Our April 9 blog post highlighted several issues to watch during 2024, one of which was gender-affirming care considerations.

Just over a month later, there have now been three key developments with respect to that issue:

  1. On April 26, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued final rules on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability, in any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving federal financial assistance. The final rules, in alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, define discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity. Among other changes, the rules also provide that Section 1557 prohibits covered entities from applying limitations, restrictions or blanket exclusions of gender-affirming care. The final rules do not directly apply to many self-insured employer-sponsored group health plans. However, they do apply to most large insurance carriers, meaning that a self-insured employer-sponsored group health plan that contracts with an insurer carrier to provide third-party administrative services may nevertheless find itself indirectly subject to the rules.  
  2. On April 29, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Kadel v. Folwell, resolving two cases on appeal and holding that the North Carolina state employee health plan and West Virginia’s Medicaid program must cover gender-affirming surgeries. Appellees in both cases were transgender individuals who were denied coverage under these state plans for healthcare prescribed for their gender dysphoria diagnoses. Affirming the lower court decisions, the Fourth Circuit held that the plan’s coverage exclusions facially discriminated on the basis of sex and gender identity and were not substantially related to an important government interest. Therefore, these exclusions violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The states in the Fourth Circuit are Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
  3. On May 13, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Lange v. Houston County, Ga, affirming the lower court and holding that a health insurance provider can be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “for denying gender-affirming care coverage to a transgender employee because the employee is transgender.” In this case, the plaintiff was a transgender woman denied coverage under the Houston County Sheriff’s Office health insurance plan (a self-insured plan administered by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield) for gender-affirming care prescribed for her gender dysphoria diagnosis. The states in the Eleventh Circuit are Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

As is evident by the flurry of activity over the last three weeks, gender-affirming care is a rapidly evolving legal issue, and we will continue to provide updates as further developments arise. If you have any questions about these issues, please reach out to one of the members of our Employee Benefits Practice Group.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Susie Bilbro Susie Bilbro

Susie Bilbro advises clients on all aspects of employee benefit plan design and administration including compliance with ERISA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (healthcare reform), COBRA and the Internal Revenue Code. She has counseled public and private clients on employee welfare…

Susie Bilbro advises clients on all aspects of employee benefit plan design and administration including compliance with ERISA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (healthcare reform), COBRA and the Internal Revenue Code. She has counseled public and private clients on employee welfare and pension benefits issues, both in connection with corporate transactions and on day-to-day administration. In addition, Susie has prepared submissions to the IRS and Department of Labor for qualified retirement and welfare benefit plans. Susie also has experience advising clients on executive compensation arrangements.

Photo of Doug Dahl Doug Dahl

Doug Dahl provides technical knowledge and advice to companies on a wide range of federal tax and ERISA matters regarding employee benefits, including qualified retirement plans, executive compensation arrangements and health and welfare plans. Doug regularly assists companies with employee benefit issues that…

Doug Dahl provides technical knowledge and advice to companies on a wide range of federal tax and ERISA matters regarding employee benefits, including qualified retirement plans, executive compensation arrangements and health and welfare plans. Doug regularly assists companies with employee benefit issues that arise during and following various corporate transactions and events, such as mergers, acquisitions, dispositions and bankruptcies.

Photo of David Thornton David Thornton

David Thornton helps employers deliver retirement, health and welfare benefits to their executives and employees. With more than 30 years of experience, he has developed a diverse practice counseling hundreds of public and private employers and non-profit organizations in drafting, maintaining and administering…

David Thornton helps employers deliver retirement, health and welfare benefits to their executives and employees. With more than 30 years of experience, he has developed a diverse practice counseling hundreds of public and private employers and non-profit organizations in drafting, maintaining and administering retirement plans ranging from $1 million to several billion dollars in assets, including many in the $100 million to $500 million asset range. He has deep experience in ESOP transactions, successfully navigating the significant fiduciary duty considerations and tax code requirements involved with these transactions.