Review of Health Insurance Policy Inclusivity of Gender Nonconforming and Nonbinary Individuals Seeking Gender-Affirming Health Care.

Stephanie M Bond, Tom Fouche, Jesse R Smith, Rebecca M Garza
Author Information
  1. Stephanie M Bond: Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine & Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  2. Tom Fouche: Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  3. Jesse R Smith: Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine & Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  4. Rebecca M Garza: Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine & Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of individuals who present to health care professionals identify as transgender, gender nonconforming (GNC), and gender nonbinary (NB). GNC/NB individuals experience higher rates of discrimination in health care settings compared with their binary (e.g., trans male and trans female) counterparts. Outdated language excludes the nuances of gender identity. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether current terminology found in health insurance policies may be a barrier to gender-affirming health care for GNC/NB individuals.
Methods: Health insurance policies for a diverse subset of government (=4) and private (=6) payers were obtained in May 2020. Policies were reviewed independently by two members of the research team to determine whether each was supportive or unsupportive to GNC/NB individuals. An arbitrary scoring system was designed that allowed the reviewers to assign a specific number of points to each policy based on the aggregation of mention, coverage, and inclusivity.
Results: Most policies performed poorly as indicated by a support score less than zero. It was also noted that most policies used binary, gendered language, and terminology that excludes the unique gender identities of many GNC/NB individuals.
Conclusions: Most policies currently failed to provide clear, inclusive coverage to GNC/NB individuals for relevant and important aspects of their care. In their current state, these policies are a source of confusion, uncertainty, and discouragement for these individuals, which can present as a barrier to accessing quality, inclusive, gender-affirming health care.

Keywords

References

  1. JAMA Surg. 2018 Jul 1;153(7):609-616 [PMID: 29490365]
  2. J Couns Psychol. 2019 Jul;66(4):385-395 [PMID: 30896208]
  3. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2016;28(1):44-57 [PMID: 26835611]
  4. J Sch Health. 2020 May;90(5):358-367 [PMID: 32105347]
  5. Front Psychol. 2019 Jun 25;10:1453 [PMID: 31293486]
  6. Am J Public Health. 2014 Mar;104(3):e31-8 [PMID: 24432926]
  7. Clin Plast Surg. 2018 Jul;45(3):351-360 [PMID: 29908623]
  8. Pediatrics. 2018 Mar;141(3): [PMID: 29437861]
  9. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Apr;4(4):322-330 [PMID: 31978373]
  10. Lancet. 2016 Jul 23;388(10042):401-411 [PMID: 27323926]
  11. Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Jun;8(3):184-190 [PMID: 31380225]
  12. LGBT Health. 2015 Dec;2(4):287-91 [PMID: 26788768]
  13. LGBT Health. 2018 Apr;5(3):191-196 [PMID: 29641314]
  14. Transgend Health. 2018 Nov 01;3(1):159-169 [PMID: 30426079]
  15. J Clin Med. 2020 May 26;9(6): [PMID: 32466485]
  16. PLoS One. 2019 Aug 27;14(8):e0221583 [PMID: 31454395]
  17. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Apr;58(4):506-513 [PMID: 32001054]
  18. Milbank Q. 2017 Dec;95(4):726-748 [PMID: 29226450]
  19. Sex Health. 2017 Oct;14(5):404-411 [PMID: 28838353]
  20. Nat Rev Urol. 2017 Aug;14(8):486-500 [PMID: 28508877]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0healthindividualscaregenderpoliciesGNC/NBinsurancegender-affirmingHealthnumberpresenttransgendernonconformingnonbinarybinarytranslanguageexcludeswhethercurrentterminologybarriercoverageinclusiveBackground:increasingprofessionalsidentifyGNCNBexperiencehigherratesdiscriminationsettingscomparedegmalefemalecounterpartsOutdatednuancesidentitygoalstudyevaluatefoundmayMethods:diversesubsetgovernment=4private=6payersobtainedMay2020PoliciesreviewedindependentlytwomembersresearchteamdeterminesupportiveunsupportivearbitraryscoringsystemdesignedallowedreviewersassignspecificpointspolicybasedaggregationmentioninclusivityResults:performedpoorlyindicatedsupportscorelesszeroalsonotedusedgendereduniqueidentitiesmanyConclusions:currentlyfailedprovideclearrelevantimportantaspectsstatesourceconfusionuncertaintydiscouragementcanaccessingqualityReviewInsurancePolicyInclusivityGenderNonconformingNonbinaryIndividualsSeekingGender-AffirmingCare

Similar Articles

Cited By