ShareThis Page

Employers balk at broader transgender coverage

| Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 11:00 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Big companies are pushing back against proposed federal rules they say would require their medical plans to cover gender transition and other services under the nondiscrimination mandate of President Obama's health care law.

Civil rights advocates representing transgender people say the regulation, being finalized by the Health and Human Services Department, would be a major step forward for a marginalized community beginning to gain acceptance as celebrities such as Caitlyn Jenner tell their stories.

The issue mixes rapidly changing social mores and subtle interpretations of complex federal laws, including the Affordable Care Act. Obama has been recognized as the first president openly supportive of transgender rights.

The latest dispute over the health care law may have to be resolved by the courts. The law's nondiscrimination section applies federal civil rights protections to programs under the health overhaul. The legal text refers to entities “receiving federal financial assistance,” interpreted to include insurers, state Medicaid agencies, hospitals and other service providers. It doesn't mention major private employers that run their own health plans.

A group representing big employers said its members don't have particular qualms about gender transition. But large employers do object to what they see as an overreach by the Obama administration, because their health plans don't get federal financial assistance.

There's nothing in the health law “that says, ‘Large employers, you are subject to this,' ” said Gretchen Young, health policy vice president for the ERISA Industry Committee. “People are getting concerned there will be a whole body of things that will come up in the future.” Another concern: that a bar against discrimination on account of nationality could mean having to provide translation in as many as 15 languages.

ERISA is a 1970s federal law that governs big-employer benefit plans. Employers design their own plans and set aside money to cover the expected medical costs of their workforces. They usually hire an insurance company as a “third-party administrator” to handle claims and run the day-to-day operations.

That's where the connection to the health law's nondiscrimination rule comes in.

Insurance companies that sponsor plans sold under Obamacare, or available through Medicare Advantage, do receive federal payments, what the law terms “financial assistance.”

In a formal explanation, HHS said the regulation would apply to such an insurer “for all of its health plans, as well as when it acts as a third-party administrator for an employer-sponsored group health plan.”

The insurance industry does not relish the role of middleman enforcer.

It would be an added burden for insurers who participate in federal programs, said Clare Krusing, spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans. A large employer might be reluctant to hire such insurers as administrators if that undermines control of their health plans — and raises costs.

An increasing number of large employers are voluntarily covering transgender treatment, following medical recognition that it can lead to healthier outcomes overall for the individuals involved. The number was up to 418 last year, from none in 2002, according to HHS. Medicare began covering medically necessary sex-reassignment surgery in 2014. Traditionally, its medical necessity was questioned and it carried a social stigma.

Costs are hard to assess because relatively few individuals pursue gender transition and the degree of medical intervention can differ dramatically from case to case. Individual costs can reach tens of thousands of dollars.

Dru Levasseur, director of the Transgender Rights Project for the civil rights group Lambda Legal, said the proposed regulation would be “a sea change for the insurance industry.” But if Medicare and plans sold under the health law cover gender transition treatments, so should large employers, he said.

“These exclusions are not in line with the medical community's understanding, and it's time for them to be removed,” Levasseur said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.