Medi-Cal Expansion Will Boost Transgender Health Services
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2014/2/6/medical-expansion-will-boost-transgender-health-services
Source: California Healthline Author: none listed

Medi-Cal expansion under the Affordable Care Act could enable transgender patients in California to obtain sex reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy and other transgender-specific health care services, KQED's "State of Health" reports. Medi-Cal is California's Medicaid program.

Recently, California has begun shifting Medi-Cal beneficiaries to managed care plans. Sex reassignment surgery and other transgender-related health care services now are covered by two health plans that contract with the program:

    Anthem Blue Cross; and
    San Francisco Health Plan.


edited by LH to comply with posting guidelines: added source, author, and title

Now if only more trans-care specialists would accept insurance...

A similar article...

"D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray on Thursday announced that the city will recognize gender dysphoria as a medical condition, forcing insurance companies to cover treatments such as gender-reassignment surgery for transgender people."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/27/dc-health-plans-include-gender-reassignment-surger/

This has been a positive point for me, knowing that as a temporary part-time, as needed employee in California (which is 1 of 2 states that allow employers let go of employees without having to give or state a reason for doing so), that if I do lose my job when I come out at work eventually, I can still stay on hrt, work towards srs through the affordable care act.

The fact that if I do lose my job, I can still get affordable healthcare is also great.  I'm rather grateful

I think more than 2 states have at will employment. I know mine is.

At will, yes.  But even if you aren't at will, California still doesn't require being told why you're being let go.  California and Montana I believe are the 2 they don't require employers to give reason.  Or Idaho.

I pretty much thought they didn't have to unless you had a union and employer agreement. They just usually do.

Could be.  Maybe the other 48 don't have laws either way, and if pushed with legal actions could be made to disclose the cause of termination, whereas in California and one other state the law favors the employer's choice not to disclose.

I might have stated it backwards, where instead of 48 states requiring disclosure, 2 have laws giving employers the right not to disclose.

The info about California and the others state being the only two where Employers are allowed by law not to state a reason for termination (prolly a better way of putting it) came from a California employment law guide a few years back...

I don't know.  Law isn't my strong point and I prolly should have actually did a bit of research before sharing and fumbling it completely.

Tis' fine, I plead ignorance.