DC requries that insurers cover sex reassignment surgery in their health plans:
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=8898
Especially important is this report linked in Metro Weekly from the California Department of Insurance, which looks at the benefits and costs of requiring coverage in that state (which proposal that state has since adopted):
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-cont ... urance.pdf
Important is here (p. 9):
Quote:
Further, the Department’s evidence suggests that benefits will accrue to insurance carriers and employers as costs decline for the treatment of complications arising from denial of coverage for treatments. The evidence suggests that there may be potential cost savings resulting from the adoption of the proposed regulation in the medium to long term, such as lower costs associated with the high cost of suicide and attempts at suicide, overall improvements in mental health and lower rates of substance abuse, as discussed in the following section.
The Department then goes on to cite evidence (pp. 9-12).
This matches with personal experience, like when I received bad information from my insurance provider back in October 2012 that my employer plan categorically excluded all transition-related care, which was later corrected after speaking to a lawyer and my company's benefits department. The damage was already done, though: This triggered a nearly year-long decompensation that led to 3 hospitalizations, as documented, major expenses for both the insurance company and me (and pretty much wrecking my credit), and the surgery still needs to be paid for. They would have saved a lot of money had that bad information not been given out and had they not given the impression it was not covered.
Thinking about this fact still makes me angry. THINGS NEED TO CHANGE!
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
27 Feb 2014, 4:30 pm
