Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The White House is requiring insurers to cover transgender services. That’s a first.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

New Obama administration regulations would require insurers to cover gender-affirming treatments for transgender people — for the first time ever.

Civil rights laws already bar health plans from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, disability, or age. This new rule would add sex discrimination to that list, including discrimination based on gender identity. And that, Health and Human Services says, will require insurance plans to cover treatments that help enrollees medically transition.

It’s hard to know how many health insurance plans cover gender-affirmation services right now. What is clear, however, is that the coverage is not uniform — one 2013 paper from the Center for American Progress cited multiple instances in which insurance plans specifically excluded coverage for treatments “related to sexual assignment” or “sex transformations.”

The Obama administration’s fact sheet on the new provision says that “those categorical exclusions are prohibited under the proposed rule.” This does not necessarily translate into blanket coverage for all services related to gender affirmation. Health insurers will often only cover a certain type of treatment for a given condition and refuse to cover others. This happens a lot, like when insurers won’t cover a brand-name drug if there’s a generic, or require patients to see a primary care doctor before allowing coverage for a specialist. It’s easy to see insurers using those same type of restrictions with gender-affirming treatments, too.

Still, advocates say this will be a big step forward: It will disallow the blanket bans on covering gender-affirmation services that, to this day, show up in numerous health plans.

No, this won’t make health insurance costs skyrocket

Surgery for gender affirmation can be expensive; the Human Rights Campaign, an LBGTQ advocacy group, estimates that trans-specific treatments can cost between $25,000 and $75,000. But that’s also in the ballpark of what we pay for other procedures, like a hip replacement or heart bypass surgery. What’s more, previous evidence shows that other, more local mandates to cover transgender surgery costs have not resulted in higher premiums. German Lopez wrote about it here:

When San Francisco began to offer trans-inclusive health coverage to its employees in 2001, the city applied a small surcharge to all employees enrolled in its health plan. But the city ended up using just $386,000 of the $5.6 million raised by the policy — a cost so low that it eventually dropped the additional charge altogether.

“[D]espite actuarial fears of over-utilization and a potentially expensive benefit,” San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission noted, “the Transgender Health Benefit Program has proven to be appropriately accessed and undeniably more affordable than other, often routinely covered, procedures.”

The Obama administration’s new rule isn’t final yet — it is currently open for comment, and after that the federal government will need to create a final version that incorporates any feedback received. That could possibly happen as soon as 2016, making discrimination against transgender patients a thing of the past.

Correction: an earlier version of this headline said that health insurers would be required to cover transgender surgeries. The regulation does require insurers to cover services related to gender transitions but does not specify which services, exactly, will fall under that umbrella.

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters