Families of Colorado transgender children struggle with lost care in wake of Trump order
()
Denver resident Leslie Williams' daughter, who is transgender, turned 18 in December, something she had been looking forward to given the lessened restrictions on access to gender-affirming care for adults.
Williams and her family moved to Denver from Kentucky in 2023 so her daughter could access hormone replacement therapy, and they've gone to Children's Hospital Colorado since she was 16 years old. She takes estrogen tablets and gets regular lab testing to ensure proper levels.
'It took a while for us to get in, but since then everything's gone very smoothly,' Williams said. 'The physicians have been wonderful. Everybody was wonderful. We had a really good experience there every time we've been.'
Williams said she received a message from the hospital this week notifying her they can no longer provide gender-affirming care to anyone under 19 years old.
'She's really been struggling a lot lately,' Williams said. 'The last two weeks have been really rough, and then getting the notification that her care is going to be possibly suspended or delayed has been a really big blow to her.'
Colorado Newsline, confirming the message Williams received, obtained a memo that Children's Hospital Colorado sent to staffers telling them that the hospital had stopped offering all gender-affirming medical treatment to patients 18 years old and younger.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 28 that prohibits the federal government from funding gender-affirming care for anyone under 19 and threatens to pull other funding from any entity that offers such care. It also removes Medicare and Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, among other changes.
Gender-affirming care, endorsed by both the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, can range from non-medical interventions like haircuts and name changes to services like hormone therapy and surgery to support the patient's gender identity.
Access to gender-affirming care has made a 'big difference' for her daughter's self esteem and the way she perceives herself, Williams said. She said she's scrambling now to find another solution since other clinics are also shutting down access for anyone under 19, and anyone that does offer care has long wait times.
'It's just really sad to see,' Williams said. 'Trans kids already have to go through a lot and they already have higher than normal suicide rates, and so it's just a really scary time for trans people.'
Children's Hospital Colorado said in a statement it will continue to provide 'behavioral health and supportive care services once approved prescriptions for current patients expire.' The hospital never offered gender-affirming surgical care to patients under 18.
'Like other hospitals across the country, we will continue to assess the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape,' the hospital statement said. 'We care deeply about our gender-diverse patients and their families, and we will carefully and responsibly support them as we evolve the model of care we offer.'
Colorado organizations that support transgender people saw an increased need for service following the election. The Trevor Project, a crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ+ youth, saw a 700% volume increase on Nov. 6, the day after the election, than in the weeks prior. In 2023, the organization found that 90% of LGBTQ+ youth felt that the current political environment negatively affects their well-being.
Trans kids already have to go through a lot and they already have higher than normal suicide rates, and so it's just a really scary time for trans people.
– Denver resident Leslie Williams
Broomfield resident Jessica Broadbent's 15-year-old son is transgender and has gone to Denver Health for gender-affirming care since he was 12. The first step in his transition was changing his name, a decision Broadbent said he came to all on his own.
'This has been all him making these decisions and me just kind of helping support him along the way and getting all the professional help that we can,' Broadbent said. 'It's been some time, and he's made these decisions slowly, surely and with informed and professional input. So it's really frustrating on all levels.'
Her son started taking puberty blockers, and switched to weekly testosterone shots once he turned 14. He recently switched to a daily testosterone cream instead, because he has a fear of needles.
TransLifeline provides a hotline run by peers for transgender people, at (877) 565-8860.
Broadbent said she's scared for how her son will be affected should he lose access to his medications, as gender-affirming care has been 'life changing' for him. She has had 'some very disheartening conversations' with her son in recent weeks, and she's worried more about the mental and emotional consequences than the physical effects if he loses access to his medication.
'It's frustrating having my kid feeling like he has to suppress who he is, what he believes in, hide to be safe,' Broadbent said.
Denver Health stopped providing some gender-affirming care this week, the Denver Post reported. The health system said in a Jan. 30 statement that the Trump order 'includes criminal and financial consequences for those who do not comply' and puts at risk its ability to participate in federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which represents 'a significant portion of Denver Health's funding.'
'Denver Health is committed to and deeply concerned for the health and safety of our gender diverse patients under the age of 19 in light of the executive order regarding youth gender-affirming care,' the statement says. 'We recognize this order will impact gender-diverse youth, including increased risk of depression, anxiety and suicidality.'
Existing patients should continue with any scheduled appointments, and Denver Health will work privately with its patients to determine the best changes to their medical care, the statement said.
Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, said the governor wants to ensure 'every Coloradan can access the healthcare they need, no matter who they are or how they identify.'
