Purpose: This investigation examined how coverage of gender-affirming surgery differs between states that do and do not have prohibitions against explicit transgender exclusions in private insurance. Methods: Insurance policies for gender-affirming surgery were obtained from the three largest insurers, by market share, in each state. Policies were reviewed manually between May and August of 2019. The number of major gender-affirming surgical services covered by each policy was recorded. This investigation examined coverage of facial feminization/masculinization, augmentation mammoplasty, mastectomy, phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, thyroid chondroplasty, and hair removal. Descriptive statistics were calculated to compare the number of services covered in states that do and do not prohibit transgender exclusions in private insurance. Results: The total number of gender-affirming surgical services covered by insurance policies ranged from zero to seven. The mean number of services covered in states prohibiting transgender exclusions in private insurance was 4.52, whereas the mean in states without prohibitions against transgender exclusions was 3.83. The mean difference was 0.69 (95% confidence interval = 0.17-1.21, p = 0.004). Although almost all policies covered phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, and mastectomy, the policies of the top insurers in states without prohibitions against transgender exclusions were significantly less likely to cover hair removal (p = 0.03), thyroid chondroplasty (p = 0.0008), and facial feminization/masculinization (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Insurers in states prohibiting transgender exclusions in private insurance offered coverage of a small but significant number of additional gender-affirming surgical services compared with states allowing transgender exclusions. Although a core group of services was covered almost universally, insurers based in states allowing transgender exclusions were much less likely to cover services that are sometimes thought of as less central to transgender care.
Purpose: This investigation examined how coverage of gender-affirming surgery differs between states that do and do not have prohibitions against explicit transgender exclusions in private insurance. Methods: Insurance policies for gender-affirming surgery were obtained from the three largest insurers, by market share, in each state. Policies were reviewed manually between May and August of 2019. The number of major gender-affirming surgical services covered by each policy was recorded. This investigation examined coverage of facial feminization/masculinization, augmentation mammoplasty, mastectomy, phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, thyroid chondroplasty, and hair removal. Descriptive statistics were calculated to compare the number of services covered in states that do and do not prohibit transgender exclusions in private insurance. Results: The total number of gender-affirming surgical services covered by insurance policies ranged from zero to seven. The mean number of services covered in states prohibiting transgender exclusions in private insurance was 4.52, whereas the mean in states without prohibitions against transgender exclusions was 3.83. The mean difference was 0.69 (95% confidence interval = 0.17-1.21, p = 0.004). Although almost all policies covered phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, and mastectomy, the policies of the top insurers in states without prohibitions against transgender exclusions were significantly less likely to cover hair removal (p = 0.03), thyroid chondroplasty (p = 0.0008), and facial feminization/masculinization (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Insurers in states prohibiting transgender exclusions in private insurance offered coverage of a small but significant number of additional gender-affirming surgical services compared with states allowing transgender exclusions. Although a core group of services was covered almost universally, insurers based in states allowing transgender exclusions were much less likely to cover services that are sometimes thought of as less central to transgender care.
Authors: Alexander F Dagi; Elizabeth R Boskey; Laura C Nuzzi; Christine O Kang; Oren Ganor; Brian I Labow; Amir H Taghinia Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-02-16