Latest news with #SB140
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Georgia doctors decry bill aimed at restricting adolescent access to puberty blockers
Opponents of legislation that would place restrictions on transgender Georgians gathered across from the state Capitol in January. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder As medical and mental health providers, we are deeply concerned about two bills currently making their way through the state Legislature that would prevent us from providing necessary medical care for some of our most vulnerable patients. Senate bills 30 and 39 would further restrict access to life-saving medical care for adolescent transgender patients, and, in an unprecedented step, would make it more difficult for some adult transgender patients to obtain gender-affirming care. These policies would infringe on the rights of health care providers, families, and patients to make important medical decisions, risking the medical and mental health of transgender people in our state. We unequivocally believe that all Georgians should have access to high-quality, evidence-based medical care, and we strongly oppose any legislation that would harm the health and wellbeing of our transgender and gender diverse patients. In 2023, Gov. Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 140 into law, a ban on essential health care for transgender youth preventing medical providers from prescribing hormone therapy to minors but maintaining patient access to puberty-delaying medications. For transgender adolescents, puberty can be a time of significant distress, with bodily changes that are upsetting, unwelcome, inconsistent with the way they see themselves, and can contribute to anxiety and depressive symptoms. Puberty-delaying medications allow adolescents in the early stages of puberty and their families more time to make decisions about their medical care with guidance from their trusted health care providers. Importantly, puberty-delaying medications have been used safely for more than three decades for various conditions like precocious puberty and endometriosis, and they not only have reversible effects on puberty but also are well-studied and have a good safety profile. Despite assurances from the sponsors of SB 140 that they would not seek to further restrict medical care for transgender patients, these same lawmakers are now proposing SB 30, which would prohibit access to puberty-delaying medications for transgender youth while ensuring that cisgender youth can continue to benefit from this treatment. Restricting these medications for transgender youth not only goes against the current scientific evidence, but it is also discriminatory against a particular group of adolescents. Furthermore, the mental health consequences for transgender youth that will occur because of this policy are quite severe and entirely preventable. Prohibiting health care professionals from providing necessary and life-saving treatment to our transgender patients is a stark example of government overreach and directly challenges our professional responsibility to prevent harm and reduce suffering for those entrusted in our care. Provisions in SB 39 would also restrict access to health care for adult and pediatric transgender patients in two distinct ways. First, this bill denies coverage of gender-affirming care for Georgians who rely on the State Health Benefit Plan, which currently covers more than half a million state employees, teachers, retirees, and their dependents. This bill expands upon current restrictions and those proposed in SB 30 as it would be the first law proposed in Georgia that prevents transgender adults from accessing their medications and other treatments. Additionally, SB 39 would prevent health care providers at state-owned or -operated medical facilities from providing gender-affirming care to any transgender patient regardless of their age or insurance plan. Due to the vague language used in the bill, the potential impact of this policy on the practice of health care professionals remains unclear. When questioned during a hearing in the Senate Committee on Insurance and Labor, Sen. Blake Tillery, the bill's sponsor, failed to assuage concerns that this policy could impact medical institutions throughout Georgia that receive any amount of state funding. Instead of trusting medical professionals in Georgia to assess and treat patients based on our best clinical judgement and medical treatment guidelines, lawmakers undermine our expertise by inserting themselves into the medical decision-making process in service of an ill-informed and explicitly harmful political agenda. Gender-affirming health care for transgender people, which can include the use of puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy, is considered the standard of care by every major medical and mental health association in the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the American Psychological Association, among many others. Numerous clinical studies have repeatedly demonstrated the positive and often life-saving effects of gender-affirming medical care. Transgender patients with access to the care they need have better mental health outcomes, including lower levels of depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as an improved sense of wellbeing. The substantial health benefits of gender-affirming care are indisputable based on scientific evidence and further supported by our clinical experiences caring for transgender patients. We fervently advocate for our patients to maintain access to medical care that helps improve their overall health and wellbeing. Georgia currently faces substantial challenges with recruiting and retaining medical and mental health providers. More than 30 counties in Georgia have been identified as high need areas impacted by provider shortages. Laws that restrict health care professionals from practicing evidence-based medicine further exacerbate this problem. Many medical and mental health providers, regardless of specialty, have concerns for their safety, their patients' well-being, and the freedom to provide effective and compassionate care in states where lawmakers prioritize partisan politics over health care access and patient autonomy. Georgians across the state will ultimately suffer the consequences of provider shortages as a result of legislative overreach into health care decisions and aggressive efforts to criminalize medical care that is robustly supported by scientific evidence. We, as health care providers in Georgia, stand in strong opposition to a political strategy that seeks to dehumanize transgender people and restrict the rights of adult and pediatric transgender patients to fully access the medical care that they need. The protection of personal freedom and choice are core values of our state and include decisions made in health care settings. We urge lawmakers to vote no on SB 30 and SB 39 and to stop all efforts to politicize medical care for transgender Georgians. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Indiana bills unfairly target pharmacy benefit managers
Across Indiana, businesses of all sizes work hard to provide quality, affordable health benefits for their employees and their families. But recent efforts — both at the state and federal levels — threaten to take those choices away. Legislation like Indiana Senate Bill 140 and House Bill 1606 introduced last month, along with misguided proposals being considered in Congress, unfairly target pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) under the guise of reform. These efforts would strip employers of the tools they rely on to offer quality prescription drug coverage at an affordable price, ultimately raising costs for businesses and workers. Hicks: Indiana's startling Medicaid math forces unpleasant choices Employers and their employees are the first ones to feel the growing costs of health care, and they depend on PBMs to push back against those increases. PBMs play a critical role in our health care system, helping health plan sponsors offer the pharmacy benefits their employees need at a price the employees can afford. On average, PBMs save employers and families $1,040 per person each year by leveraging their scale to negotiate lower prices and rebates. As a result, PBMs make it possible for businesses to offer high-quality, affordable benefits while keeping premiums and out-of-pocket costs in check. PBMs give employers flexibility so that each health plan sponsor can design the benefits that best suit their needs. A national survey of nearly 700 employers found that '88% of survey respondents expressed satisfaction with their PBMs' ability to provide the lowest costs for employees at the pharmacy counter.' The value of PBMs extends far beyond employers and those who rely on prescription medications. University of Chicago economics professor Casey Mulligan found that PBMs create an annual $145 billion value for society. Mulligan's research highlights that PBMs' impact goes beyond the employer-PBM-patient relationship. They benefit the entire health care system — including drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and government programs — by introducing cost-saving mechanisms and competition that help lower prices. However, lawmakers are targeting PMBs and creating a spider web of regulations to disable them. Proposals like spread pricing bans, government-mandated pass-through pricing, and 'delinking' policies would strip away these cost-saving mechanisms, leaving businesses with fewer choices and higher expenses. These misguided policies claim to help patients but, in reality, they would increase health care costs by over $26 billion annually — a devastating hit for small businesses, workers and families. Legislation like SB 140, considered in Indiana, would add a $10.64 tax on many prescriptions filled in the state and even ban employers from offering specific lower-cost pharmacy options, such as mail-order. Mail-order is a convenient and affordable option that helps patients stay on the medicines they need by ensuring they get their prescriptions delivered right to their doors. As someone who spent years in the Indiana legislature, I know the importance of allowing businesses to operate with flexibility and market-driven solutions. Employers — not government mandates — should decide how to structure their health benefits. When companies have the freedom to choose the best options for their employees, they can better control costs, improve coverage and provide stability for their workforce. Weakening PBMs would force businesses to make difficult decisions—either absorb higher healthcare costs, shift those costs to employees through higher premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, or reduce their benefits altogether. None of these outcomes help working families. Instead of interfering with employer-driven health plans, policymakers should strengthen the private market and ensure businesses retain the tools to keep health care affordable. Indiana's workers and employers deserve policies that protect their benefits, not those that make coverage more expensive and complicated to access. Legislators should reject harmful policies undermining employer choice and free-market competition in health care. The right approach is straightforward: support businesses, protect the private market, and preserve the flexibility that keeps prescription drug costs under control for Hoosier families. Jim Merritt, a Republican, was an Indiana state senator for more than 30 years. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: SB 140, HB 1606 unfairly target pharmacy benefit managers | Opinion
