Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Medical Examination for Visa or Immigration Benefit

A Civil Surgeon argues against significant changes to the immigration medical exam requirements, citing logistical burdens and low clinical relevance for several proposed additions. The commenter specifically opposes adding tests for tattoos, cholesterol, and HSV antibodies, while suggesting nuanced approaches for substance testing and infectious diseases like HIV and Hepatitis.

The commenter, a private individual, opposes the proposed changes that would require panel physicians to provide assessments for public charge analysis. They argue that consular officers lack the medical training to interpret such information and that using medical exams for immigration restriction is a regressive and political use of science.

The commenter opposes the proposed updates to the DS forms, arguing that they impose significant administrative and financial burdens on panel physicians and applicants without clear public health justifications. They specifically criticize the requirement for metabolic panels and the documentation of tattoos and scars as being outside the scope of medical fitness assessments.

The commenter opposes the requirement in Form DS-3026 to photograph all tattoos, scars, and markings, arguing that these are not medical conditions and do not belong within the scope of a physician's clinical role. They suggest that if such information is needed for administrative or security purposes, it should be collected by the appropriate authorities rather than medical professionals.

The commenter argues against the inclusion of a Metabolic Lipid Panel in the DS-3026 form, stating that it assesses long-term individual cardiovascular risk rather than communicable diseases that pose a public health risk. They contend that the requirement lacks medical necessity and proportionality, as it does not serve the stated objective of protecting public health.

The commenter argues against the requirement for routine HSV-1 and HSV-2 serologic testing for asymptomatic individuals, citing a lack of clinical utility and public health benefit. They request a clear scientific and legal justification for the requirement, noting that it contradicts major medical organization guidelines and may violate principles of necessity and data minimization.

The commenter opposes the requirement in Form DS-3026 to collect records of previous elective gender-affirming surgeries. They argue that such information lacks medical relevance to public health, violates medical ethics regarding privacy and data minimization, and should not be required unless there are specific current medical complications.