News
Post-DOMA rule proposed for hospice care, nursing homes
Administration seeks to ensure same-sex marriages recognized regardless of state of residence
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid has proposed a new rule for hospice care and nursing homes. (Image public domain).
The Obama administration on Thursday announced a proposed rule that aims to ensure medical care for individuals in same-sex marriages — regardless of the state in which they live — following the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid proposes the rule to change conditions for medical care providers and suppliers receiving support from Medicare and Medicaid, including hospitals and hospice care, as well as the requirements for long-term care facilities, or nursing homes.
The thrust of the proposed rule is to ensure same-sex marriages are recognized nationwide, even in states without marriage equality, for programs that in some aspects are administered by the states.
“This proposed rule addresses certain regulations governing Medicare and Medicaid participating providers and suppliers where current regulations look to state law in a matter that implicates (or may implicate) a marital relationship,” the rule states. “Our goal is to provide equal treatment to spouses, regardless of their sex, whenever the marriage was valid in the jurisdiction in which it was entered into, without regard to whether the marriage is also recognized in the state of residence or the jurisdiction in which the health care provider or supplier is located, and where the Medicare program explicitly or impliedly provides for specific treatment of spouses.”
The proposed rule, which can found here, is set for publication in the Federal Register on Friday. Once it’s published, comments must be received by 60 days to be assured consideration before the rule is made final.
Karen Loewy, senior attorney and seniors program strategist for the LGBT group Lambda Legal, said the proposed rules are “a very welcome development” and would “amend references to discriminatory state laws to provide equal treatment to spouses.”
“In practical terms, these changes will mean that a patient’s same-sex spouse will have the same right to access information, make decisions, and be part of admissions processes that a different-sex has in hospitals, hospice care, surgical care centers, long term care settings, labs, and community mental health centers that receive Medicare or Medicaid dollars, even when the laws of the state would not recognize their right to do so,” Loewy said. “These rules would provide important automatic protections for same-sex spouses, ensuring that a patient’s spouse gets to be by his or her side, be informed, and make those difficult decisions in vulnerable health care situations.”
In summary, the proposed rule seeks to established a same-sex spouse should be considered a person’s representative — regardless of state law — for the purposes for care from ambulatory surgical centers, hospice care, exercising a patient’s rights, informing patients of their rights, notification for laboratory services to screen blood and blood products for potentially infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C, care in long-term facilities, pre-admission screening and resident review for long-term care, findings of these evaluations, care in Community Mental Health Centers and client rights at these facilities.
Mark Daley, a spokesperson for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said changes in proposed rule are “common-sense” and would help elders in the LGBT community ensure they receive equal care in medical facilities.
“These new policies help ensure that one of the most vulnerable populations in our country, LGBTQ elders, are able to access federal programs in the same way that non-LGBTQ people access programs,” Daley said. “This means ensuring that same-sex spouses will be treated exactly the same as different-sex spouses in programs like long-term care facilities, Hospice care, and hospitals. What this really means for LGBTQ folks is that same-sex spouses will be able to visit and make medical decisions on behalf of their spouse, just like different-sex couples. It means that LGBTQ elders will have legal rights in the health care context, regardless of whether your state continues to discriminate against you by refusing to recognize your marriage.”
After the Supreme Court decision against DOMA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid already issued guidance — once in September 2013 and again in May 2014 — to ensure same-sex marriages are recognized in determining eligibility for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But the proposed rule says it’s needed because policies it addresses “are administered by different statutes and are administered by state Medicaid agencies and CMS.”
Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the proposed rule will help individuals in same-sex marriages in the medical care situations when they need assistance the most.
“When people are at their most vulnerable, from hospitals to hospice care to nursing homes, they need to know that their spouse will be fully informed, be able to help them make decisions, and be fully regarded as their spouse,” Warbelow said. “The rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid will help to ensure that the marriages of same-sex couples are treated equally regardless of where the couple lives.”
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
