HUSKY Health, Connecticut’s Medicaid program, currently provides coverage for a range of gender-affirming care services when they are determined to be “medically necessary”.

Gender-affirming care can include social, medical, and surgical steps that help a person align their physical characteristics with their gender identity, and HUSKY recognizes that gender affirmation surgery is one possible part of this process.

Coverage is not automatic, however — most procedures require prior authorization, and approval is based on medical necessity at the time the request is reviewed.

“Medically necessary” is a broad term.

For example, if someone is seeking genital surgery, HUSKY may consider it medically necessary as long as several criteria are met: the individual understands how the surgery could affect future reproduction (or, in the case of chest surgery, future lactation), their gender incongruence is marked and sustained over time, they have at least one referral letter from a qualified treating provider, any significant medical or mental health conditions are documented as stable and not interfering with care, and they are stable on hormone therapy unless hormones are not desired or are medically contraindicated.

HUSKY’s guidelines do not frame “medical necessity” around whether gender-affirming care is life-threatening or tied to a serious physical illness. Instead, coverage decisions are largely based on therapeutic and clinical evaluations, including documentation of sustained gender incongruence, informed consent, provider referral letters, and confirmation that any significant health concerns are stable and do not interfere with treatment.

When it comes to children and adolescents under 18, HUSKY reviews gender-affirming surgery requests on a case-by-case basis, meaning coverage decisions depend on the individual’s specific circumstances, clinical documentation, maturity to provide informed assent, and the support and evaluations provided by qualified treating and mental health professionals.

Similarly, MassHealth follows nearly identical guidelines.

Under MassHealth and Husky, members can receive:

Pelvic and gonadal surgeries, such as hysterectomy or orchiectomy

Genital surgeries, including vaginoplasty, metoidioplasty, urethroplasty, and related procedures

Chest surgeries, such as mastectomy or breast augmentation

Facial feminization or masculinization surgeries, when considered reconstructive and directly tied to gender transition

Thyroid cartilage reduction (tracheal shave), when medically necessary for gender affirmation

Voice modification surgery, especially when voice therapy has not been successful

Certain hair removal procedures, such as preparation for vaginoplasty or phalloplasty donor sites

AG TONG RELEASES COMMENT ON NEW RULES

Connecticut and Massachusetts Attorney Generals have recently taken a strong stance in opposition to proposed new rules that would restrict access to transgender healthcare for youth, especially through Medicaid coverage. Currently, these proposed rules would prohibit Medicaid from paying for what they describe as “attempts to align a child’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the child’s sex.” The rules introduce the term “sex-rejecting procedure,” which is defined broadly to include both pharmaceutical and surgical interventions that either suppress typical pubertal development or alter primary and secondary sex characteristics, including reproductive organs. While the proposal does include narrow exceptions — such as care for medically verifiable disorders of sexual development, procedures done for other non-transition purposes, or treatment of complications caused by prior interventions — the overall language is sweeping and would significantly limit the ability of transgender youth to access gender-affirming care through Medicaid. Connecticut and Massachusetts argue that policies like these go beyond healthcare regulation and instead create barriers that interfere with medically supported treatment, placing vulnerable young people at greater risk by cutting off access to necessary care.

Attorney General Tong, in his comments addressing the proposed rule, argued that restricting gender-affirming care for minors could unintentionally affect young patients being treated for conditions such as endometriosis, hypogonadism, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or nonhormonal conditions like idiopathic hirsutism. Those conditions, however, are recognized medical diagnoses that require clinical treatment and are not considered cosmetic in nature. The language of the proposed rule states that Medicaid funding would be restricted only in cases where the purpose of the treatment is to align a child’s physical appearance or body with a gender identity different from their sex, and not for the treatment of underlying medical disorders. Under that framework, care provided for legitimate medical conditions would not be subject to the same restrictions.

SHOULD MINORS GET STATE MONEY FOR GENDER AFFIRMING CARE?

Now, there’s a lot to unpack here. On one level, as with many politically charged debates, the issue raises a practical question: how often are transgender minors actually undergoing surgery? A study published in JAMA Network Open by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that the rate is extremely low. Using 2019 nationally representative insurance claims data, researchers identified gender-affirming surgeries performed with a concurrent transgender or gender-diverse diagnosis and excluded cases involving other medical indications, such as cancer. The study found no gender-affirming surgeries among children age 12 and younger. Among teens ages 15 to 17, the rate was 2.1 per 100,000, and among adults 18 and older, it was 5.3 per 100,000, with most procedures involving chest surgeries. The researchers also compared breast reduction procedures between cisgender males and transgender individuals and found that cisgender males accounted for the overwhelming majority—80% of such surgeries among adults and 97% among minors. The authors noted that current international guidelines do not recommend medical or surgical intervention for transgender youth prior to puberty and concluded that surgeons appear to be following those guidelines.

For comparison, breast augmentation procedures among cisgender adolescents have historically occurred at far higher rates. In 2011 alone, nearly 320,000 breast augmentations were performed nationwide, with approximately 4,830 procedures—about 1.5%—performed on individuals under 18. Breast development typically begins around age 11 and is generally complete by age 15, though both physical and emotional maturity vary widely within that range. Medical literature reviewing adolescent breast augmentation emphasizes developmental and psychological considerations, including body image, social pressures, parental consent, and adolescent assent. Experts caution that purely aesthetic augmentation in adolescents should be approached with extreme care, as ideal conditions for fully informed assent are uncommon, though procedures to address significant asymmetry may have therapeutic benefit.

In that context, the available data suggests that gender-affirming surgeries among transgender minors are rare, while comparable surgical procedures among cisgender youth occur at measurably higher rates. The Harvard researchers emphasized that previous studies have shown gender-affirming care can reduce depression, anxiety, and suicidality among transgender individuals, though they acknowledged limitations in their claims-based analysis, including reliance on diagnostic coding and exclusion of self-paid procedures. As legal challenges move forward and the Supreme Court considers related bans, the policy debate continues against a backdrop of limited surgical utilization data and sharply divided political perspectives.

Research has suggested that access to gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy for appropriately evaluated adolescents, can be associated with lower rates of depression and suicidality—which is why many people see it as potentially critical care rather than something optional. At the same time, I’m not a doctor or scientist, so I can’t pretend to settle what the full risk–benefit picture is, especially because there are also studies and firsthand accounts pointing to regret or negative outcomes for some people. Add politics to that, and things get even messier: the White House has put out messaging and materials arguing that gender-affirming care is harmful, but in highly charged debates like this, it’s easy for any side to lean on selective evidence that best supports their narrative. That’s not new—history is full of examples where powerful institutions used “studies” and public-facing science to shape opinion, including the way Big Tobacco spent decades muddying the waters around smoking. So the question of “which side is right” can become a distraction from what’s actually happening: a relatively rare set of procedures and treatments is being turned into a national political battleground, while broader healthcare problems—pricing, access, billing complexity, and price gouging—keep affecting basically everyone. None of that minimizes what transgender youth and families go through; it just highlights how often minority healthcare becomes a political spectacle. The bottom line is you can’t responsibly engage with this topic by only accepting evidence that confirms what you already believe—so even if this blog doesn’t take a stance on whether gender-affirming care for minors is “good” or “bad,” it does encourage being fully informed, sitting with the nuance, and not jumping to conclusions, because there’s genuinely a lot to unpack here.

IF YOU NEED A LAWEYR CONTACT US