From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; and New York University Langone Health.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Mar;145(3):803-812. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006591.
Despite the multiple benefits of gender-affirming surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria, research shows that barriers to care still exist. Third-party payers play a pivotal role in enabling access to transition-related care. The authors assessed insurance coverage of genital reconstructive ("bottom") surgery and evaluated the differences between policy criteria and international standards of care.
A cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of bottom surgery was conducted. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrollment data and market share. A Web-based search and telephone interviews were performed to identify the policies and coverage status. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from publicly available policies.
Fifty-seven insurers met inclusion criteria. Almost one in 10 providers did not hold a favorable policy for bottom surgery. Of the 52 insurers who provided coverage, 17 percent held criteria that matched international recommendations. No single criterion was universally required by insurers. Minimum age and definition of gender dysphoria were the requirements with most variation across policies. Almost one in five insurers used proof of legal name change as a coverage requirement. Ten percent would provide coverage for fertility preservation, while 17 percent would cover reversal of the procedure.
Despite the medical necessity, legislative mandates, and economic benefits, global provision of gender-affirming genital surgery is not in place. Furthermore, there is variable adherence to international standards of care. Use of surplus criteria, such as legal name change, may act as an additional barrier to care even when insurance coverage is provided.
尽管性别肯定手术在治疗性别焦虑症方面有多种益处,但研究表明,护理障碍仍然存在。第三方付款人在实现与过渡相关的护理方面发挥着关键作用。作者评估了生殖器重建(“下体”)手术的保险覆盖范围,并评估了政策标准与国际护理标准之间的差异。
对下体手术保险覆盖范围的保险政策进行了横断面分析。根据其州登记数据和市场份额选择保险公司。进行了基于网络的搜索和电话访谈,以确定政策和覆盖范围。从公开的政策中提取了医学必要性标准。
有 57 家保险公司符合纳入标准。近十分之一的提供者没有进行下体手术的有利政策。在提供覆盖范围的 52 家保险公司中,有 17%的公司符合国际建议的标准。没有单一的标准是保险公司普遍要求的。最低年龄和性别焦虑症的定义是政策之间变化最多的要求。近五分之一的保险公司将法律姓名变更的证明作为覆盖范围的要求。10%的公司将提供生育力保存的覆盖范围,而 17%的公司将涵盖手术逆转。
尽管有医学必要性、立法授权和经济效益,但全球提供性别肯定的生殖器手术尚未到位。此外,对国际护理标准的遵守程度存在差异。即使提供了保险覆盖范围,使用多余的标准(例如法律姓名变更)也可能成为护理的额外障碍。