Comment on DOS-2026-0694-0008

I appreciate the opportunity to leave a public comment as a private individual for Docket Number: DOS-2026-0694. As a private individual I am interested in the proposed changes in information collection during the medical examination for visa or immigration benefit. I fully understand and support the importance of the overseas medical examination in its purpose for diagnosis of diseases identified as communicable and of public health significance. I laud the government's priority in ensuring the medical exam is done as part of the immigration process and their understanding of the exam's role in minimizing possible public harm which could result in higher risk of transmission of communicable disease and potentially fatal disease outbreaks in U.S. communities, if not done according to the CDC technical instructions. Where my comment focuses on is on this government's requiring panel physicians to provide more assessments concerning applicant health or potential long-term institutionalization to consular officers in making a rigorous public charge analysis of the applicant. The proposed changes to this information collection that focuses on limiting immigration due to public charge is an irresponsible and reckless initiative. By expecting consular officers, who have no medical training or background, to make decisions on immigration based on medical information seems to be a careless approach that threatens to undermine panel physicians and the overseas medical exam. Specifically, I have issues of the ability of panel physicians in so many countries having the capacity to understand the complex medical system in the United States and make a comment on the likely degree of disability or the need for extensive medical care or institutionalization. Americans, themselves, have challenges navigating the complex medical system and understanding how insurance-driven decisions are made when it comes to determining long-term or even immediate care. It seems nebulous and confusing. In 2010, the U.S. government made significant progress in removing HIV as a Class A condition as a result of the more we collectively understood about HIV, the more we understood that its controllable and not as communicative as we once misunderstood. The introduction of chlamydia, trichomoniasis, herpes, and other STDs demonstrates a regressive approach to medicine even in light of science. Once again, this demonstrates the draconian and antiquated approach to using science as a political weapon to restrict immigration. In addition to this, high cholesterol and other chronic diseases like high blood pressure is an epidemic in the United States that require long-term care and follow-up. To restrict immigration based on this as a public charge seems hypocritical and an undermine to the need for immigrants to contribute to the long-term care and support the aging U.S.-based population, who are all suffering from chronic conditions, requires. I would also like to comment on the tattoo, scar or marking and the location on the body. The requirement to document this on individuals applying for immigration is invasive with little to no affect on public charge. The overseas medical exam has been fulfilling its purpose of detecting communicable diseases and treating them in individuals before they immigrate. As a result, the exam has been respected by both the providers and the applicants because it serves a purpose. Using the overseas medical exam for political purposes and ulterior motivations will not serve to bolster the importance of the exam and will most likely be used to undermine its importance in the immigration process in the future. As you read my comment and others that are similar in theme, I implore you to think about how this type of draconian change would affect our country in the future, not in the immediate time and space but in the future. As noted, I support the overseas medical exam for immigrants in its current form. An assessment of the public charge analysis of the applicant needs to be done with scientists and medical providers in the United States and not lawyers or lawmakers. Medicine and science is not a tool against migration but rather one to support the healthy and safe migration of individuals, while keeping receiving communities safe. It was never designed to be a political tool, leave that to the politicians.