Association Between California's State Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act and Utilization of Gender-Affirming Surgery.

Importance: Gender-affirming surgery is often beneficial for gender-diverse or -dysphoric patients. Access to gender-affirming surgery is often limited through restrictive legislation and insurance policies. Objective: To investigate the association between California's 2013 implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits insurers and health plans from limiting benefits based on a patient's sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression, and utilization of gender-affirming surgery among California residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population epidemiology study of transgender and gender-diverse patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery (facial, chest, and genital surgery) between 2005 and 2019. Utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California before and after implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act in July 2013 was compared with utilization in Washington and Arizona, control states chosen because of geographic similarity and because they expanded Medicaid on the same date as California-January 1, 2014. The date of last follow-up was December 31, 2019. Exposures: California's Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, implemented on July 9, 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of gender-affirming surgery, defined as undergoing at least 1 facial, chest, or genital procedure. Results: A total of 25 252 patients (California: n = 17 934 [71%]; control: n = 7328 [29%]) had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Median ages were 34.0 years in California (with or without gender-affirming surgery), 39 years (IQR, 28-49 years) among those undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states, and 36 years (IQR, 22-56 years) among those not undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states. Patients underwent at least 1 gender-affirming surgery within the study period in 2918 (11.6%) admissions-2715 (15.1%) in California vs 203 (2.8%) in control states. There was a statistically significant increase in gender-affirming surgery in the third quarter of July 2013 in California vs control states, coinciding with the timing of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act (P < .001). Implementation of the policy was associated with an absolute 12.1% (95% CI, 10.3%-13.9%; P < .001) increase in the probability of undergoing gender-affirming surgery in California vs control states observed in the subset of insured patients (13.4% [95% CI, 11.5%-15.4%]; P < .001) but not self-pay patients (-22.6% [95% CI, -32.8% to -12.5%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation in California of its Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act was associated with a significant increase in utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California compared with the control states Washington and Arizona. These data might inform state legislative efforts to craft policies preventing discrimination in health coverage for state residents, including transgender and gender-diverse patients.

Legal epidemiology of paediatric dog bite injuries.

BACKGROUND: Dog bite injuries cause over 100 000 paediatric emergency department visits annually. Our objective was to analyse associations between regional dog ownership laws and incidence of paediatric dog bites. METHODS: This observational study used an online search to locate local dog-related policies within Ohio cities. Data collected by Ohio Partners For Kids from 2011 through 2020 regarding claims for paediatric dog bite injuries were used to compare areas with and without located policies and the incidence of injury. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 6175 paediatric patients with dog bite injury encounters. A majority were white (79.1%), male (55.0%), 0-5 years old (39.2%) and did not require hospital admission (98.1%). Seventy-nine of 303 cities (26.1%) had city-specific policies related to dogs. Overall, the presence of dog-related policies was associated with lower incidence of dog bite injury claims (p=0.01). Specifically, metropolitan areas and the Central Ohio region had a significantly lower incidence when dog-related policies were present (324.85 per 100 000 children per year when present vs 398.56 when absent; p<0.05; 304.87 per 100 000 children per year when present vs 411.43 when absent; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of city-specific dog-related policies is associated with lower incidence of paediatric dog bite injury claims, suggesting that local policy impacts this important public health issue. There are limited dog-related policies addressing dog bite prevention, with inconsistencies in breadth and depth. Creating consistent, practical requirements among policies with vigorous enforcement could ameliorate public health concerns from paediatric dog bite injuries.

Mifepristone, preemption, and public health federalism.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Even before the final opinion issued, scholars and advocates had begun to consider legal strategies that might mitigate the decision's anticipated harmful consequences. One such strategy involves challenging state restrictions on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pregnancy termination drugs on preemption grounds. This article begins by exploring how these challenges might fare-considering both drug-specific restrictions and complete bans on abortion-arguing that there are compelling legal grounds on which courts should conclude that many state restrictions are preempted. Importantly, although these state restrictions have arisen within a larger debate about reproductive health care, this is far from the only area in which states seek to regulate prescription drugs. States have long regulated drugs in ways that diverge from FDA, arguably increasingly so in recent years. Accordingly, the article investigates the implications that preemption challenges in the abortion context may have for other areas of state drug regulation, making the case that the benefits of public health federalism need not be undermined by successful preemption challenges in the abortion arena.