Supreme Court orders new review of transgender cases by lower courts
The court also directed a reconsideration of a decision allowing transgender people to challenge Oklahoma's refusal to let them change their gender designation on their birth certificate.
All of the cases at least partly turn on the Constitution's guarantee that governments should treat people equally, the same legal issue the court weighed when finding Tennessee's ban did not violate that protection.
More: Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors using puberty blockers, hormone therapy
But the court's 6-3 decision left unanswered how its ruling might apply to bans on transgender participation in school sports, bans on transgender care for adults, and other issues.
The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled North Carolina's and West Virginia's refusal to cover certain health care for transgender people is discriminatory.
West Virginia's Medicaid program had prohibited 'transsexual surgery' because of 'concerns like cost and effectiveness.'
North Carolina's health plan for state employees excluded treatments 'leading to or in connection with sex changes or modifications.'
North Carolina argued that, as part of the difficult choices it has to make to keep health care coverage affordable, it can exclude certain treatments as long as there's no proof of 'invidious discrimination.'
Dozens of state Medicaid and employee health care plans across the country have similar exclusions, according to North Carolina.
The appeals court said both states' coverage exclusions discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity and do not advance an important government interest. The divided panel also said West Virginia's prohibition violated the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act.
In a related case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's head of Medicaid can be sued for not approving sex-reassignment surgery. That decision must now be reconsidered.
'Cruelty over care': Transgender care advocates blast Supreme Court
In the Oklahoma case, the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said three transgender people could challenge Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt's ban on allowing transgender people to get new birth certificates to match their gender identity.
"I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period," Stitt, the governor, said in 2021.
A federal district judge dismissed the challenge to Stitt's executive order. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision last year.
A three-judge panel said the policy likely discriminates against transgender people and has no legitimate justification.
The court rejected the state's argument that changing birth certificates diminishes the accuracy of birth statistics. Oklahoma retains the original birth certificates so 'the same statistics are available, regardless of whether the Policy exists," the court wrote.
The original birth certificates can also be used to enforce Oklahoma's ban on transgender athletes competing in women's sports, the court added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
In 2023, Mass. hospitals pushed executive pay to new heights
That total reflected base salary, bonus pay, retirement benefits, and more. It was a 40.1 percent increase from the prior year, and included roughly $4.3 million in bonus and incentive pay. The amount is the highest total compensation reported by a Massachusetts hospital CEO in at least the last decade. In a statement, MGB Board Chairman Scott Sperling stood by Klibanski's compensation package, which he said was based on industry benchmarks with input from a consultant. Advertisement 'The challenges facing our industry are many, and the competition for top talent is unprecedented. It is imperative that we actively and robustly recruit and retain at every level to ensure we can expertly care for patients and communities for years to come,' Sperling said. 'Our objective, on average, is to base compensation for our senior executives at the 50th percentile of the current market, with performance driving any adjustments,' he said. Advertisement Previously, the health system has pointed to the leaders at other national health systems than her Massachusetts colleagues. Indeed, her 2023 salary ranked below some, including CEO of New York-based Northwell Health ($9 million) and Arizona-based Banner Health ($14 million). However Klibanski eclipsed others, including the CEOs at Cleveland Clinic ($7 million), and Mayo Clinic ($4.3 million). While the most recent compensation report lags by two years, Sperling pointed to how Klibanski had handled recent challenges as an example of what he said was her 'clear-eyed leadership,' including disruptive federal actions that have threatened research and an inpatient capacity crises. Dr. Anne Klibanski, with then-Governor Charlie Baker, pictured speaking at a coronavirus briefing in 2020. Sam Doran/Pool 'The Board of Directors fully supports Dr. Klibanski's compensation package ... which reflects her achievements and stewardship of an organization of this size and complexity,' Sperling said. Klibanski had plenty of company in the ranks of well-paid Massachusetts hospital executives in 2023. Dr. Kevin Tabb, who heads the state's second largest health system, Beth Israel Lahey Health, also