Background: Within the United States, access to gender-affirming operations covered by health insurance has increased dramatically over the past decade. However, the perpetually changing landscape and inconsistencies of individual state health policies governing private and public insurance coverage present a lack of clarity for reconstructive surgeons and other physicians attempting to provide gender-affirming care. This work systematically reviewed the current U.S. health policies for both private insurance and Medicaid on a state-by-state basis.
Methods: Individual state health policies in effect as of August of 2022 on gender-affirming care were reviewed using the LexisNexis legal database, state legislature publications, and Medicaid manuals. Primary outcomes were categorization of policies as protective, restrictive, or unclear for each state. Secondary outcomes included analyses of demographics covered by current health policies and geographic differences.
Results: Protective state-level health policies related to gender-affirming care were present in approximately half of the nation for both private insurance (49.0%) and Medicaid (52.9%). Explicitly restrictive policies were found in 5.9% and 17.6% of states for private insurance and Medicaid, respectively. Regionally, the Northeast and West had the highest rates of protective policies, whereas the Midwest and South had the highest rates of restrictive policies on gender-affirming care.
Conclusions: State-level health policies on gender-affirming care vary significantly across the United States with regional associations. Clarity in the current and evolving state-specific health policies governing gender-affirming care is essential for surgeons and physicians caring for transgender and gender-diverse individuals.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010594 | DOI Listing |
Issues Ment Health Nurs
January 2025
Department of Applied Psychology, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Seclusion is a restrictive intervention used in forensic mental health care to manage service user risk of harm. It has been associated with harmful effects for service users and consensus is that its use needs to be reduced. Research has identified that factors related to nursing staff influence the use of seclusion.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Prim Care Community Health
January 2025
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Introduction/objectives: Patients returning to the community from incarceration (ie, reentry) are at heightened risk of experiencing trauma when interacting with the healthcare system. Healthcare professionals may not recognize patients' trauma reactions or know how to effectively respond. This paper describes the development and pilot evaluation of a single-session training to prepare primary care teams to deliver trauma-informed care (TIC) to patients experiencing reentry.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCan J Health Hist
January 2025
North American Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.
Since the mid-twentieth century, the shared goal of healthcare systems of Canada and the Netherlands has been to achieve broad healthcare access and coverage for citizens despite their health system differences. However, the rhetoric of "state" control in Canada and "market" control in the Netherlands belies very different realities in both countries. A longer historical perspective uncovers the discrepancies between the rhetoric and reality of solidarity that has emerged - and still exists - in both countries.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWomens Health (Lond)
January 2025
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Glendale Campus, Glendale, AZ, USA.
In 2023, a breast cancer risk assessment and a subsequent positive test for the BRCA-2 genetic mutation brought me to the uncomfortable intersection of a longstanding career as an advocate for high-quality medical evidence to support shared patient-provider decision making and a new role as a high-risk patient. My search for studies of available risk-management options revealed that the most commonly recommended approach for women with a ⩾20% lifetime breast cancer risk, intensive screening including annual mammography and/or magnetic resonance imaging beginning at age 25-40 years, was supported only by cancer-detection statistics, with almost no evidence on patient-centered outcomes-mortality, physical and psychological morbidity, or quality of life-compared with standard screening or a surgical alternative, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. In this commentary, I explore parallels between the use of the intensive screening protocol and another longstanding women's health recommendation based on limited evidence, the use of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal chronic disease prevention, which was sharply curtailed after the publication of the groundbreaking Women's Health Initiative trial in 2002.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPsychooncology
January 2025
The Department of Breast Medicine, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University/Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, China.
Objective: Breast cancer patients often face a significant financial burden, leading to financial toxicity due to the necessity for long-term care, costly treatment, and follow-up measures. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the available qualitative evidence on how breast cancer patients cope with financial toxicity and their unmet need to promote the implementation of effective intervention strategies.
Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, CNKI, Wan Fang Data, and VIP databases were systematically searched for literature related to the study topic.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!