https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2007-02-23/449477/

The 'Chronicle' Responds to TPCN

By Michael King, February 23, 2007, News

The unsigned document submitted by the Texas Pregnancy Care Network to the Houston Chronicle purports to respond to a Jan. 26 Chronicle News feature by Jordan Smith, "No Real Alternative." Smith gives the history and responds to some of the specific charges in this week's issue (Feb. 26), "TPCN Flack Attack: No Nutritional Content." The full TPCN memorandum is available here. What follows is an itemized brief response to the seven main claims by TPCN concerning the "most egregious errors reported in [Smith's] story."

1) "The Austin Chronicle reported that 'during all of FY OB, the Alternatives to Abortion program served a statewide total of just 11 clients.' This is misleading."

The Chronicle responds: TPCN claims the figures are misleading because its program was not operational for the full fiscal year. As we reported, this is true, but irrelevant, since TPCN failed even to approach its own adjusted benchmarks. It now claims to have received "2,760 client visits," but told the Houston Chronicle Feb. 11 that it has "served" 660 clients at a cost of $146,157.45. That new figure alone would mean an adjustment of its claimed "reimbursement amount per client visit" from $52.95 to an amount per client served of $221.45 – while providing no medical services. At the same time, the TPCN calculation also chooses to ignore nearly $400,000 in administrative overhead.

2) "The Austin Chronicle reported that 'at press time, [TPCN] has just four providers.'" This is incorrect. As of the date the story was published, TPCN had nine (9) Service Providers delivering services at twelve (12) sites."

The Chronicle responds: TPCN declined to respond to any questions submitted by Jordan Smith in advance of the story – claiming once that as a "small private business" (supported entirely by state funds) it didn't have the time. At press time, we relied instead on the admittedly paltry records TPCN provided to the Health and Human Services Commission to document its expenditures, after the fact. They now claim nine "service providers." We're happy to update the story, duly noting that the "services" provided consist primarily of nonprofessional counseling to "promote childbirth."

3) "The Austin Chronicle cited the legislative history of the Budget Rider in its critique that it does not require participating Service Providers to be 'licensed.'" … TPCN's high standards for participation in the Program are equivalent to, if not more stringent than, the standards that likely would be imposed if such a license existed."

The Chronicle responds: As we reported, the law authorizing the TPCN program does not require Service Providers to be licensed. This is primarily because the providers are not providing professional medical services, but advocacy counseling intended to promote childbirth. The "high standards" it describes largely involve nonprofit documentation or physical inspection of premises; many of its providers are clearly not professionally credentialed counselors.

4) "The Austin Chronicle referred to the Program as a 'set-aside for anti-abortion counseling.' Mischaracterizations of this kind minimize the true scope of the Program."

The Chronicle responds: TPCN claims that its providers deliver support services for expectant parents as long as a year after birth, including housing, child materials, and classes of various kinds, etc. If it indeed expects to provide all these services (and more) at its newly-claimed reimbursement rate of $52.95 per client, its providers should sue for nonsupport. In fact, TPCN can only claim these comprehensive services by attributing to itself separate programs it has nothing to do with and for which it provides no support. It is primarily, as we reported, "a set-aside for anti-abortion counseling."

5) "The Austin Chronicle critiques the Program's Service Providers because they do not provide 'health care' or 'medical services.' The Program was never intended to provide medical services."

The Chronicle responds: As we reported, the Legislature carved out money appropriated historically for family planning and women's health care, and diverted it into a program providing only counseling services, or as TPCN calls it, "mentoring and support to women in crisis." If that program could stand on its own, it would approach the Legislature and request funding. Instead, it is designed to divert already scarce health care funds from comprehensive health care providers that also provide abortion services (e.g., Planned Parenthood), into programs that provide no health care, and are at best minimal counseling support to expectant mothers, at worst ineffective or misleading.

6) "The Austin Chronicle raised question about the content and quality of educational materials approved by HHSC and purchased by TPCN for distribution to its Service Providers. TPCN only purchases educational materials that meet high quality standards."

The Chronicle responds: As we report in this issue (Feb. 23), the "educational materials" purchased by TPCN (which it refused to provide for review) are generally of dubious educational value, often misleading or propagandistic, and when medically accurate, generally available elsewhere (often at no cost).

7) "The Austin Chronicle characterized TPCN's use of funds as reflecting 'mysterious accounting.' This claim has no basis in fact. As required by the HHSC contract, TPCN follows generally accepted accounting principles and the contract's funding policies."

The Chronicle responds: As we reported, HHSC has required virtually no documentation by TPCN of large expenditures, and has several times disbursed major sums in advance of any actual expenses. TPCN recently announced it plans to return a considerable sum it was unable to spend within a contract year. Its calculations of large numbers of nonspecific "client visits" and consequent reimbursements for actual work performed are so disparate as to be deliberately misleading. The invoices it submits to the HHSC have virtually no breakdowns of specific expenditures, and from the available public documents it is virtually impossible to determine how TPCN is actually spending its state funding.

8) "The Austin Chronicle reported that the toll-free hotline was, at press time, 'functioning minimally.' There is no basis for the qualification 'minimally.'"

The Chronicle responds: If by "no basis for the qualification," TPCN means that the hotline was functioning not at all, that may indeed be closer to the truth. TPCN refers to a Pennsylvania-based hotline "updated … to handle callers in Texas." We attempted to use it, and its counselors were unable to refer us to a single service provider in Central Texas readily available to assist a pregnant woman in crisis. Perhaps had we asked for assistance or referrals in Pennsylvania, the "hotline" would have provided such information, along with bus fare.