Howard Brown announces new CEO, during time of challenges for transgender patients under Trump
Dr. Travis Gayles will serve as CEO of Howard Brown, which has seven clinics in Chicago and specializes in caring for patients who are LGBTQ+ and people living with HIV. A search committee selected Gayles from among 200 candidates.
Most recently, Gayles was chief health Officer at Hazel Health, a school-based telehealth provider. He's also served as a public health official in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Early in his career, Gayles trained at Lurie Children's Hospital and Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, where he specialized in adolescent and HIV medicine.
'We are at a critical moment where we can amplify our voice — not only in Chicago but across the nation — working to tackle the systemic barriers that still exist in healthcare,' Gayles said in a news release about his appointment.
Gayles will begin serving as CEO on March 3.
His tenure follows controversy at Howard Brown, and coincides with the beginning of President Donald Trump's term.
Trump has worked in recent weeks to dismantle programs and protections for people who are transgender. He issued an executive order proclaiming that the federal government will only recognize two genders, and another executive order saying that many types of federal money may not be used for gender affirming care for minors, and that institutions receiving federal research grants may not perform gender affirming care for minors.
Howard Brown is a federally qualified health center, meaning it receives federal funding to care for low-income patients. A spokesperson for Howard Brown said in a statement Tuesday: 'The order has no immediate impact on our operations, and we will be monitoring developments working with our partners. We are continuing to provide gender-affirming care to all patients who rely on our services and remain committed to improving the health of trans and gender diverse communities.'
Tim Wang, director of policy and advocacy for Howard Brown, told the Tribune late last year that a loss of federal funding would create 'a huge hole in our operating budget.' Howard Brown treats nearly 38,000 patients a year, and about a quarter of its patients are on Medicare or Medicaid.
Howard Brown has also grappled in recent years with conflicts with workers' unions as well as financial struggles. In May, Howard Brown announced that it planned to close two of its Chicago clinics following an expected $6.6 million budget shortfall; because of the departure of the clinics' sole providers; and because the clinics' leases were up.
In November, Howard Brown agreed to pay $1.3 million to workers that the National Labor Relations Board alleged it laid off illegally. The settlement agreement resolved a complaint that alleged the health center had illegally laid off more than 50 workers without bargaining with their union. Howard Brown workers represented by the Illinois Nurses Association went on strike twice in 2023 before reaching a contract agreement in May.
Dr. Robin Gay has been serving as interim CEO of Howard Brown for about a year and will support the new CEO during the leadership transition before resuming her role as Howard Brown's chief dental officer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Changes In Prior Approval Coming To Traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage
There were two major announcements recently regarding prior approval of treatments and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In most medical insurance, many treatments won't be covered unless it is approved first by the insurer. It's been a source of controversy for some time. Original Medicare hasn't required prior authorization of treatments and services, with a few exceptions. For most care, providers and the patient agree on a treatment. After the treatment, paperwork for approval and payment is submitted to Medicare. Medicare recently announced a new model program that will test pre-approval. The voluntary model program will test pre-approval for some services and treatments, according to a recent announcement from the Center for Innovation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The model program is seeking medical providers to volunteer for the program from Jan. 1, 2026 through Dec. 31, 2031. The model will be restricted to New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and Washington. Providers who volunteer and are accepted will agree to seek prior authorization for 17 items and services, including skin substitutes, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's Disease, impotence treatment, and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis. A provider who volunteers for the program can choose not to seek prior approval for a case. There will be a post-treatment review of the case, and the provider will risk not being paid by Medicare for the treatment. CMS initiated the program and selected the services to be covered because of a series of reports showing waste, fraud or abuse in certain areas. For example, Medicare spent up to $5.8 billion in 2022 on unnecessary or inappropriate services that had no clinical benefit, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Under the model, providers will submit the same information they currently submit for payment approval after a service is provided to a beneficiary. The difference is that under the model, the information will be submitted earlier and the provider will wait for approval before performing the services. CMS will select companies to receive and review the prior authorizations. It expects that they will use artificial intelligence and other tools in addition to medical professionals to review the submissions. The companies will be paid based on the extent to