Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Proposed Rule Would Broaden Rights for Same-Sex Couples at U.S. Hospitals

By Chris Cadena on December 16, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On December 12, 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a proposed rule that would broaden rights for same-sex spouses at US hospitals. The proposed rule is aimed at “ensur[ing] that same-sex spouses in legally-valid marriages are recognized and afforded equal rights in Medicare and Medicaid participating facilities.”

In its 2013 decision United States v. Windsor, The Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act that governed federal benefits. CMS proposes to make certain regulations consistent with the Windsor decision by revising applicable conditions of participation for providers, conditions for coverage for suppliers, and requirements for long-term care facilities. The proposed rule would revise certain definitions and patient’s rights provisions to ensure that terms including “spouse” and “representative” include same-sex spouses for the purposes of healthcare visitation. In the context of hospice care, the definition of “representative” would be revised to allow a same-sex spouse to authorize or terminate medical care on behalf of a terminally ill patient who is incapacitated.

 

  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    Health Law
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo