Health Insurance Coverage of Permanent Hair Removal in Transgender and Gender-Minority Patients

Gender-affirming surgeries for transgender and gender diverse individuals and associated health outcomes

Gender-affirming care is treatment that recognizes and affirms the gender identity of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. Though not all TGD people choose to surgically transition, gender-affirming surgeries (GAS) are an important part of many TGD people's transition. GAS can include a wide array of procedures aimed at aligning an individual's physical characteristics and gender identity. This review describes the most common procedures considered to be GAS, detailing important relevant considerations for each procedure. These include transfeminine procedures (i.e., breast augmentation, penile inversion vaginoplasty, orchiectomy, tracheal shave, and facial feminization); transmasculine procedures (i.e., chest masculinization, hysterectomy, phalloplasty, and metoidioplasty); and other procedures (i.e., fertility preservation and hair removal). Patient outcomes and the legal landscape for GAS are also discussed to contextualize these procedures within largest discourses surrounding gender-affirming care.

Limited health insurance coverage of injectable neurotoxins and fillers for gender affirmation: a cross-sectional study of Affordable Care Act silver and Medicaid plans

Background

Injectable neurotoxins and fillers are potential options for facial gender affirmation for transgender/nonbinary patients. However, the largest barrier to access is cost/insurance coverage.

Objective

The purpose of this article is to assess the extent to which Affordable Care Act (ACA) silver plans and Medicaid policies cover gender-affirming injectable neurotoxin and filler procedures.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of all ACA silver plans and Medicaid policies was performed from June 22 to August 15, 2021. Plan-specific certificates of coverage, clinical policies of insurance providers, and Medicaid documents were evaluated.

Results

A total of 915 plans were reviewed (864 ACA silver plans and all 51 Medicaid policies). None potentially covered neurotoxins. Only 72 (71 ACA and 1 Medicaid) potentially covered fillers, specifically collagen injections and lipofilling. Coverage required demonstration of medical necessity or significant variation of physical appearance from the patient's experienced gender. However, of the 71 ACA plans, 69 outlined cosmetic exclusions, possibly nullifying this coverage.

Limitations

Data were sourced from publicly available online information in 2021. Additionally, we were unable to confirm explicit coverage of these procedures with insurance companies.

Conclusion

The majority of ACA silver and Medicaid plans did not cover gender-affirming neurotoxin or filler procedures, limiting access to this gender-affirming care.

Journeying Through the Hurdles of Gender-Affirming Care Insurance: A Literature Analysis

Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) has been proven to be successful in the treatment of gender dysphoria. The benefits of providing insurance coverage for transition-related surgeries far surpass the costs of suffering from persistent gender dysphoria, including many positive health outcomes such as decreased rates of substance use, psychiatric illness, and suicide. Despite being deemed a medical necessity, discrepancies in access to treatment and insurance coverage for GAS persist. The purpose of this review is to understand the impact of limited insurance coverage on the well-being of transgender patients. A comprehensive search was conducted utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in SCOPUS and PubMed databases using the terms "insurance" AND "gender affirming surgery." Articles in non-English languages were excluded. Data related to variations in insurance coverage for GAS in the United States were collected. Of the 67 articles reviewed, 29 met the inclusion criteria. When compared to the general population, individuals who identify as transgender have higher rates of being uninsured as of 2020, with only 30 states in the United States providing insurance coverage for transgender and gender non-binary people. Of the 30 states, only 18 provide coverage for GAS, with chondrolaryngoplasty having the highest prevalence of coverage. As evidenced in our review, the persistence of complex insurance regulations impedes transgender individuals' access to equitable care. Overall, this literature review elucidates the variability in insurance coverage as it relates to gender-affirming care. Furthermore, this review highlights the need for additional health policy reforms, in addition to improving physician awareness regarding the hurdles of navigating the insurance world as a transgender patient.

Principles and outcomes of gender-affirming vaginoplasty

Vaginoplasty is the most frequently performed gender-affirming genital surgery for gender-diverse people with genital gender incongruence. The procedure is performed to create an aesthetic and functional vulva and vaginal canal that enables receptive intercourse, erogenous clitoral sensation and a downward-directed urine stream. Penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) is a single surgical procedure involving anatomical component rearrangement of the penis and scrotum that enables many patients to meet these anatomical goals. Other options include minimal-depth, peritoneal and intestinal vaginoplasty. Patient quality of life has been shown to improve drastically after vaginoplasty, but complication rates have been documented to be as high as 70%. Fortunately, most complications do not alter long-term postoperative clinical outcomes and can be managed without surgical intervention in the acute perioperative phase. However, major complications, such as rectal injury, rectovaginal fistula, and urethral or introital stenosis can substantially affect the patient experience. Innovations in surgical approaches and techniques have demonstrated promising early results for reducing complications and augmenting vaginal depth, but long-term data are scarce.

