EDITOR’S NOTE:
Following last Monday’s Monitor Monday Internet broadcast, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) posted new guidance and an online portal, soliciting complaints to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) for consideration.
The new posting—“Whistleblower Tips and Complaints Regarding the Chemical and Surgical Mutilation of Children” – and made available on the web via www.hhs.gov/protect-kids1—appears to be a doubling-down by the agency of its incorrect assertion that providing evidence-based, gender health service is somehow inappropriate, or, more seriously, considered a crime by the HHS.
In this instance, the HHS seemingly conflates legal, sub-specialty care with “fraud, abuse, or misconduct,” encouraging the public to serve as “whistleblowers” for both on a single online portal1. The current administration’s use of “fraud,” “waste,” or “abuse” have become frequent, non-specific descriptors applied to about any entity with which it disagrees. But these words have very specific, and consequential meaning in the healthcare space, so they are not to be used lightly.
In its posting, HHS outlines two things: (1) when protected health information (PHI) may and may not be disclosed, and (2) the potential legal protections for whistleblowers2.
In the opening statement, HHS attributes its posting as serving a requirement set forth in an Executive Order (14187)3: “pursuant to Section 5(b) of that Order, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), in consultation with the Attorney General, issues this guidance for prospective whistleblowers”2.
While the precise language contained within that order [Sect 5(b)] indicates the Secretary of HHS shall “issue new guidance”3, the HHS posting’s author – [Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA)] – states, “we hope this guidance will allay such fears. It explains existing protections”2. And although the Executive Order’s request for “new guidance”3 may be satisfied by this posting – as this summary by HHS regarding PHI and whistleblowers is, objectively, a new post – it does not actually create any new protections or process.
Consequently, one can reasonably elicit from this release that “new” protections have not been created; rather, “existing” protections have simply been reiterated by HHS.
Interestingly, the posting goes into great detail recounting privacy rules and the applicability of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)4. It appears to do so in order to establish individuals who may disclose PHI in an effort to “whistleblow” are doing so in “good faith”2 to expose services which “potentially endangers one or more patients, workers, or the public”, “constituted professional misconduct”, or “a clinician has unlawfully prescribed such medications to a minor patient”4.
Counter to reputably published medical evidence6, this section of the posting2 seems to be laying a premise that current standards of care in gender health6 are equated with endangering public health, professional misconduct, or unlawful care2. While these may be talking points for far-right advocacy groups, media, and the current administration, they are, as stated in last week’s article5, devoid of a substantive basis.
The HHS posting then outlines what it believes are “applicable legal protections”2. It cites the National Defense Authorization Act of 20137 to validate a fringe belief that gender health poses a risk to public safety8. It concludes by saying, “an employee may reasonably believe that the chemical or surgical mutilation of children presents a danger to public health and safety”2, using the clinically flawed, poorly drafted QSSAM-25-02-Hospitals9 by this same administration as the body of evidence to support such an assertion.
Again, as noted in last week’s article5, the aforementioned memo by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)9 is itself neither a comprehensive literature review nor inclusive of the most exhaustive body of research on gender health6, so using it as supportive evidence for public health concern is an error of fact that one would not typically expect from HHS.
The posting subsequently cites medical untruths from the Executive Order3 without any reputable, evidence-based citations to further substantiate what it construes as potential harms2. It wanders into False Claims Act provisions, presumably in an attempt to present the picture that medical claims submitted by providers for gender health services are illegal.
HHS specifically states, “if an individual has knowledge that a healthcare provider submitted a claim (or caused the submission of a claim) for payment to a federal health care program in connection with chemical or surgical mutilation in violation of the terms of any existing law, regulation, or contract provision material to federal payment, then such individual could be a whistleblower”2. The problem with this statement is that providing gender health and submitting a claim for said care does not violate the “terms of any existing law, regulation, or contract provision material to federal payment”2.
First, an Executive Order is not a law. Second, the Executive Order3 itself has been the recipient of two injunctions in federal court11,12, due to its potentially unlawful nature. So, the False Claims Act scope is likely inapplicable or entirely irrelevant.
Finally, the HHS posting concludes with a discussion of the Church Amendments2, introducing another inconsistency into the HHS guidance: the Church Amendments are specific to a provider’s conscientious objection to participating in a “lawful sterilization procedure”10.
