Hello all,


I would be interested in hearing from USG employees in transition about their experiences with FEHB health insurance.  OPM has ruled that transgender employees enjoy all possible non-discrimination protections, but the notorious "transgender exclusion" remains in all FEHB insurance policies.  In my case, it took the Foreign Service Benefit Plan (I'm with the State Dept.) nearly a year to add things up and start denying most everything from quarterly blood tests to speech therapy.  (I am currently well over a year on HRT and nine months into RLE.)  I expected this, of course, and always knew I would be out-of-pocket for most everything beyond the common cold.  I've saved for GCS at the expense of TSP retirement savings.


So, what have been your experiences, both bad and good?  Shall we hope for a change in FEHB policies?


Best to all,
Robyn

Quote from: msrobyn-alice on August 04, 2012, 09:46:50 AM
Hello all,


I would be interested in hearing from USG employees in transition about their experiences with FEHB health insurance.  OPM has ruled that transgender employees enjoy all possible non-discrimination protections, but the notorious "transgender exclusion" remains in all FEHB insurance policies.  In my case, it took the Foreign Service Benefit Plan (I'm with the State Dept.) nearly a year to add things up and start denying most everything from quarterly blood tests to speech therapy.  (I am currently well over a year on HRT and nine months into RLE.)  I expected this, of course, and always knew I would be out-of-pocket for most everything beyond the common cold.  I've saved for GCS at the expense of TSP retirement savings.


So, what have been your experiences, both bad and good?  Shall we hope for a change in FEHB policies?


Best to all,
Robyn

I made some inquires through my channels, and the voice in the aisles is that negotiations on future coverage are centered on details of the covergage.

If Mr. Obama is reelected chances are SRS, HRT, and other procedures will be covered in FY14 or FY 15 at the latest.

However, if Mr. Romney gets elected the chances of getting some coverage are no good. Moreover, it is very likely that Romney would attempt to undo all of Mr. Obama's protection rules.

Voting against the GOP is more crucial than ever.

I have heard the same through-the-grapevine hopes for FY14.  Let's hope they are more than hopes.


At a recent conference of USG LGBT activists that I participated in, the considered opinion was that things had gone too far for a Romney administration to undo "LGBT rights are human rights."  Deemphasize, yes; but officially undo, no.  As to health benefits, however, I agree with you totally.  A GOP administration would put the stake through transgender coverage until the GOP gets voted out.


When it comes to this year's election, I tell all my friends and family to "vote for me" by voting Democrat.  If not for this administration and Secretary Clinton, I would not be writing these lines today.

Quote from: peky on August 04, 2012, 10:00:20 AM
I made some inquires through my channels, and the voice in the aisles is that negotiations on future coverage are centered on details of the covergage.

If Mr. Obama is reelected chances are SRS, HRT, and other procedures will be covered in FY14 or FY 15 at the latest.

However, if Mr. Romney gets elected the chances of getting some coverage are no good. Moreover, it is very likely that Romney would attempt to undo all of Mr. Obama's protection rules.

Voting against the GOP is more crucial than ever.

Peky, this is totally unsubstantiated speculation.  Any regulations promulgated by the Executive branch of the government must conform to the laws on the subject passed by the Congress.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 04, 2012, 01:15:09 PM
Peky, this is totally unsubstantiated speculation. 

JamieD,

Exactly which statement is "unsubstantiated speculation" ?

I've got to agree with Peky here.  The Executive Branch has great leeway in deciding on regulations within the federal government.  That is why we have the OPM guidance on employment of transgender persons in the federal government in the first place.  It is also why we have four high-level transgender appointees in the federal government today.  That would not have happened under the previous administration, nor would it be likely to happen under a Romney administration.


Now, if the legislative branch were to enact legislation declaring all transgender protections illegal, we would have quite a different kettle of fish.  My own sense is that we are just small fry, however, and therefore not likely to attract tea party legislative attention at the national level.  As the Russians say, тише едешь, дальше будешь -- move quietly and you will go further.

Quote from: peky on August 04, 2012, 04:38:53 PM
JamieD,

Exactly which statement is "unsubstantiated speculation" ?

Where are the policy statements from the respective campaigns that support your contention or timeline?

Your own phrasing was "chances are."

We are both scientists, Peky, and we both know rank speculation when we see it.

All,

Let's please refrain from mocking and/or derogatory titles for persons involved with this discussion and the policies being discussed.

Thank you.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 04, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
Where are the policy statements from the respective campaigns that support your contention or timeline?

Your own phrasing was "chances are."

We are both scientists, Peky, and we both know rank speculation when we see it.

Here you go:

In 1994, Romney supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but by 2006 he had changed his mind and opposed it because it would "unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges."<sup>[240]

How can you trust a flip-flop</sup>

Quote from: peky on August 04, 2012, 07:58:32 PM
Here you go:

In 1994, Romney supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but by 2006 he had changed his mind and opposed it because it would "unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges."<sup>[240]

How can you trust a flip-flop</sup>

Romney's statement regarding ENDA can be found in this dialogue, from December 16, 2007:

Russert: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
Romney:  At the state level.  I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
Russert:  Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
Romney:  I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.


The ENDA argument for the purpose of this topic is a particularly poor one.  First, from 2009 to 2011, when the Democrat Party held control of both the House and the Senate, the ENDA bill failed to make it out of committee.

AS HR 3017, the bill was introduced in June 2009, referred to the Democrat-controlled House Education and Labor Committee, where it died from lack of any further action.

Similarly, and ENDA bill (S. 1584) was propose din the Democrat-controlled, filibuster-proof, Senate in August 2009, where it was referred to Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where it failed to get a vote.