which they saved the government money by stopping unnecessary services. CMS said it will manage the program to avoid adverse impact on beneficiaries and providers. There was other news about pre-approval, this time involving Medicare Advantage plans. Pre-approval in Medicare Advantage plans has been controversial recently. There have been a number of recent reports and studies that found the authorization process was delaying treatment or causing patients to abandon treatment plans. Other reports indicated that a high percentage of treatments that initially were denied coverage eventually were approved if the patients or their providers appealed the than 50 major insurers who sponsor many types of insurance plans announced that they will voluntarily streamline prior authorization of treatments and services in all insurance markets, including Medicare Advantage plans. The insurers say they plan to have the new process in place by Jan. 1, 2027.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
How Healthcare Is Becoming Less Affordable Under The Trump Administration
Ryan Chelsea-Clinton Community Health Center located in the Hell's Kitchen, New York City, provides ... More high-quality, affordable, and comprehensive healthcare services to children, adults, and seniors. (Photo by: Deb Cohn-Orbach/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) It has been just six months since President Trump has started his second term as Commander-in-Chief, and there have been profound changes in the healthcare landscape across America. His legislative and regulatory agenda could accelerate the decline in healthcare affordability across the United States. Here's how health services and accessibility could be compromised for millions of Americans. Medicaid Cuts More than 10 million Americans will lose healthcare insurance coverage through Medicaid over the next decade as part of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill', according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. These millions of Americans are among the most vulnerable population in dire need of healthcare, as Medicaid supports children, the elderly, pregnant women and those with disabilities. Without health insurance, individuals may be reluctant to seek care when sick, they may not go to the doctor's office for routine checkups, and they may not be able to fill drug prescriptions to curb serious diseases. When getting emergent care, these individuals will not be able to afford the large health bills they receive since they are uninsured as Medicaid will not contribute to picking up the tab. Rollback Of Affordable Care Act Subsidies President Joe Biden allowed for federal subsidies and premium tax credits for middle- and low-income families who bought state health coverage on state insurance marketplaces as part of the Affordable Care Act. This aid decreased medical bills and lowered insurance premiums for the 24 million Americans that benefit from this plan. These subsidies are in jeopardy and could expire in December if congress does not renew them. If congress does not act, millions of Americans could be forced to lose healthcare coverage altogether or be pushed to switch to higher deductible health plans that would require them to pay more out of pocket costs before receiving financial support. These changes will not just affect low-income families. The cost to middle-class and working families will be stark- some households earning around $65,000 could see annual health costs rise by over $2,300, and approximately 4.2 million people could lose health insurance altogether, according to the Washington Post. Rising Out-Of-Pocket Costs Healthcare costs that were once paid by health insurers could be shifted increasingly to individuals. As an example, consider COVID-19 vaccines that have traditionally been covered by the federal government or health insurers at no cost to the consumer. New federal guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines will allow health insurers to halt coverage of the vaccines, so patients themselves will have to cover the cost. As an example, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the CDC have stated that COVID-19 vaccines will no longer be recommended for pregnant females. Health insurers are usually obliged to cover vaccines that are recommended by federal regulatory bodies. However, with the new federal recommendations, health insurers will be exempt from covering this service to select individuals, which will effectively shift the cost to Americans if they want to stay protected from COVID-19. Increased Drug Costs President Trump has announced an intent to impose tariffs in the range of 25-200% on pharmaceuticals to incentivize drug production in the United States. If implemented, this policy would be problematic since 80 percent of generic tablets consumed by Americans are manufactured outside the U.S. according to The Hill. Even a 25% tariff would increase U.S. drug prices by nearly $51 billion. This, of course, would have devastating consequences for millions of Americans. Not only would this make healthcare even less affordable than it already is, but health outcomes would deteriorate. Many Americans would forego buying medicines, thereby exacerbating sickness and illness. Nine out of 10 people over the age of 65 rely on prescription drugs to maintain their well-being, according to the American Association of Retired Persons. Although the Trump administration has touted executive actions that seek to improve health transparency and reduce drug costs, the broader legislative and regulatory agenda being imposed will make healthcare significantly less affordable to the average American. Many American families could lose health insurance, face higher premiums and pay greater out-of-pocket costs in the years to come.
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
No, California is not guaranteed to remain an abortion haven
The sudden closure of five Planned Parenthood clinics in Northern California last week reveals a sad, stark truth: California is not the national 'haven' for abortion rights that it has aspired to be since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. No state could be under Republican rule in Washington, or while federal law trumps state law, the Supreme Court majority opposes abortion rights and clinics are reliant on federal money to survive. There are few options to fix this problem, even in California, the world's fourth-largest economy. The state barely covered its budget deficit this year, and it has holes to fill as federal funds for public universities, education, transportation and other sectors were slashed in the recently passed budget. Plus, the state needs federal dollars to help rebuild Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires there earlier this year. Ten million Americans are expected to lose their health insurance because of nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans will receive a disproportionate share of the tax cuts funded by those reductions, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 'It's an illustration of the limits on what any state can do (on abortion access) if the federal government is hostile,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at UC Davis and leading scholar on abortion rights. 'It's more of a reminder that there isn't really a real sanctuary. California has limited power over a lot of this.' It is the latest example of how California is in the political crosshairs of what President Donald Trump's former top adviser Steve Bannon famously described as his 'muzzle velocity' philosophy of launching a lot of disruptive policies and spurious attacks simultaneously. California is withering under the incoming fire. The people hurt most by the closure of those clinics will be the poorest Californians, as 80% of the people who used services at those clinics were Medicaid recipients, according to Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, the umbrella organization for the shuttered clinics. Planned Parenthood doesn't just provide abortion services. The majority of people go to Planned Parenthood clinics for contraceptive services, sexually transmitted infection testing, pregnancy testing and gynecological services. One in 10 (11%) female Medicaid beneficiaries ages 15 to 49 who received family planning services went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2021, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. California has the highest percentage (29%) of Medicaid recipients in the country who go there for health care. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go. California was supposed to be a haven for abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Shortly after the decision, Gov. Gavin Newsom joined the governors of Washington and Oregon to create what he called 'the West Coast offensive. A road map for other states to stand up for women.' A diverse coalition of abortion rights advocates formed the California Future of Abortion Council. It proposed more than 50 recommendations for policymakers to improve abortion access in the state. In the year after the decision, Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature created more than a dozen new laws and invested more than $200 million to increase access across the state. In November 2022, 67% of California voters supported a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the state Constitution. Newsom spent $100,000 from his campaign coffers to plant billboards in seven states with some of the nation's most restrictive laws: 'Need an abortion?' reads one billboard. 'California is here to help.' 'What you do in California sets the standard for everyone else,' Mini Timmaraju, national president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said at a 2022 fundraiser for Proposition 1 in San Francisco that Hillary Clinton attended. 'I want to take that package of legislation and this proposition and see it copied nationwide.' Ultimately, all those California laws and all that state funding weren't enough to keep the Mar Monte clinics open. They never could be as long as there isn't the national right to an abortion that Roe provided and as long as women's health clinics are reliant on federal funds to remain open. Planned Parenthood estimates that 200 clinics nationwide could close. To meet this reality, California needs a new 'West Coast offensive.' It needs to draw up a new 'road map for other states to stand up for women.' It would be best if clinics were funded privately, insulating them from partisan federal cuts. But that is harder now. California is the state with the most millionaires and billionaires. Now is the time for wealthy individuals and foundations to stand up and backfill these losses so clinics can continue to provide access to women's health care. But will those individuals step forward? Or will they be cowed like the wealthy law firms and Ivy League universities that have bowed to Trump's intimidation? Even if they do step up, is there enough private money in California to keep federally funded women's health clinics open until Democrats regain control of at least one lever of power in Washington and can curb his fascistic policies? That possibility looks bleak. For starters, it would probably require hundreds of millions of dollars, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, former NARAL Pro-Choice California director who is now vice president of public affairs at Essential Access Health. 'I think the honest answer is, we don't know yet. We're talking about a huge hole.' Theresa Cheng, a professor of emergency medicine at UCSF and a member of the school's Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, said it will be difficult for the private sector to patch up all the new holes punctured in the social safety net by the Trump administration. 'That's going to be really difficult because the Trump administration has cut so broadly in so many social systems,' said Cheng, who is in touch with private donors through her work with several nonprofit organizations. 'Food insecurity. Homelessness. Immigration. There are a lot of needs out there now.' Relying on private donations isn't going to help clinics across California's chasm of wealth inequality, Ziegler said. 'If you're depending partly on individual donors, that's going to look very different in Beverly Hills or Marin County than it is in Gilroy or other areas where there are few people to give private donations,' Ziegler said. Until political change happens in Washington, Cheng urged Californians to 'stay stalwart in protecting reproductive health. So much of this will have to be settled out in the courts. That will at least buy us some more time.'