'We are continuing to evaluate Trump's executive order, which blatantly attacks members of the LGBTQ community, to understand its impact in Colorado and how people can continue to get access to needed care,' Wieman said in a statement.
Williams said she's seen the governor talk about 'protecting trans kids and protecting trans folks in Colorado, and I don't know how much they can really do when it's federal funding that's being cut.' But she wants to see elected officials talk more about how they can actually make a difference.
UCHealth spokesperson Kelli Christensen said the system has only offered gender-affirming care to patients 18 and older, but after the executive order, it will only offer services to patients 19 and older. That includes gender-affirming surgeries as well as medical therapies listed in the executive order.
'We know these changes may be challenging, especially for 18-year-old patients previously approved for gender affirming care, and behavioral health services will be available to help support our patients as they navigate these changes,' Christensen said in a statement.
A spokesperson for AdventHealth said it does not offer gender-affirming care to anyone under 18. HCA HealthONE hospitals also do not offer gender-affirming care. Spokesperson Stephanie Sullivan said its physicians would consult with patients, but they don't offer any treatments.
Broadbent said she plans to talk to her son's doctor about getting a three-month supply of his medication before the end of the month. She is also looking for other providers that might be able to prescribe his testosterone cream without putting access to federal funding at risk.
'It's kind of putting us all up against the wall,' Broadbent said. 'I didn't expect it so soon.'
Being in Colorado where 'it's supposed to be safe,' Broadbent said she thought the state would be 'somewhat insulated,' though not immune to pressure from the federal government. She and her family moved to Colorado from Florida eight years ago.
'Part of the appeal of being here is the access to care. It's part of why we paid more to live here,' she said.
Broadbent and her husband are ready to pack up everything they have and leave the country if that's ultimately what will be best for their children. But her son is a freshman in high school, and he wants to finish school, where he's already established roots.
Colorado officials need to acknowledge what is happening and to work actively to protect their constituents, Broadbent said. She called the office of U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette's, a Denver Democrat, and the office shared information on efforts to fight the executive order, a conversation Broadbent said gave her 'a little bit of hope.'
In a statement to Newsline, DeGette described the executive order as 'cruel' and said it 'ignores the fact that this kind of care is supported by every major medical association.' She said executive actions like the ones Trump has taken do not have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, or federal statute.
'Trump's actions, which are not based on science or accepted medical practice, are demonizing an already vulnerable group of Americans and denying them the care they need to live as their true selves,' DeGette said.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026, joined a group of other attorneys general in opposing the executive order Wednesday. An executive order from the president cannot make gender-affirming care illegal, because there is no federal law that does, Weiser said in a statement.
The statement said a U.S. Justice Department order last week stated that federal agencies cannot pause financial awards or obligations on the basis of an executive order, meaning 'federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care continues to be available, irrespective of the recent executive order.'
'As state attorneys general, we stand firmly in support of health care policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people,' the statement says. 'Health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors, not by politicians trying to use their power to restrict freedoms. Gender-affirming care is essential, life-saving medical treatment that supports individuals in living as their authentic selves.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill
The Senate's deficit hawks might be raising the loudest hue and cry over the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill.' But another group of Republicans is poised to have a bigger impact on the final legislative product. Call them the 'Medicaid moderates.' They're actually an ideologically diverse bunch — ranging from conservative Josh Hawley of Missouri to centrist Susan Collins of Maine. Yet they have found rare alignment over concerns about what the House-passed version of the GOP domestic-policy megabill does to the national safety-net health program, and they have the leverage to force significant changes in the Senate. 'I would hope that we would elect not to do anything that would endanger Medicaid benefits as a conference,' Hawley said in an interview. 'I've made that clear to my leadership. I think others share that perspective.' Besides Hawley and Collins, other GOP senators including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Jim Justice of West Virginia have also drawn public red lines over health care — and they have some rhetorical backing from President Donald Trump, who has urged congressional Republicans to spare the program as much as possible. Based on early estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 10.3 million people would lose coverage under Medicaid if the House-passed bill were to become law — many, if not most, in red states. That could spell trouble for Majority Leader John Thune's whip count: He can only lose three GOP senators on the expected party-line vote and still have Vice President JD Vance break a tie. Republicans already have one all-but-guaranteed opponent in Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky so long as they stick to their plan to raise the debt limit as part