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8

Background: Transgender healthcare is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field. In the last decade, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and visibility of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people seeking support and gender-affirming medical treatment in parallel with a significant rise in the scientific literature in this area. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is an international, multidisciplinary, professional association whose mission is to promote evidence-based care, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health. One of the main functions of WPATH is to promote the highest standards of health care for TGD people through the Standards of Care (SOC). The SOC was initially developed in 1979 and the last version (SOC-7) was published in 2012. In view of the increasing scientific evidence, WPATH commissioned a new version of the Standards of Care, the SOC-8. Aim: The overall goal of SOC-8 is to provide health care professionals (HCPs) with clinical guidance to assist TGD people in accessing safe and effective pathways to achieving lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves with the aim of optimizing their overall physical health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment. Methods: The SOC-8 is based on the best available science and expert professional consensus in transgender health. International professionals and stakeholders were selected to serve on the SOC-8 committee. Recommendation statements were developed based on data derived from independent systematic literature reviews, where available, background reviews and expert opinions. Grading of recommendations was based on the available evidence supporting interventions, a discussion of risks and harms, as well as the feasibility and acceptability within different contexts and country settings. Results: A total of 18 chapters were developed as part of the SOC-8. They contain recommendations for health care professionals who provide care and treatment for TGD people. Each of the recommendations is followed by explanatory text with relevant references. General areas related to transgender health are covered in the chapters Terminology, Global Applicability, Population Estimates, and Education. The chapters developed for the diverse population of TGD people include Assessment of Adults, Adolescents, Children, Nonbinary, Eunuchs, and Intersex Individuals, and people living in Institutional Environments. Finally, the chapters related to gender-affirming treatment are Hormone Therapy, Surgery and Postoperative Care, Voice and Communication, Primary Care, Reproductive Health, Sexual Health, and Mental Health. Conclusions: The SOC-8 guidelines are intended to be flexible to meet the diverse health care needs of TGD people globally. While adaptable, they offer standards for promoting optimal health care and guidance for the treatment of people experiencing gender incongruence. As in all previous versions of the SOC, the criteria set forth in this document for gender-affirming medical interventions are clinical guidelines; individual health care professionals and programs may modify these in consultation with the TGD person.

Spending and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery in the US

Importance

Genital gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is safe and offers substantial benefits to patients. Geographic accessibility and high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs reportedly hinder access; however, to date, this has not been thoroughly investigated at the national level.

Objective

To estimate OOP and total costs for GAS among commercially insured beneficiaries and assess whether costs differed between surgical procedures conducted in and outside the patient's state of residence.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used previously collected insurance data from the MarketScan Commercial Database (129 million patients) from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019. Vaginoplasties and phalloplasties were identified using diagnosis and procedure codes among patients aged 18 to 64 years. Out-of-state surgical procedures were identified based on residence at enrollment and place of service of the surgery. Data analysis took place from July 1 to September 31, 2021.

Exposures

Vaginoplasty and phalloplasty.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were differences in OOP and total costs by out-of-state designation, census region, age, and insurance type for surgical procedures, estimated using multivariable linear regression models.

Results

The study included 771 patients who underwent GAS. A total of 609 underwent vaginoplasty, of whom 249 (41%) underwent surgery in their state of residence (mean [SD] age, 38.7 [13.1] years) and 340 (56%) underwent surgery outside their state (mean [SD] age, 38.1 [13.0] years), and 162 underwent phalloplasty, of whom 66 (41%) underwent surgery in their state of residence (mean [SD] age, of 39.7 [11.6] years) and 81 (50%) underwent surgery outside their state (mean [SD] age, 35.8 [10.9] years); 20 vaginoplasties (3%) and 15 phalloplasties (9%) could not be classified as in or out of state owing to missing data about the facility or residence. Procedures outside the state were associated with 49% (95% CI, 19%-85%) higher OOP costs compared with procedures done in the state of residence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, 56% of patients who underwent vaginoplasty and 50% of patients who underwent phalloplasty underwent the procedure outside their state of residence. Patients who underwent these procedures outside their state also experienced higher OOP costs than did those who underwent these procedures in their state. Improving geographic access and understanding patient preferences for surgical care may help reduce the cost burden for those planning to undergo GAS.