reported a sizable increase, with his $5.4 million in total compensation representing a 93 percent increase from the prior year. The increases were a return to compensation Tabb reported in 2021, and were largely thanks to increases in bonus and incentive comp, as well as retirement and other deferred compensation. Dr. Eric Dickson, chief executive of UMass Memorial Health, reported a nearly 26 percent increase in total comp, to $3.9 million. The hospital said it changed its retirement plan in 2023, prompting an early payout of some benefits. That shift subsequently boosted the incentive compensation of several executives, including Dickson. Advertisement Similarly, Dr. Michael Gustafson, who left as president of UMass's flagship hospital, UMass Memorial Medical Center, in July 2023, reported a 60 percent increase in total comp to $2.8 million. Michael Dandorph, who helms Tufts Medicine, also reported a double digit increase in total comp. His $2.1 million total compensation was 32 percent higher than the previous year. Dr. Alastair Bell, CEO of Boston Medical Center Health System since June 2023 and its president since November 2022, saw his total comp increase by 34 percent to $1.9 million. Large jumps weren't universal. Other executives saw smaller changes including Dr. Kevin Churchwell ($3.2 million, down 5 percent) at Boston Children's Hospital, Dr. Mark Keroack ($2.8 million, a 4.8 percent increase) at Baystate Health where he served until 2024, and Dr. Laurie Glimcher ($2.5 million, up 5 percent) at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute which she led until 2024. Dr. Kevin Churchwell, CEO of Boston Children's Hospital, saw his compensation go down 5 percent from 2022 to 2023. Erin Clark/Globe Staff The data tracks with a study by the Harvard School of Public Health, which showed that executives overseeing large teaching hospitals nationally were the highest compensated. The study, However, there was no association between compensation and the degree of community benefit a hospital provided, nor was higher compensation associated with better patient mortality rates or readmission rates, according to the study. The Massachusetts Nurses Association lambasted executives for the pay, particularly as they said the quality of care at hospitals across the state has suffered. 'At a time when nearly 80% of Massachusetts nurses say hospital care has gotten worse in the last two years, it is deeply troubling that hospital CEOs are taking home enormous compensation packages while continuing to fail to ensure safe conditions for patients and direct care providers,' the nurses union said in a statement. Advertisement 'The very same executives receiving millions of dollars per year are making decisions not to invest in bedside care or listen to caregivers,' it said. The salaries reflect a time when hospitals were just beginning to climb out of the effects from the pandemic. Volume and revenue had begun to rebound in the year that for many hospitals ended September 2023, with Often, hospital executive compensation has been tied to a system's size and comparisons to others in the market, said Susan Malanowski, managing director of compensation consultant the Wilson Group. There are pressures on boards to hire competent executives, and the pool of applicants is smaller than it has been in the past. 'To be competitive, it is what it is,' Malanowski said. 'There is not really a big supply of competent CEOs or c-suite (executives).' While the most recent compensation data is for 2023, hospitals will be harder pressed to support large pay packages in 2025 and onward, Malanowski predicted. Uncertainty at the federal level will mean non-profit institutions will have to be more circumspect about where they set base salaries, and compensation increases are projected to be smaller. Advertisement Jessica Bartlett can be reached at
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Financially strained Brockton Hospital and its parent cut 80 jobs and service lines
Signature said its financial pains are tied not only to the massive fire that shut down Brockton Hospital for more than a year, but also to inadequate Medicaid and Medicare payments that 'have not kept pace with the rising cost of care delivery.' Nearly 80% of Signature's revenue is tied to the federal insurance programs for low-income or disabled adults and for those over 65. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The health care organization, which also owns a physician group, posted a $42 million operating loss in the first half of fiscal year 2025, according to the most recent state data. Brockton Hospital alone lost more than $34 million during that time. Advertisement 'These were extremely difficult decisions that were not made lightly,' Robert Haffey, president and CEO of Signature Healthcare, said in a statement. 'We are deeply grateful for the hard work and commitment of every member of our team.' Advertisement Haffrey's statement said the moves 'are necessary to ensure that we can continue delivering safe, high-quality, and compassionate care to the communities we serve.' Layoffs and unfilled job openings account for the workforce cuts, which did not include bedside positions, Signature vice president of marketing and development Beth MacNeill said. The cuts instead were directed at leadership and administrative positions. Signature will end its bariatric surgery services — a weight-loss procedure — in part because of the MacNeill said that, while Signature is monitoring the looming Medicaid cuts, which could cost Massachusetts providers $3.5 billion, they did not affect the decision to make these recent changes. 'We've been here almost 130 years and our goal is to be here for the long run,' MacNeill said. 'We recognize after the fire how much our community needs us and we need to make sure we're here for them.' Marin Wolf can be reached at