of the bill. They also view Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson as increasingly likely to oppose the package after spending weeks blasting the bill on fiscal grounds. Meeting either senator's demands could be enormously difficult given the tight fiscal parameters through which House leaders have to squeeze the bill to advance it in their own chamber. That in turn is empowering the senators elsewhere in the GOP conference to make changes — and the Medicaid group is emerging as the key bloc to watch because of its size and its overlapping, relatively workable demands. Heeding those asks won't be easy. Republicans are counting on savings from Medicaid changes to offset hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, and rolling that back is likely to create political pain elsewhere for Thune & Co., who already want to cut more than the House to assuage a sizable group of spending hawks. At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson is insisting the Senate make only minor changes to the bill so as to maintain the delicate balance in his own narrowly divided chamber. Thune and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) have already acknowledged that Medicaid, covering nearly 80 million low-income Americans, will be one of the biggest sticking points as they embark this month on a rewrite of the megabill. They are talking with key members in anticipation of difficult negotiations and being careful not to draw red lines publicly. 'We want to do things that are meaningful in terms of reforming programs, strengthening programs, without affecting beneficiaries,' Thune said, echoing language used by some of the concerned senators. Crapo voiced support in an interview for one pillar of the House bill — broad new work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries — but rushed to add that he's 'still working with a 53-member caucus to get answers' to how the program can be overhauled: 'I can only speak for myself.' Complicating their task is the fact that some in the group — namely Collins and Murkowski — have a proven history of bucking their party even amid intense public pressure. The pair, in fact, helped tank the GOP's last party-line effort on health care, in 2017. Leaders view them as unlikely to be moved by the type of arm-twisting Republicans are planning to deploy to bring enough of the fiscal hawks on board. And then there's Hawley, who is playing up Trump's own warnings to congressional Republicans about keeping their hands off Medicaid. Hawley and Trump spoke shortly before the House passed its bill, with the senator recounting that the president said 'absolutely categorically, 'Do not touch Medicaid. No Medicaid benefit cuts, none.'' Hawley, like Crapo, has indicated he is comfortable with work requirements, but he is pushing for two major tweaks to the House language: undoing a freeze on provider taxes, which most states use to help finance their share of Medicaid costs, and new co-payment requirements for some beneficiaries that he has been calling a 'sick tax.' The provider tax changes would present an issue with multiple senators, who fear it would exacerbate the bill's impact on state budgets and slash funding that helps keep rural hospitals afloat. Justice, a former governor, called it a 'real issue.' 'They haven't done anything to really cut into the bone except that one thing,' Justice added. 'That's gonna put a big burden on the states.' Moran grabbed the attention of his colleagues when he warned in a pointed April floor speech that making changes to Medicaid would hurt rural hospitals. A 'significant portion' of his focus, he said, 'is to make sure the hospitals have the capability and the revenues necessary to provide the services the community needs — Medicaid is a component of that.' Collins, who is up for reelection in 2026, has also left the door open to supporting work requirements, depending on how they are crafted. She has also raised concerns about the provider tax provision, noting that 'rural hospitals in my state and across the country are really teetering.' Murkowski, meanwhile, isn't as concerned about the provider tax, because Alaska is the only state that doesn't use it to help cover its share of Medicaid spending. But she has expressed alarm over the House's approach to work requirements, including a decision to speed up the implementation deadline to appease House hard-liners. She said it would be 'very challenging if not impossible' for her state to implement. As it is, any effort to water down the House's Medicaid language will face steep resistance in other corners of the GOP-controlled Senate, where lawmakers are pushing to amp up spending cuts, not scale them back. Some senators, in fact, want to further tighten the House's work requirements or reduce, not just freeze, the provider tax. 'I'd be damned disappointed if a Republican majority with a Republican president didn't make some reforms,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). 'The provider tax is a money laundering machine. … If we don't go after that, we're not doing our jobs.' Ron Johnson and a few others are continuing to push to change the cost split for those Medicaid beneficiaries made eligible under the Affordable Care Act. The federal government now picks up 90 percent of the cost, and House centrists nixed an effort by conservatives to reduce it. One idea under discussion by conservatives is to phase in the change to appease skittish colleagues and state governments, but that is still likely to be a nonstarter for 50 GOP senators. Hawley warned that 'there will be no Senate bill if that is on the table.' Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Home Healthcare Common for People With Dementia
