Amazon.com Widgets

Should transgender surgey be covered by insurance?

  • Yes, that depends, and should be decided on a case by case basis.

    If it can be medically attested to by a psychiatrist that not having transgender surgery is causing an incredible amount of stress, anxiety and emotional problems, then yes, transgender surgery should be covered by insurance. I have to think that if a person opts for such a drastic surgery, it is because they are in extreme emotional distress remaining as they are, so I lean toward "yes".

  • Its should be done by a case by case basis and not excluded. The body of evidence should support the need.

    Given that having GD does not go away, and that it has been proven that medical intervention has been shown to be effective in reducing the dysphoric feelings in people with GD, reducing suicidal tendencies. There are studies out there showing these statistics. I believe that it should be covered. Insurance companies are designed to provide insurance, they should not be deciding on what is covered. This should be left up to doctors. Many insurance companies employ doctors to show that it is not needed or at the least regulate what is needed and what is not. However, they tend to side with disallowing and disproving need, although there is a well established pattern of need and recommended by a mental health professional and often the primary care physician along with the recommendation of the performing surgeon. They back their claims up with well founded research that support the need aligned with the patients needs. Few people receive such treatment without these recommendations. However, there has been instances of people who had money going out and having surgery completed and regretting it later. In most of these cases, the mental, and medical physicians were not involved to intervene, nor was there a history established of GD with a health care provider. These people have been lumped into a body of evidence stating that surgery is not as effective as believed. However, these outlyers should not be included in the body of evidence or should at the least be moved to the side supporting the need for recommendation from a healthcare team, WPATH actually stipulates this. Washington State provides insurance through the state the covers some surgeries, they additionally support the need for recommendations from a health care team as does nearly all Surgeons that perform these surgeries.

  • Its should be done by a case by case basis and not excluded. The body of evidence should support the need.

    Given that having GD does not go away, and that it has been proven that medical intervention has been shown to be effective in reducing the dysphoric feelings in people with GD, reducing suicidal tendencies. There are studies out there showing these statistics. I believe that it should be covered. Insurance companies are designed to provide insurance, they should not be deciding on what is covered. This should be left up to doctors. Many insurance companies employ doctors to show that it is not needed or at the least regulate what is needed and what is not. However, they tend to side with disallowing and disproving need, although there is a well established pattern of need and recommended by a mental health professional and often the primary care physician along with the recommendation of the performing surgeon. They back their claims up with well founded research that support the need aligned with the patients needs. Few people receive such treatment without these recommendations. However, there has been instances of people who had money going out and having surgery completed and regretting it later. In most of these cases, the mental, and medical physicians were not involved to intervene, nor was there a history established of GD with a health care provider. These people have been lumped into a body of evidence stating that surgery is not as effective as believed. However, these outlyers should not be included in the body of evidence or should at the least be moved to the side supporting the need for recommendation from a healthcare team, WPATH actually stipulates this. Washington State provides insurance through the state the covers some surgeries, they additionally support the need for recommendations from a health care team as does nearly all Surgeons that perform these surgeries.

  • The state of being a transgender person is a reality.

    Hormonal and surgical treatment for those experiencing body dysphoria is an accepted and typical treatment. People in need of surgical correction to a body that more closely resembles their identity typically experience severe depression and/or social anxiety if they cannot gain access to treatment. The rate of suicide among such individuals is significantly higher than that of the general population. Transgender people are not especially common - the insurance companies do not lose a great deal by recognizing this as a genuine medical necessity.

  • Some times yes sometimes no

    I think it should be covered if a bored certified psychologist approves that restructuring surgery will be productive to that specific person. Everyone is different.
    Some want to be the other gender for thrill and that thrill will pass, so that should not be covered. But some will feel better in a body of gender they feel like.

  • Some research needs to be done.

    I've read some of the Nah Sayers and they really need to do some research on the subject. I believe it is a necessary procedure but it's hard to argue with someone that does not not how it is. However I think if those same people wouldn't judge someone who has transitioned , so harsh , then maybe some of the FFS surgeries wouldn't be necessary . If a person on dialysis needed a kidney , To improve their life, that's okay even though it's not necessary cause there are people that live okay on dialysis, so let's argue if they REALLY need it.

  • If you believe Transgenderism is real, it only follows.

    1. The APA has recognized GID for ears now. The AMA has approved the WPATH standards of care for TGs.

    2. Treatment is effective in eliminating the dysphoria. Without treatment, the suicide rate is sky high.

    3. This is only cosmetic if you deny the reality of a condition accepted by the medical community. All of the treatment for TGs is about dealing with the disconnect they have with their bodies.

    4. Attempts to help TGs not be TG are dismal failures.

    5. TGs pay insurance premiums.

    6. Why deny them benefits for the condition they need?

    7. Studies show increased penalties are quite small. Very few people want this radical painful surgery. The fact that TGs want their penises inverted, for example, should tell you how serious they are about living authentically. The cost is far smaller than that for extending benefits to same sex partners.

  • Yes, it could save a life.

    The suicide rate for pre-transition transgender persons is extremely high, around 50% attempt suicide if I remember correctly. Some are unable to afford the surgery, and this can cause a lot of dysphoria as well as just stress and depression.
    This surgery could bring them into emotional 'harmony' with themselves and prevent suicidal tendencies. Even if you don't agree with transgenderism as a whole, I believe logically you would do what you could to prevent a person from committing suicide.

  • No, it should not.

    Transgender surgery is a choice that people can live without so I do not feel that it should be covered by insurance. I know it is difficult for some people and they may feel like the skin they have does not belong, but there are people who need the insurance for life or death type medical problems.

  • That would be ludicrous

    Transgender surgery is strictly a COSMETIC surgery that is not necessary to the imminent health of the patient. It can be compared to a facelift or breast implants. Why should insurance start covering things that are not needed? That would frankly be a stupid move on the part of a private insurance company... Obama, on the other hand would probably find away to force companies to cover it!

  • No, transgender surgery should not be covered by insurance.

    No, I do not think that it is necessary to have transgender surgery covered by insurance. I think that insurance should only cover surgery that would be vital to life, such as a heart or kidney transplant, and that instead people wanting transgender surgery should pay for it out of pocket.

  • No, this is ridiculous and would be a gross abuse of insurance money.

    Insurance is supposed to be used for MEDICAL EMERGENCIES, and getting a sex-change is not in the slightest a medical emergency. It's hard enough for cancer patients trying to get their insurance companies to cover the costs of their treatments.. Imagine if these companies started paying for sex-changes as well? They'd have barely any money left to pay for people with actual medical emergencies that are truly life threatening, like kids with cancer.

  • No it shouldn't

    Insurance should be used to help cover costly and **necessary** medical procedures. Gender bender surgeries are not necessary. If some guy "feels" like he's a woman, good for him. I don't care. But insurance companies should not be required to cover any procedures to "change" his gender. We are getting more and more ridiculous by the year.

  • Let's be real people.

    It is difficult enough to obtain health insurance for necessary medical procedures. If a person desires to receive a transgender surgical procedure, then pay out-of-pocket. Is not a birth defect; it is a personal choice. Save health insurance for people who desire to be healed through the gift of medicine.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.