Comparison of Permanent Hair Removal Procedures before Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty: Why We Should Consider Laser Hair Removal as a First-Line Treatment for Patients Who Meet Criteria

Introduction

Permanent genital hair removal is required before gender-affirming vaginoplasty to prevent hair-related complications. No previous studies have directly compared the relative efficacy, costs, and patient experiences with laser hair removal (LHR) vs electrolysis treatments. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of medical devices is poorly understood and commonly misrepresented, adversely affecting patient care.

Aim

This study compares treatment outcomes of electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal and investigates FDA regulation of electrolysis and LHR devices.

Methods

Penile-inversion vaginoplasty and shallow-depth vaginoplasty patients completed surveys about their preoperative hair removal, including procedure type, number/frequency of sessions, cost, and discomfort. Publicly available FDA-review documents and databases were reviewed.

Main Outcomes Measure

Compared to electrolysis, LHR was associated with greater efficiency, decreased cost, decreased pain, and improved patient satisfaction.

Results

Of 52 total (44 full-depth and 8 shallow-depth) vaginoplasty patients, 22 of 52 underwent electrolysis only, 15 of 52 underwent laser only, and 15 of 52 used both techniques. Compared to patients that underwent LHR only, patients that underwent only electrolysis required a significantly greater number of treatment sessions (mean 24.3 electrolysis vs 8.1 LHR sessions, P < .01) and more frequent sessions (every 2.4 weeks for electrolysis vs 5.3 weeks for LHR, P < .01) to complete treatment (defined as absence of re-growth over 2 months). Electrolysis sessions were significantly longer than LHR sessions (152 minutes vs 26 minutes, P < .01). Total treatment costs for electrolysis ($5,161) were significantly greater than for laser ($981, P < .01). Electrolysis was associated with greater pain and significantly increased need for pretreatment analgesia, which further contributed to higher net costs for treatment with electrolysis vs laser. Many LHR and electrolysis devices have been FDA-cleared for safety, but the FDA does not assess or compare clinical efficacy or efficiency.

Clinical Implications

For patients with dark-pigmented hair, providers should consider LHR as the first-line treatment option for preoperative hair removal before gender-affirming vaginoplasty.

Strength and Limitations

This is the first study to compare electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal. The discussion addresses FDA review/oversight of devices, which is commonly misrepresented. Limitations include the survey format for data collection.

Conclusion

When compared with electrolysis, LHR showed greater treatment efficiency (shorter and fewer treatment sessions to complete treatment), less pain, greater tolerability, and lower total cost. Our data suggests that, for patients with dark genital hair, providers should consider recommending laser as the first-line treatment for permanent genital hair removal before vaginoplasty.

Yuan N, Feldman A, Chin P, et al. Comparison of Permanent Hair Removal Procedures before Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty: Why We Should Consider Laser Hair Removal as a First-Line Treatment for Patients Who Meet Criteria. Sex Med 2022;10:100545.

Dermatologic Care of Hair in Transgender Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature

Transgender patients on masculinizing and feminizing hormonal therapy undergo myriad physical and psychologic changes. Dermatologists are uniquely qualified to guide patients in the gender-affirming process, especially as it relates to hair. Given the paucity of literature guiding dermatologists in this process, a systematic review was performed to better understand the physiologic changes of hair in patients on masculinizing and feminizing hormonal therapy as well as the variety of treatment options that exist to help transgender patients to attain their desired hair growth pattern. This review reports findings and treatment options supported by the performed literature review as well as treatment recommendations based on the authors' own experiences treating this unique patient population.

Survey of Dermatologic Procedures in Transgender Adults

BACKGROUND

Dermatologists have the opportunity to provide medically necessary procedures, including laser hair removal, to transgender patients for gender affirmation. Further research is required to better assess the unique dermatologic needs of this population.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of dermatologic procedures among transgender people in the context of gender-affirming treatment.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study examined survey responses from 696 transgender persons enrolled in the Study of Transition, Outcomes, and Gender cohort. Prevalence of self-reported dermatologic procedures was examined and compared across participant subgroups.

RESULTS

Electrolysis was the most commonly reported procedure (32.9%). Transfeminine patients were more likely to use dermatologic procedures compared with transmasculine patients. Only 19 participants (2.8%) reported the use of dermal filler injections.

CONCLUSION

Differences in utilization of dermatologic procedures were noted in transgender populations. Motivations, barriers, and optimal timing for gender-affirming dermatologic procedures among transgender persons should be examined in future studies.

International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment

OBJECTIVES

To identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people.

DESIGN

Systematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation.

SETTING

Six databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached.

PARTICIPANTS

CPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development.

INTERVENTION

Any health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients.

RESULTS

Twelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people's healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%-94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%-56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019154361.