The use of home healthcare services is common among people with dementia, especially for community-initiated care, a new analysis of Medicare data showed. Between 2010 and 2019, use of community-initiated home healthcare increased by 17%, while use of home healthcare for postacute care rose by 21%. Use decreased after 2020, which investigators said could be linked to staffing shortages in the home healthcare industry. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis, including over 13 million older adults (mean age, 79.4 years; 60% women; 86% White individuals) who were enrolled for traditional Medicare and received home healthcare between 2010 and 2022. The frequency and duration of home healthcare spells were analyzed and compared between individuals with dementia (28%) and those without dementia (72%). Postacute care was defined as home healthcare instituted within 14 days of discharge from a hospital, nursing home, or other facility. All other home healthcare use was classified as community-initiated. TAKEAWAY: Between 2010 and 2022, there were 30,998,653 home healthcare spells (mean, 2.2 home health spells per beneficiary). Individuals with dementia used community-initiated home healthcare more frequently than postacute care (54% vs 46%). Among individuals with dementia, the number of community-initiated care spells increased from 35.4 to 40.2 per 1000 beneficiaries and that of postacute care spells increased from 28.9 to 35.1 per 1000 beneficiaries (2010-2019) and then fell to 33.6 and 28.5 per 1000 beneficiaries by mid-2022, respectively. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of community-initiated care spells among individuals without dementia decreased by 20%, while postacute care spells decreased by 21% in this population. Home healthcare spells were consistently longer for individuals with dementia than those without it (47-52 days vs 44-50 days for community-initiated care and 40-43 days vs 32-34 days for postacute care). IN PRACTICE: 'Despite increasing use of home health care during this time period, people may receive incomplete support for their home healthcare needs through Medicare, which is centered on needs for skilled care, or Medicaid, which entails strict asset and income tests. Decreasing rates of home healthcare use since 2020 in this high-need population point to a need for ongoing monitoring of service use and outcomes for people with dementia,' the investigators wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on May 16 in JAMA Network Open . LIMITATIONS: The study relied on claims data for dementia diagnosis. The COVID-19 pandemic may have disrupted healthcare utilization, potentially leading to underdiagnosis of dementia toward the study's end. Additionally, the study only included traditional Medicare beneficiaries as those enrolled in Medicare Advantage typically use home healthcare at lower rates and for shorter periods, which may have influenced the observed trends. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging. One author reported receiving personal fees from City Block Health and Trinity Health outside the submitted work.
Axios
5 hours ago
- Axios
Exclusive: HHS watchdog finds more than $16B in health savings
The Department of Health and Human Services' watchdog identified more than $16 billion in overpayments, fraudulent billings and possible cost savings in health programs over a half year spanning the Biden and Trump administrations, including more than $3.5 billion to be returned to the government. Why it matters: The semiannual summary, first shared publicly to Axios, comes as the Trump administration says it's prioritizing government efficiency and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. It reflects growing concern over federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans, along with enforcement actions like McKinsey agreeing to pay $650 million to settle charges that its advice caused Purdue Pharma to submit fraudulent claims stemming from the opioid crisis. The report was sent to Congress late Friday. By the numbers: The HHS Office of Inspector General identified $16.6 billion in real and potential savings from October 2024 through March of this year. The office's investigations identified $3.5 billion in funds due back to the federal government, and its audits found another $451 million that the government will recoup. More than $12 billion in potential cost savings were identified if HHS makes recommended policy changes. The office issued 165 recommendations over the six months. In one example, OIG found that Medicare could have saved $7.7 billion if it lowered payments for swing beds at critical access hospitals so that they match skilled nursing facilities. The change would require action from Congress, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it didn't agree with the recommendation. Nearly 400 civil actions, including settlements, resulted from OIG's work during the period. OIG says its work returned $11 to the federal government for each $1 invested in its office. "Whether it's us, whether it's [the Government Accountability Office], whether it's DOGE, whether it's state auditors, there's always a need for program integrity and oversight," said John Hagg, assistant inspector general in the IG's office of audit services. Zoom in: OIG over the six months covered in the report continued its investigations that raise concerns over improper payments in Medicare Advantage. OIG found that many patient diagnoses reported by privately run Medicare plans were supported only through health risk assessments. That allowed plans to be paid more to care for sicker, more expensive patients without enough supporting documentation, raising questions about their validity, per OIG. OIG recommended that Medicare further restrict plans' abilities to get higher payments based on diagnoses reported only on in-home health risk assessments in order to save an estimated $4.2 billion for Medicare. The office plans to do more work on Medicare Advantage in the near future, Melicia Seay, assistant inspector general in the office of evaluation and inspection, told Axios. "There's a lot of areas in terms of Medicare Advantage that we're exploring, whether it is the payment policy related to the program, the service delivery, quality of care," she said. Catch up quick: President Trump in January abruptly fired several agency inspectors general, including longtime HHS watchdog Christi Grimm. He claimed that"some were not doing their job."
