Tenet Healthcare Corporation | Report on Risk Mitigation Regarding State Restrictions for Emergency Abortions at Tenet Healthcare Corporation

Status
5.08% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
4
Resolution details
Lead filer
Marguerite Casey Foundation
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Public health
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Health Care
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that Tenet’s Board of Directors issue a public report detailing any known and potential risks to the Company posed by state laws severely restricting abortions in the case of medical emergencies. The report should detail any strategies beyond litigation and legal compliance that the company may deploy to minimize or mitigate these risks. The report should be published prior to December 31, 2024, omitting confidential information and completed at reasonable expense.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS: Tenet Health includes more than 475 ambulatory surgery centers and surgical hospitals, 61 hospitals and approximately 110 additional outpatient centers and other sites of care.”1

About 66% of Tenet’s acute care hospitals operate in states that have adopted laws severely restricting access to abortion absent exigent circumstances that often differ from federal statutory emergency abortion exceptions.2 These varying abortion restrictions pose risks to Tenet as a provider of emergency medical services.

For example, it has been widely reported that in states that have passed severe restrictions on abortion, doctors have been struggling with the legality of providing terminations for ectopic pregnancies, incomplete miscarriages, or other circumstances where miscarriage is inevitable or the health or life of the pregnant woman is in danger (“Faced with abortion bans, doctors beg hospitals for help with key decisions,” The Washington Post, October 28, 2023, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/28/abortion-bans-medical-exceptions/). 68% of OBGYNs reported that the Dobbs ruling has worsened their ability to manage pregnancy-related emergencies.3 This uncertainty is not only dangerous for patients, but also puts physicians and the hospital at legal risk. The Department of Health and Human Services has already begun investigating and found that at least two hospitals violated federal law when they denied a patient abortion care. The potential for improperly denying abortion care poses legal, financial, and reputational risks to Tenet.

Further, abortion bans are creating impediments to physician recruitment and retention. Physicians are showing “reluctance to practice in places where making the best decisions for a patient could result in huge fines or even a prison sentence,”4 and fewer medical school graduates are applying to residencies in abortion ban states.5 If this trend continues, it could pose risks to Tenet beyond limiting its capacity to provide abortion services—with fewer physicians and services potentially available for all obstetric and gynecological patients at Tenet.

The patchwork of state and federal laws regarding abortion—most specifically, the varying definitions for what constitutes a medical emergency warranting an exception—poses risks for Tenet because it must necessarily make determinations for when it can legally provide an abortion.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Shareholders recommend that the report evaluate: how the Company makes determinations regarding arguably conflicting state and federal laws; how the Company educates its medical professionals on the evolving legal landscape; and how the Company recruits and retains obstetric and gynecological medical professionals in restrictive states.”

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.