Scarnati Aide Says Drilling Foes Hijack Act 13 Doctor Provision

April 20, 2012 | 5:07 PM

By Susan Phillips

One of the chief architects of the state’s new oil and gas law, known as Act 13, says critics are using a section of the law regarding doctors to further their anti-drilling agenda. At issue is a portion of the bill that requires doctors to sign nondisclosure agreements if they need access to proprietary or trade secret information in order to treat a patient who may have come in contact with frack water, or drilling waste water.

Some doctors have raised ethical issues about the provision, calling it a “gag rule.” Both the Pennsylvania Department of Public Health and the Pennsylvania Medical Society have issued statements that doctors will be able to share that information with their patients and public health officials. But a health law expert says the language is too vague.

Drew Crompton is an aide to Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati and helped craft the bill. Crompton says those who are raising questions about the law have an anti-drilling bias and are using it to further their agenda.

“Not to discredt those who are sincerely looking out for the well being of others,” said Crompton, “but I think they’re making a mountain out of a molehill. These allegations are coming from people who don’t appreciate the industry and want to voice their opinion against it.”

Crompton says no lawmakers, whether Democrats or Republicans, raised any issues about the provisions while it was getting debated in Harrisburg. He says the intent of the law is to protect patients, not the industry.

Several public health officials have raised questions about why no one from their field of expertise was at the table while the law was being drafted. But Crompton says everything was vetted through the state’s Department of Public Health.

“No one with a medical degree was at the table, that’s true,” said Crompton. “But to somehow think that this language wasn’t getting vetted through public health officials, I think is mistaken.

Topics

Comments

Gtforouzan

“Crompton says no lawmakers, whether Democrats or Republicans,
raised any issues about the provisions while it was getting debated
in Harrisburg.”

As a grassroots volunteer striving to fight the gas drillers’ $trangle hold on our Commonwealth’s government, I find Crompton’s comment laughable. Hundreds of us, tax paying, home owning, law abiding, VOTING residents of PA petitioned & urged our state legislators to vote NO on both HB 1950 & SB 1100. You know what was most shocking? That MOST of them hadn’t even read it, not even a summary provided by one of their staff. It’s very telling that they, including the Governor, running for cover now with the lame excuse, ‘I didn’t know THAT was in there!’

Every PA state representative is up for election this year. Please keep that in mind as you go to the polls.
Judy M

“He says the intent of the law is to protect patients, not the industry.” False statement!
The Bill language says otherwise:

“The vendor, service provider or operator may request, and the health
professional shall provide upon request, a written statement of need and a
confidentiality agreement from the health professional as soon as circumstances
permit, in conformance with regulations promulgated under this chapter. (c)
Disclosures not required.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,
a vendor, service provider or operator shall not be required to do any
of the following:
(1) Disclose chemicals that are not disclosed to it by the
manufacturer, vendor or service provider.(2) Disclose chemicals that were
not intentionally added to the stimulation fluid.(3) Disclose chemicals that
occur incidentally or are otherwise unintentionally present in trace amounts,
may be the incidental result of a chemical reaction or chemical process or may
be constituents of naturally occurring materials that become part of a
stimulation fluid.(d) Trade secrets and confidential proprietary
information.–
DoryHippauf

State lawmakers alotted $2 million from the proposed Marcellus Shale impact fee last year for a health registry. But that money was cut from the bill before it came to a vote. The impact fee passed, without money for a health registry.

Republican State Senator Joe Scarnati, who steered the bill to passage in February, said he was “not a fan” of the registry. Instead, he favored giving money for water testing by the Department of Environmental Protection.

Drew Crompton, Scarnati’s chief of staff, called a shale health registry potentially “inflammatory and unnecessary.”

Crompton said “there was a lot of uneasiness” among Republican legislators about the public health study “being all spelled out” in the legislation.

“It’s very sensitive when talking about peoples’ health. What types of studies were they going to do? We didn’t want additional burdens placed on our constituents,” said Crompton.

“This has to be very slowly developed. We think Marcellus shale drilling is almost entirely safe,” he said. “We don’t want to stir up any fears.”

Crompton said a public health registry “has to be carefully messaged” because of what he characterized as misinformation about the safety of hydraulic fracturing. “The last thing we need is to propel this (mis)information.” he said.

NOTE:

1. “We THINK Marcellus shale drilling is ALMOST entirely safe. Think? Almost? That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the fracking technology.

2. …public health registry “has to be carefully messaged”. So no health registry because the natural gas industry and supporters are having trouble figuring out how to spin it?
clairesse

i know for a fact many of our state legislators did not read the bill. they had no idea what was in it and told us so. so to say that lawmakers didn’t raise questions at the time is ludicrous. the legislatioin was being created behind closed doors with corbett and the industry.

Related

Posts

Topics

Topics

Comments

About StateImpact

Economy

Education

Energy