All the preceding language in the HHS guidance operates upon the premise that gender affirming care – which can result in sterilization, temporary or permanent – is illegal2. And then, in this final section of guidance, HHS inexplicably changes course, outlining protections for conscientious objectors of “lawful” medical practice.
Ironically, the one thing this post may have accidentally gotten right is acknowledging the lawful nature of providing gender affirming care.
In summary, lumping two entirely unrelated subjects together certainly serves to confuse the public, at best. At worst, it encourages frivolous use of the OIG’s already scarce resources, which are necessary to protect the integrity of our public health apparatus.
This method of crowdsourcing accusations of alleged wrongdoing by ideologically inspired individuals is not new – such solicitations by far-right advocacy groups are abundant across the Internet. But this posting comes straight from the federal government, and it has to be held to a higher standard.
After considering the loosely connected content of this HHS posting, and becoming somewhat perplexed by its intent, I am left with this simple question: “whistleblow” about what, exactly?
Because, to the casual observer, it sure looks like intimidation directed at doctors, as a means of frightening them into abandoning their patients, for fear of governmental retribution. Now, that is something from which we may all need protection.
References
Let me start with a topic that was discussed by David Glaser during a recent Monitor Monday broadcast. He noted the federal regulation (42 CFR
The Trump Administration has put a hold on a federal program designed to increase oversight of hospice care, which receives over $25 billion annually from
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Struggling with ICD-10-CM coding for diabetes and complications? This expert-led webcast clarifies complex combination codes, documentation gaps, and sequencing rules to reduce denials and ensure compliance. Dr. Angela Comfort will provide actionable strategies to accurately link diabetes to complications, improve provider documentation, and optimize reimbursement—helping coders, CDI specialists, and HIM leaders minimize audit risks and strengthen revenue integrity. Don’t miss this chance to master diabetes coding with real-world case studies, key takeaways, and live Q&A!
Uncover critical guidance. Kay Piper provides an interactive review on coding guidelines and more in the AHA’s fourth quarter 2025 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic in an easy to access on-demand webcast.
Uncover critical guidance. Kay Piper provides an interactive review on coding guidelines and more in the AHA’s third quarter 2025 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic in an easy to access on-demand webcast.
Uncover critical guidance. Kay Piper provides an interactive review on coding guidelines and more in the AHA’s second quarter 2025 ICD-10-CM/PCS Coding Clinic in an easy to access on-demand webcast.
Struggling with CMS’s 3-Day Payment Window? Join compliance expert Michael G. Calahan, PA, MBA, CCO, to master billing restrictions for pre-admission and inter-facility services. Learn how to avoid audit risks, optimize revenue cycle workflows, and ensure compliance across departments. Critical for C-suite leaders, providers, coders, revenue cycle teams, and compliance teams—this webcast delivers actionable strategies to protect reimbursements and meet federal regulations.
Providers face increasing Medicare audits when using skin substitute grafts, leaving many unprepared for claim denials and financial liabilities. Join veteran healthcare attorney Andrew B. Wachler, Esq., in this essential webcast and master the Medicare audit process, learn best practices for compliant billing and documentation, and mitigate fraud and abuse risks. With actionable insights and a live Q&A session, you’ll gain the tools to defend your practice and ensure compliance in this rapidly evolving landscape.
Dr. Ronald Hirsch dives into the basics of Medicare for clinicians to be successful as utilization review professionals. He’ll break down what Medicare does and doesn’t pay for, what services it provides and how hospitals get paid for providing those services – including both inpatient and outpatient. Learn how claims are prepared and how much patients must pay for their care. By attending our webcast, you will gain a new understanding of these issues and be better equipped to talk to patients, to their medical staff, and to their administrative team.
Hospitals face growing challenges in measuring observation metrics due to inconsistencies in classification, payer policies, and benchmarking practices. Join Tiffany Ferguson, LMSW, CMAC, ACM, and Anuja Mohla, DO, FACP, MBA, ACPA-C, CHCQM-PHYADV as they provide critical insights into refining observation metrics. This webcast will address key issues affecting observation data integrity and offer strategies for improving consistency in reporting. You will learn how to define meaningful metrics, clarify commonly misinterpreted terms, and apply best practices for benchmarking, and gain actionable strategies to enhance observation data reliability, mitigate financial risk, and drive better decision-making.
Copyright © 2025 RACmonitor. Powered by MedLearn Media.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
