This overview is excerpted from Manatt on Health, Manatt’s subscription service that provides in-depth insights and analysis focused on the legal, policy and market developments. For more information on how to subscribe to Manatt on Health, please reach out to Barret Jefferds.
Litigation continues on state laws and policies related to gender-affirming care.
Florida Ban on Gender-Affirming Care Found Unconstitutional
On June 11, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida permanently blocked Florida’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors and limitations on care for adults, finding the law and rules were motivated by lawmakers’ “animus” and therefore are unconstitutional.
The court found the state violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by treating people differently based on gender nonconformity. In addition to invalidating the prohibition on minors receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, the court also found unconstitutional the requirements related to adults’ care that only physicians could prescribe treatments and that ancillary services (e.g., annual hand x-rays and mental health assessments) must be performed to continue a treatment.
Another State Lawsuit Filed on Section 1557 Nondiscrimination Rule
On June 10, Texas and Montana filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, claiming the Biden Administration’s rule on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and is unconstitutional.
Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex in covered health programs or activities. The latest rule reinterpreting the provision—finalized in May—defined discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. As with a recent 15-state lawsuit challenging the rule, the states claim that including gender identity under the prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” both exceeds statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA. The states also claim the rule impermissibly threatens to withhold federal funds, including for Medicaid, if a state is in violation of the rule. The states seek to stay enforcement of and vacate the final rule.
For more information on how to subscribe to Manatt on Health, please reach out to Barret Jefferds