Mr. Obama is not on record supporting ENDA during the 111th Congress, and has notably failed to issue an Executive Order (likely unconstitutional in any case) supporting the provisions of the bill.
Furthermore, as ENDA dealt with housing, employment, etc., similar to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, there is no evidence that ENDA would, in and of itself, force insurers to cover cosmetic and voluntary surgeries (as the present policies term them).

Nor is there any evidence that, as President, Romney would roll back the supposed gains under the Obama Administration in transgender rights.  (I would argue there have been no gains to roll back.)

So, it appears you are wrong on the facts, and your argument is not germane.

So back to the main point ... Where are the campaign policy statements that support your contention and timeline?

The main point of this thread, as I understand it, is how trans* federal employees might or might not benefit from the Foreign Service Benefit Plan. Let's return to and stick to that topic.

If this thread cannot discuss the main topic, perhaps it needs to be locked.

Thank you.

I beg to disagree.  If only within the federal government itself, the changes on transgender issues have been immense during the current administration.

Nowhere has this been more true than within the Dept. of State.  Secretary Clinton added gender identity to the Department's Statement on Discriminatory and Sexual Harassment in the summer of 2010, and it is this fact that allowed me to transition while serving overseas as a Foreign Service Officer.  Secretary Clinton has met numerous times with board members from Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), whereas under Secretary Rice there was no contact at all.  Add to that the Secretary's commitment to LGBT rights as human rights, a 3-way DVC we did on transgender issues from Embassy Bucharest during Pride Month, and the 2011 OPM guidance on employment of transgender persons in the federal government.  Although advancements for transgender rights overall may not have been as great as any of us might wish, they have been immense within agencies of the federal government itself. 


The extent of the changes within the State Dept. are nicely highlighted by an opposition web page:  http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12a/obama_memo_120611/index.html.  Scroll down about 2/3 of the way to a sub-section with the title "Transgender Madness in the U.S. Foreign Service" and yours truly as the cover child.  The fact that changes at State and elsewhere in the federal government are attracting such a reaction from opposition groups highlights the extent of the changes that have taken place.


PS to Connie Anne -- I agree.  Although the political side will always be "interesting," I began this thread to discuss health benefits for federal employees.  From this point forward I would like to see us return to that subject or, if necessary, start the discussion over again as a new thread.

FEHB = Federal Employee Health Benefits

The foreign service plan falls within that umbrella.  I was for many years covered under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Federal Employee Plan,' the largest health plan in the United States.

Discussion as to how these dozens of health plans may be effected by Executive Order, proposed legislation, regulation, or commission rulings, is within the scope of the issues broached by the original post.

Quote from: msrobyn-alice on August 04, 2012, 10:18:11 PM
SNIP

PS to Connie Anne -- I agree.  Although the political side will always be "interesting," I began this thread to discuss health benefits for federal employees.  From this point forward I would like to see us return to that subject or, if necessary, start the discussion over again as a new thread.

How, then, does that comport with your response in Reply #2, to Peky's comments in Reply #1?

You and Peky opened the door for a broader political discussion through partisan politicking.

I will honor, however, your request to limit discussion to  health benefits for federal employees.

Quote from: msrobyn-alice on August 04, 2012, 10:18:11 PM
Although the political side will always be "interesting," I began this thread to discuss health benefits for federal employees.  From this point forward I would like to see us return to that subject or, if necessary, start the discussion over again as a new thread.

As per OP's request, please keep discussion to health benefits for federal employees. Otherwise, topic will have to be locked.

thanks,

Zythyra - News Admin

Quote from: Zythyra on August 05, 2012, 03:23:28 PM
As per OP's request, please keep discussion to health benefits for federal employees. Otherwise, topic will have to be locked.

thanks,

Zythyra - News Admin

Well, then Mr Romney position is no good for the 2 million federal workers, as whether they are or they are not discriminated for being LGBT at work would not depend on state law, but on federal law.

Since Mr. Romney clearly states that he will not support ENDA at the state level, my original post speculation is fully substantiated; so, if you are a TG federal employee and Mr. Romney get elected, then you will in the proverbial "up the creek without a paddle."

Now, knowing that Mrr Romney will not support ENDA for Federal Employees, do you really believe that Mr. Romney will support SRS coverage for TG federal employees?

hmm, Posting from my experiance only i guess I need to states a few things,
1. There is curretntly no plan where Transgender (sex Change) is covered for surgery or mediction.
2. OPM has provided a carry letter to be provided to carries for routine health care be covered, I.E. Blood work, Etc.
3. My Condition is intersex
4. My Endo stated Hypogonadisim, and medications were and have been pid by the provider, and my Flexible spending Account.
5. I am working as a female, all records have been changed, except my birth certificate and DD214.
6. Clearance was not an issue.
7. SRs is now tax deductable
8. There are no  explicit mention on healthcare in the Employment Non-discrimination act.
9.  If by chance you are a veteran, (I am) The Vetrans administration will cover testing, psych aqppointments, and other care releated to both the original and presenting genderr and is supposed to do so without discrimination. They will not pay or perform surgery.
10. There is no clear law on the issues, however the EEOC has ruled and the Department of Justice has upheld that Gender Identity is a form of sex discrimination.  There are other items in the Federal Court tha hove clarified that it is discimination.  However there has to my knowledge been any challenge to the federal system to provide coverage like many fortune 500, or cities have started to provide.   

That is unless you are in a federal prision then they provide all if you were on them prior ot entering. 


It would be nice if SLDN, or the Trans Legal areas would consider taking this on as an issue.

That Said;
I only received one denial due to an erronous coding of the form in Georgia.
They will not pay for the surgery at this time.

There have been a great deal of improvements and I feel that there are more to come.  I beleive that not just because of the administration but of the media, and information that is proving that truly this is not a mental problem, and that the opinion is swaying on onyl two genders.