Judge strikes down Florida Medicaid policy excluding gender-affirming care | The Hill
By: Brooke Migdon (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Brooke Migdon - 06/21/23 11:14 PM ET
A Florida rule excluding gender-affirming health care from Medicaid coverage is unlawful and unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, adding that the policy, enacted last year under the administration of Republican Gov. and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, is based on politics rather than medicine.
Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), which controls most of the state's Medicaid program, in August adopted a rule barring transgender residents from using Medicaid to help cover the cost of puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, surgeries or "any other procedures that alter primary or secondary sexual characteristics" when those procedures are used to treat gender dysphoria.
The rule was immediately criticized by LGBTQ civil rights groups and health care professionals, who characterized it as "medically and scientifically unsound" and politically motivated. Two transgender adults and a minor then sued AHCA officials in federal court, claiming in a September lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Florida that the rule discriminates based on sex and transgender status.
In a 54-page decision Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, who partially blocked the enforcement of another Florida law restricting access to gender-affirming health care earlier this month, sided with the plaintiffs, finding the AHCA rule and a separate statute prohibiting the use of state funds for "sex reassignment prescriptions or procedures" violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
"Florida has adopted a rule and statute that prohibit Medicaid payment for these treatments even when medically appropriate," Hinkle wrote Wednesday. "The rule and statute violate the federal Medicaid statute, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Affordable Care Act's prohibition of sex discrimination."
"These plaintiffs are Medicaid beneficiaries who are entitled to payment, as a matter of medical necessity, for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones as appropriately determined by their multidisciplinary teams of providers," Hinkle added.
In Wednesday's ruling, Hinkle also suggested Florida's Medicaid rule was adopted in pursuit of a political goal.
"For many years, Florida's Medicaid system paid for medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria. Recently, for political reasons, Florida adopted a rule and then a statute prohibiting payment for some of the treatments," Hinkle wrote Wednesday.
Hinkle's ruling also characterizes a June AHCA report asserting gender-affirming medical care does not meet the requirements for Medicaid because it is experimental as "flawed" and "from the outset, a biased effort to justify a predetermined outcome, not a fair analysis of the evidence."
An AHCA employee in a June email to Christopher Cogle, the chief medical officer of Florida Medicaid, suggested state health officials did not follow customary procedures for developing generally accepted professional medical standards (GAPMS) in creating the report.
Every major medical organization supports the administration of gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and adults as medically necessary and often life-saving by every major medical organization. Most have also explicitly rejected insurance exclusions for transition-related care.
In a statement Wednesday, August Dekker, a 29-year-old transgender man and one of the plaintiffs in the case challenging Florida's Medicaid exclusion, said he is "extremely relieved and pleased" with Hinkle's decision.
"Florida's policy effectively denied me the treatment my doctors recommended, because as a low-income Floridian with disabilities, I rely on Medicaid to afford my health care," Dekker said. "I am also happy for other transgender Floridians that get care through Medicaid, as now access to that lifesaving, critical care can continue."
Wednesday's ruling is the second legal victory for transgender rights in the South in as many days. On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down an Arkansas law banning youth access to gender-affirming health care, which was the first such law in the the nation.
Tags Affordable Care Act Equal Protection Clause Florida AHCA gender-affirming helath care LGBTQ rights Medicaid Ron DeSantis
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
654 visitors
This is Florida and DeSantis so that isn't surprising.
Has DeSantis won any of the court cases generated from his policies?
A few and he has lost some big ones and currently DeSantis/Florida is appealing the court's decision in the '' Stop Woke Law'' which is currently being heard in Tallahassee.
Before too long Mickey will be spanking DeSantis.
LOL, gotta watch out for the Mouse.
I was just reading that Larry Hogan thinks the DeSantis campaign is dead man walking.
He has dropped in the polls and is losing the public relations battle to the Mouse. He has NO policy positions other than the culture war crap. He's not going to win a national election on that.
The sheer number of anti-trans laws are purposely leading to a showdown at the Supreme Court. The idea for conservatives is to overturn Bostock v. Clayton County just like they overturned Roe v. Wade. For those playing at home Bostock v. Clayton county extended the 1964 Civil Right Act to protect LGBTQ employees from gender discrimination and making it clear that gender discrimination for the LGBTQs was synonymous with sex discrimination. If this falls then look for immediate challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges.
That is clearly what is behind all the new trans laws.
It's also clear it's not popular with anyone outside the alt+right base. They must hate so much it's worth losing the war to win a few battles.
Yes and I've seen some comments right here on NT that support these unconstitutional laws.