Medicaid Has Withdrawn It's Proposal To Cover SRS While Appeals Board Considers Challenge To "Experimental" Status

Thursday morning Medicare and Medicaid Services (CSM.gov) unilaterally began asking for public comment on changing its policy for Gender (sexual) Reassignment Surgery with the goal of possibly having Medicaid fund those surgeries. It seems the good people at Medicaid realized their rational for disallowing SRS was irrational.

Presently GRS is not covered by the ancient CMS.Gov policy because:

Transsexual surgery for sex reassignment of transsexuals is controversial. Because of the lack of well controlled, long term studies of the safety and effectiveness of the surgical procedures and attendant therapies for transsexualism, the treatment is considered experimental. Moreover, there is a high rate of serious complications for these surgical procedures. For these reasons, transsexual surgery is not covered.

But the link to the comments didn't work and we assumed it was just SNAFU, but thats not what happened...

Just hours after beginning the 30 day comment period Medicaid changed there minds about asking for public comments and took the link down.

one RED HOT haters POTATO to the Medicade comment section.

Mara Keisling of the NCTE messaged me moments after the last post went up and said there is a better process in place now.

The Hill reports:
"a spokesperson said Friday evening that the proposal has been withdrawn. HHS pulled information from its website Friday after various news media outlets reported on the issue."

"The controversial decision to consider using taxpayer money to cover sex changes was sure to attract criticism from Congress."

"An HHS spokesman said HHS' Departmental Appeals Board is weighing a challenge to the department's ruling that sex-change procedures are experimental and should not be covered by Medicare and Medicaid. While that challenge works its way through the system, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has withdrawn its proposal to reconsider the coverage policy on its own."
Read more: The Hill.

No comments: