Do No Harm in Medicaid ActThis bill prohibits federal Medicaid payment for specified gender transition procedures for individuals under the age of 18. The bill defines these procedures to mean those that are intended to change the body of an individual to no longer correspond to the individual's biological sex (male or female), including specified surgeries, implants, and medications (e.g., hormones).The bill excludes procedures that are provided to an individual under the age of 18 with the consent of a parent or legal guardian and that are intended to (1) rectify early puberty, genetic disorders, or chromosomal abnormalities; (2) reverse prior gender transition procedures; or (3) prevent imminent death or impairment of a major bodily function.
If enacted, HB498 would have significant implications for healthcare access and Medicaid funding related to gender transition for minors. It would effectively limit the types of medical services accessible under Medicaid, placing financial constraints on transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming care. As a result, this could lead to broader disparities in health outcomes for minors who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs. The bill also raises important questions about parental rights and medical authority, as it allows exceptions only for treatments addressing specific medical conditions or precocious puberty, while excluding broader gender transition procedures.
House Bill 498, titled the 'Do No Harm in Medicaid Act', seeks to amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors. The bill specifically includes a list of medical procedures and treatments that fall under the definition of gender transition, such as surgeries and hormone therapies that are aimed at altering an individual's physical traits to correspond with their gender identity. This legislation reflects a growing trend among various state and national lawmakers to restrict access to certain medical treatments for transgender minors, citing concerns about long-term effects and the appropriateness of such procedures for individuals who are not yet fully developed emotionally and psychologically.
The proposal has garnered considerable debate and controversy. Supporters argue that the bill protects minors from making irreversible decisions regarding their own bodies at a young age and emphasizes the need for age-appropriate medical intervention. Conversely, opponents assert that this legislation undermines the rights of parents to make informed medical decisions about their children’s health, and it restricts access to medically necessary treatments for transgender youths who benefit from gender-affirming care. This contention highlights a key battle in the ongoing national discussion about healthcare rights for transgender individuals and the role of government in personal health decisions.