by Zak Szymanski
Recently, an employee of an East Coast LGBT health organization was asked to assist in preparing one of the organization's trans-related grant proposals. Just weeks before, he said, a male co-worker was denied insurance coverage for a medically necessary procedure that is routinely covered for other subscribers. The reason for the denial was that the man has a transsexual history, and the insurance policy excluded anything that could be construed as related to sexual reassignment – in this case, a hysterectomy, a procedure often sought by transsexual men for nonfunctioning organs and related pelvic pain, and typically covered for women without question.
The man, who was in dire need of the procedure, eventually had to hire an attorney to help him secure proper care. But the irony of such an exclusion was not lost on the man's co-workers, whose organization is known for providing healthcare to the transgender community.
"I had to write back to my organization and say I was sorry, but I could not help to bring in more funds for a place that makes a lot of its money on the perception that it's trans-inclusive,� said John, an HIV prevention worker for the organization. "I would hate to have to find a lawyer before I found a doctor."
John was one of several people who declined to give his last name and asked that his organization not be identified for this article. Many LGBT organizations are currently grappling with how to handle transgender health benefits, and identifying these groups could upset the delicate nature of negotiations, advocates said.
Six years after the city of San Francisco passed its groundbreaking transgender healthcare benefits package, progress across the country has been somewhat slow to follow. As a result of the 2001 legislation – which mandated trans healthcare and sexual reassignment coverage for all transgender city employees in need – regional private insurance companies such as HealthNet, Blue Cross, and Kaiser developed the infrastructure that would allow them to offer such benefits to other employers' healthcare plans, and some employers – like the entire University of California system – quickly adopted packages with full coverage. Other employers – from the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign to corporate entities like Microsoft have offered full hormonal and surgery coverage to their employees through "self-insuring," or what amounts to a separate fund for employee health costs.
But unlike the surge in domestic partner benefits that was seen nationwide after San Francisco passed its landmark 1996 equal benefits ordinance – which mandated that companies doing business with the city provide equal health benefits to their employees with same-sex partners – the issue of transgender healthcare remains misunderstood – both in terms of medical necessity and potential cost. And even employees who do have trans-related healthcare may find that adequate care remains difficult to secure.
The biggest problem, according to Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who authored San Francisco's legislation when he was a city supervisor, is that the insurance industry itself remains broken. Discriminatory exclusions and exorbitant costs mean "so many small employers have a problem trying to give any of their employees coverage," though he added that San Francisco has proved that transgender benefits as part of an existing health plan need not be cost-prohibitive. . . .