Treatment Action Group Comments on Visas: Ineligibility Based on Public Charge Grounds
* * *
As an organization dedicated to ensuring equitable access to critical health services to individuals and communities affected by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and hepatitis C virus (HCV),
The proposed rule would put the health and wellbeing of immigrants and their families at great risk and result in catastrophic public health implications for localities, states, and health care providers and facilities. We urge the DOS to immediately and explicitly withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety./i
The proposed rule would dramatically alter existing policy on the public charge test, in contradiction to available evidence on its damaging consequences on the nation. The proposed rule radically expands the definition of "public charge" to include any immigrant who simply "receives one or more public benefits."
This change in definition broadens the types of benefits that could be considered under a "public charge" determination to include programs critical to ensuring access to healthcare, nutrition and housing for vulnerable communities--such as Medicaid,
The proposed rule also establishes other massive changes, such as an unprecedented income test, and weighing negatively many factors (i.e. health status) that have never been solely used to determine an applicant's future self-sufficiency. Currently, applicants seeking adjustment of legal status or entry as a permanent resident already must undergo an I-693 Medical Exam by a civil surgeon who reports on the health status of the individual. Under the public charge test, conditions reported under Class A, including ones that are treatable and curable such as TB, could be irrationally held against status-adjusters. The additional requirement for medical examiners to report on, "evidence of a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization after arrival, or that will interfere with the alien's ability to care for him- or herself, to attend school, or to work" to factor into determinations about public charge is problematic. Counting conditions that require extensive medical treatment and/or hospitalization as negative factors in assessing an application ignores the reality that a Class A or B medical condition--especially a curable one--is not an accurate indicator of future self sufficiency and full-time employment capabilities. For example, Class B conditions--which are considered under the totality of circumstances--include disability, which makes this proposed rule discriminatory. Additionally, we fear that the list of medical conditions included in the I-693 Medical Exam may be subject to additions independently after finalization of the proposed rule, threatening the hard-won progress towards ending many epidemics in the
Additionally, under the proposed rule, applicants with a chronic health condition would be required to have non-Medicaid health insurance, or the ability to pay for their own treatment. Treatment for HIV/AIDS, TB, and HCV is prohibitively expensive in the
This widespread "chilling effect" that causes immigrants and their families to withdraw from benefits due to fear is already evident as a result of rumors of the rule. Community providers and state health officials have already reported changes in health care use, including decreased participation in Medicaid and other programs due to community fears stemming from the proposed rule./ii
With one in four American children having at least one immigrant parent, and the undeniable connection between the well-being of children and parents, the proposed is also creating a significant ripple effect on children and other household members. Experts estimate that this chilling effect would extend to 24 million people in the
As a result, millions of children could lose access to essential benefits. Likewise, the reduction in support to families could hurt national and local economies, causing a potential loss of
The economic impact would weigh most heavily on states with large immigrant populations and those with inclusive public-benefit policies./v
Lastly, the proposed rule would have a disproportionate impact on marginalized groups, including LGBTQ people, who face significant discrimination when seeking housing and employment,/vi and who are often not protected under relevant anti-discrimination laws./vii
As a direct result of such discrimination, LGBTQ people are significantly more likely to experience unemployment and food insecurity/viii and often must turn to public benefits in order to survive./ix
The administration should not be punishing those who have already experienced the most hardship, but instead should be helping them thrive with increased opportunity.
Given the undeniable and detrimental consequences the proposed rule would impart--and are already having--on the health and well-being of immigrants and their families, the DOS should immediately and publicly withdraw its current proposal of the proposed rule. Instead of adopting this proposed rule, or allowing it to remain indefinitely as a proposed rule without explicitly withdrawing it (which would have similar consequences in creating confusion and deterring people from seeking lawful and life-saving benefits), the
We thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rulemaking, and hope that you will take swift action to prevent further damage and mitigate what is already done. Please do not hesitate to contact
* * *
Footnotes:
i/
ii/ Goldberg D, Colliver V, & Rayasam R. 'Public charge' rule keeping immigrants from health care. 2018 November. Available from: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/health-care/article/2018/11/public-charge-rule-keepsimmigrants-away-from-health-programs-advocates-say-960797.
iii/
iv/ Batalova J, Fix M, & Greenberg M. Chilling Effects: The Expected Public Charge Rule and Its Impact on Legal Immigrant Families' Public Benefits Use.
v/ Ibid.
vi/
vii/
viii/
ix/
* * *
The rule can be viewed at: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2019-0035-0001
TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact



Aging Iran airliner crash-lands on highway, injuring only 2
Alfresco and Tech Mahindra Introduce Four Jointly Developed AI/IoT Solutions for Insurance Companies
Advisor News
- Midlife planning for women: why it matters and how advisors should adapt
- Tax anxiety is real, although few have a plan to address it
- Trump targets ‘retirement gap’ with new executive order
- Younger investors are engaged and advisors must adapt
- Plugging the hidden budget leaks of retirement
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Transamerica introduces new RILA with optional income features
- Transamerica introduces RILA with optional income features
- American Life expands into Wyoming and Mississippi markets
- Knighthead Life Enters U.S. Fixed Indexed Annuity Market
- The case for DTC/agent hybridization
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- Four-part Medicare education series planned at Viroqua library
- Florida state employee health insurance premiums frozen for 2026-27
- Health insurer settles $5M ‘deceptive marketing’ lawsuit with Mass. AG
- Why are rates going up?
- REPUBLICANS DID THAT: Millions of Americans Drop ACA Coverage After GOP Allowed Tax Credits to Expire
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News
- Transamerica agrees to $57M settlement in cost-of-insurance lawsuit
- The next step for AI in insurance — partnerships to scale
- Your clients are sitting on underused assets
- National Life Group Names Jason Doiron CEO of NLG Capital to Lead the Next Phase of Growth
- Life insurance sales surge 7% in 2025, but the work isn’t over
More Life Insurance News