Quote from: jentay1367 on April 12, 2017, 04:03:46 PM
Has this been superseded with new policy?
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/medicare-denies-national-coverage-for-gender-reassignment-surgery-no-evidence-of-therapeutic-outcome/
update...apparently they do on a case by case basis. My question would be what criteria they're using this week and what kind of percentages are being covered? It would be tragic to count on this and have it dismissed and denied out of hand after having counted on it. Seems like all government programs, it does more harm than good. 
From Medicare:
"Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results – of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms."
Medicare uses "Best Evidence-" or should be.
Looks like the right hand is not talking to the left.
The 2014 decision that removed blanket ban won as evidence prior to 1981 that determined srs was experimental was ruled as not relevant and thrown out.
A national coverage decision (ncd) was triggered by this decision.
The decision summery recommendation that is quoted does indeed state that their was not enough evidence for the Medicare population.
But... they never took the 2014 decision into account, and that the "experimental evidence prior to 1981" was dismissed. In their meta(like)-analysis they used all studies that matched their search criteria from pubmed, including all of the evidence that was dismissed in 1981. Their results then of course were determined to be inconclusive.
Because there is no NCD, there is also no set reimbursement amount a surgeon can look up. This is a biggie, and then because of the seeming misinformation with the local MACs coverage is denied.
Currently best evidence is of course wpath. In their revised statements of medical necessity they argue that care (and procedures) must be customized to the patient.
I am working through a Medicare Appeal for hair removal that I imagine is going to end up in front of an Administrative Law Judge. I am also building up a case for the NCD recommendation based on "best evidence, and wpaths SOC/necessity statements".
If we can get a NCD, we then have a far better chance of finding surgeons willing to work with us.
Because Medicare does not have a prior auth system it's currently a huge gamble if it will be covered.
~Brooke~