Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Medicine recently sent an e-mail to staff stating that they support a bill moving through the Maryland legislature that would expand the "medically necessary gender-affirming treatments" available through the state's Medicaid program to include puberty blockers for children.
The Post Millennial reports that the e-mail read as follows: "Last year, Johns Hopkins Medicine provided written and oral testimony in support of a similar bill introduced last year but did not pass in the Maryland House," and "JHM will be submitting written testimony in support of the proposed legislation."
The e-mail went on to say: "Helen Hedian, Director of Clinical Education for the Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health will be providing oral testimony at the upcoming committee hearings this month." and "Paula M. Neira, Program Director of LGBTQ+ Equity and Education in the Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity, will also be testifying in support of the proposed revisions to the Maryland Medicaid program."
The e-mail supports Maryland House Bill 283 and its companion bill, Senate SB 460.
The bill would allow the Maryland Medical Assistance Program to cover gender-affirming treatments beginning on January 1, 2024.
Some therapies that might be included are puberty blockers for children, hormone therapy, hair alteration, voice alterations and therapy, mastectomies and breast augmentations, laser scar treatments, genital surgery, and fertility preservation services.
The legislation makes it clear that the treatments that might be covered include any treatment described by the current clinical Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Those receiving treatment via Medicaid will be permitted to get "medically necessary gender-affirming treatment" in a non-discriminatory manner.
The John Hopkins e-mail also stated:
"In addition, the law provides a mechanism to ensure that coverage may not be excluded because a treatment was labeled as cosmetic, or that an adverse health benefit determination cannot be made, unless a health care provider with gender-affirming care experience has reviewed and confirmed the determination."
The medical university seems interested in making sure that they step directly into a landmine regarding their support for something that is undoubtedly very controversial. The fact that they are so bold in their support for this legislation has many people scratching their heads in confusion. They want to know why such a well-known and beloved medical institution would do something like this. However, that is what they have decided to do now, and now we must all decide how we feel about John Hopkins after these actions were taken.
Login