Associated Press
11 hours ago
- Associated Press
Covered California health insurance will cost more in 2026. Here's what's behind the increase
Californians who get their health insurance through the state's marketplace will see premiums increase by an average of 10.3% next year. Covered California officials on Thursday announced the first double-digit rate increase since 2018, saying it represents a 'confluence' of factors putting upward pressure on the market. Rising health care costs, the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies and policy-driven market uncertainty together are fueling the hike, Covered California Director Jessica Altman said. Insurers in recent years have expected health care costs to increase by about 8% each year. That makes up the bulk of next year's increase. But Altman said about 2% of the rate increase in the state's version of the Affordable Care Act marketplace is based on federal financial assistance that expires at the end of the year. President Donald Trump's signature spending and tax reform bill — the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — left out funding for enhanced premium tax credits used by more than 90% of Affordable Care Act enrollees nationwide. Congress enacted these subsidies during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure people had health insurance. Since then, Affordable Care Act enrollment has nearly doubled nationwide from 12 million to 24 million people. 'We've never been through a loss in affordability like the expiration of the enhanced tax credits,' Altman said. Congress could still decide to re-up the subsidies in September. If it doesn't, California will lose about $2.1 billion in enhanced tax credits for consumers. Double whammy for consumers Ariana Brill, a certified health insurance agent who helps people enroll in Covered California, said if the enhanced subsidies aren't renewed, consumers' pocketbooks will be hit twice next year. 'We'll see rates go up. We'll see assistance go down. And the net premium, the consumer's take home price, is going to go up considerably,' Brill said. Open enrollment typically starts on Nov. 1, but Brill said clients are already calling her with concerns about increases. A majority of her clients, about 2,600 of them, will have to pay significantly more for health care if Congress doesn't extend the enhanced subsidies, she said. If that happens, Brill said she expects some people to switch to less comprehensive, lower-cost plans to make ends meet. Others will drop coverage altogether. 'For most people, affordability is a huge part of their decision making. Very few of us have the luxury of buying things without looking at the price,' Brill said. State officials recently took steps to ease the potential loss of federal subsidies for the lowest-income Covered California members. The state will spend $190 million to maintain subsidies for people earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level (individuals earning about $23,000 or families of four earning about $48,000). Still, that investment is far short of the $2.1 billion the state stands to lose. Covered California's previous estimates indicate that 600,000 people could drop coverage as a result of lost subsidies and rising costs. That, in turn, could make health care even more expensive, experts say. That's because younger and healthier people tend to forego coverage first, leaving sicker and more costly people behind. To meet their needs, insurers have to charge more. 'With those lower utilization people leaving the marketplace, which leaves only the high cost users in the pool, it drives up premiums for those who are left,' said Matthew McGough, a policy analyst for KFF's Affordable Care Act program who co-authored a recent study looking at 2026 premium increases. More people seeking health care and higher prices are already the primary factor driving annual rate increases, McGough said. Some of that can be attributed to the aging population and widespread use of costly pharmaceuticals like Ozempic and Wegovy to treat diabetes and other chronic health conditions. But insurers nationally and in California have pointed out other factors contributing significantly to increased costs. These include tariffs on drugs and medical devices, enrollment and eligibility changes included in Trump's budget package, and inflation. Most insurers are assuming Congress won't extend the enhanced premium tax credits. Nationally, the median premium increase for next year is 18%, according to the KFF analysis. Loss of subsidies accounts for 4%, McGough said. 'It's definitely a significant factor this year and that along with the general environment of uncertainty are what is pushing these rates above what we've seen in the past few years,' McGough said. ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
