan will have their and their family members' health insurance covered. However, those who are not — such as exchange students — are sometimes unaware they need to join the national health care program. The current rules state that invoices are mailed out after enrollment, but many foreign residents fail to follow through with payments. According to a health ministry survey of 150 municipalities from April to December 2024, only 63% of the foreign residents who need to pay the premium have done so — far below the 93% overall rate that includes Japanese citizens. Information from Jiji added
Associated Press
5 days ago
- Health
- Associated Press
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions,' and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
The Independent
5 days ago
- Health
- The Independent
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
New York Times
7 days ago
- General
- New York Times
Trump Rescinds Biden Policy Requiring Hospitals to Provide Emergency Abortions
The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it had revoked a Biden administration requirement that hospitals provide emergency abortions to women whose health is in peril, including in states where abortion is restricted or banned. The move by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the department led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was not a surprise. But it added to growing confusion around emergency care and abortions since June 2022, when the Supreme Court rescinded the national right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. 'It basically gives a bright green light to hospitals in red states to turn away pregnant women who are in peril,' Lawrence O. Gostin, a health law expert at Georgetown University, said of the Trump administration's move. The administration did not explicitly tell hospitals that they were free to turn away women seeking abortions in medical emergencies. Its policy statement said hospitals would still be subject to a federal law requiring them to provide reproductive health care in emergency situations. But it did not explain exactly what that meant. Mr. Gostin and other experts said the murky policy could have dire consequences for pregnant women by discouraging doctors from performing emergency abortions in states where abortions are banned or restricted. 'We've already seen since the overturn of Roe that uncertainty and confusion tends to mean physicians are unwilling to intervene, and the more unwilling physicians are to intervene, the more risk there is in pregnancy,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California-Davis and a historian of the American abortion debate. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Verge
23-05-2025
- Health
- The Verge
'It's persecution.'
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' which would ban gender-affirming care for Medicaid recipients as well as those insured under the Affordable Care Act. House Republican leadership struck the phrase 'for minors' with an amendment last night. Some Democrats are pushing back. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) told The Independent, 'It's horrible, and obviously the fight doesn't end here.' The bill now heads to Senate.
