Biden Administration Takes Aim at Transgender Coverage Ban
Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed a brief at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying decisions by the state Agency for Health Care Administration and lawmakers to prevent coverage for the treatments violated a federal Medicaid law and the Affordable Care Act.
December 08, 2023 at 02:56 PM
4 minute read
Health CareThe Biden administration this week urged an appeals court to uphold a ruling that Florida violated federal law by blocking Medicaid coverage for transgender people seeking hormone therapy and puberty blockers.
Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed a brief at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying decisions by the state Agency for Health Care Administration and lawmakers to prevent coverage for the treatments violated a federal Medicaid law and the Affordable Care Act.
In part, the brief pointed to what it described as "nondiscrimination requirements" in the Affordable Care Act. It said "Florida's [coverage] exclusions target transgender people and prevent them, because of their sex assigned at birth, from receiving care available to other Medicaid beneficiaries."
As an example, the brief partially quoted a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle and said that under the state prohibitions "whether a Medicaid beneficiary can access a treatment such as testosterone depends on the patient's sex assigned at birth. If the beneficiary is 'a natal male, the treatment is covered.' But if the beneficiary 'is a natal female, the treatment is not covered.'"
Lawyers for the state went to the Atlanta-based appeals court in June after Hinkle found that the prohibition on Medicaid coverage for hormone therapy and puberty blockers violated the federal laws and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
The lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of two transgender adults and the parents of two transgender minors after the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted a rule that barred the coverage. The lawsuit was updated this spring to include a new state law that similarly prevented coverage.
Gov. Ron DeSantis and many other Republican leaders across the country have made a priority in recent years of trying to restrict treatments for transgender people with gender dysphoria. The federal government defines gender dysphoria clinically as "significant distress that a person may feel when sex or gender assigned at birth is not the same as their identity."
In addition to this week's brief by the Biden administration, the state's appeal of Hinkle's ruling has drawn briefs from states and organizations across the country. Republican attorneys general from 18 states signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in October urging the appeals court to overturn Hinkle's ruling; Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia signed on to a brief this week backing the ruling.
The Medicaid coverage prohibition applied to minors and adults, but much of the debate in Florida and other states has focused on whether minors should be able to receive puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
In a brief filed in October at the appeals court, attorneys for the state wrote that the case is about "whether public funds should be used to reimburse for these treatments."
"It's a health and welfare question; it's a medical policy issue," the brief said. "It's an area where the state gets to draw the line between what's permissible and what isn't. Here, the state of Florida made its decision in legislation … and an administrative rule. … It decided to deny Medicaid reimbursement for the treatments. That's a decision the state gets to make. And given the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the treatments, its decision was reasonable."
But opponents of the prohibition have argued that many major medical organizations support making the treatments available. In his June ruling, Hinkle wrote that the state had no "rational basis to categorically ban these treatments or to exclude them from the state's Medicaid coverage. The record includes no evidence that these treatments have caused substantial adverse clinical results in properly screened and treated patients."
In addition to citing the Affordable Care Act, the Biden administration this week pointed to two parts of a federal Medicaid law: One part is known as the early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment services, or EPSDT, requirement; the other is known as a comparability requirement.
The EPSDT requirement involves coverage of certain care for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21, while the comparability requirement is designed to ensure equal treatment of beneficiaries, the brief said.
The Biden administration attorneys wrote that "as the district court found, treating gender dysphoria with these medications remains consistent with widely accepted standards of care."
"The district court correctly held, based on the trial record, that by categorically barring coverage for puberty blockers and hormone therapies when used to treat gender dysphoria, Florida violated Medicaid's EPSDT and comparability requirements," the 41-page brief, filed Monday, said.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readAttorneys, Health Care Officials Face Nearly $80M RICO Suit Over Allegedly Fabricated Spreadsheet
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1RIP DOJ FCPA Corporate Prosecutions
- 2Federal Trade Commission’s Updates to the Health Breach Notification Rule Now In Effect
- 3I’m A Lawyer, What Can I Sell?
- 4Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Don’t Be an Opportunity Killer,' Says Thomas Haskins of Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250