The US Department of Health and Human Services said Wednesday that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent a letter urging health care providers and medical boards to update treatment protocols for youth with gender dysphoria based on a controversial HHS review of scientific literature that was released earlier this month. The HHS report, released May 1, says it is “not a clinical practice guideline,” but Kennedy’s letter warns providers against relying on science-based professional guidelines and urges them to use the government document to inform their practice instead. The letter also said that HHS is committed to protecting whistleblowers and may soon create new policies and oversight actions to “hold providers that harm children accountable.” The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - a subagency of HHS - also announced Wednesday that it was launching an oversight initiative into hospitals that performed “experimental sex trait modification procedures” on children. Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said CMS “will not turn a blind eye to procedures that lack a solid foundation of evidence and may result in lifelong harm.” Oz added that he was concerned about the “profits related to these harmful procedures.” Research shows that gender-affirming surgery is rarely performed on transgender or gender-diverse children or teens in the US, and professional medical organizations do not recommend surgery for children as part of gender-affirming care. Kennedy’s letter, which HHS shared Wednesday on social media, warns providers to avoid relying on guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health on care for transgender and gender-diverse people. “These and other guidelines based on the so-called ‘gender-affirming’ model of care should not be relied upon to harm children any further,” the letter says. Kennedy urges providers to read HHS’s review of the scientific literature on care for trans individuals and “update your treatment protocols and training to ensure that our nation’s children are protected from harm.” In the US, care for gender dysphoria – an official diagnosis of a condition in which an individual feels significant distress because of a mismatch between the sex they were assigned at birth and their sense of their gender – is tailored to an individual’s needs and is typically offered through a multidisciplinary team of doctors. Not everyone who identifies as transgender or gender-diverse has this diagnosis. Gender-affirming care is guided by several professional association guidelines, based on decades of research that shows that it is safe and that it can have a positive impact on a person’s life and mental health. Major medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – have affirmed the practice of gender-affirming care and agree that it’s clinically appropriate and can provide lifesaving treatment for children and adults. The 400-page review that Kennedy’s letter referenced was initiated by an executive order from President Donald Trump that called gender-affirming care “chemical and surgical mutilation” and stated that the federal government would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist or support” any kind of gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19. When the report was released, HHS refused to identify who wrote it. HHS said parts of it were peer-reviewed, but it would not disclose which parts or identify who reviewed it. The report spelled out that “it is not a clinical practice guideline, and it does not issue legislative or policy recommendations.” Rather, it included sections on evidence, ethical considerations, psychotherapy and “clinical realities” focused on treatment of gender dysphoria in young people. The review did not examine the treatment of adults. The report said that the science used to inform the practice of gender-affirming care was weak and that the practice was harmful. It also sharply criticized US medical associations for what it said was suppression of dissent among members on the issue. The Endocrine Society, a professional group whose guidelines are also mentioned in Kennedy’s new letter, said in an email Wednesday that its guideline development process “adheres to the highest standards of trustworthiness and transparence.” “The widely accepted view of the professional medical community is that medical treatment is appropriate for transgender and gender-diverse teenagers who experience persistent feelings of gender dysphoria. Medical studies show that access to this care improves the well-being of transgender and nonbinary people,” the group said. The American Academy of Pediatrics said when the HHS report was issued that it was “deeply alarmed” and that the report relied on “select perspectives and a narrow set of data,” the group’s president, Dr. Susan Kressly, said at the time. “This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care,” Kressly said in a statement. Gender-affirming care in the US typically starts with a conversation between the individual and a clinician. If the patient is a child, the conversation will involve the family or caregiver when possible. Once the clinician understands what the individual needs, they will design a plan with a team of providers. The practice can include mental health care, support groups and even legal help. When a person is past the start of puberty, their care may include hormones, but not everyone chooses to use them. When a person is an adult, a patient may also seek out surgery to better align their body with their gender. A 2024 study of medical insurance claims in the US from 2019, the latest year available, found that there were no gender-affirming surgeries performed on transgender youth 12 and younger. For older teens and adults, the rates of gender-affirming surgery with a trans or gender diverse-related diagnosis were 2.1 per 100,000 and 5.3 per 100,000, respectively, the study said. Transgender people have been a major focus of the second Trump administration. Soon after his inauguration, Trump signed executive orders that denied the existence of transgender people and instructed government agencies to acknowledge a strict gender binary and withdraw any support for people who identified otherwise. The administration has cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding used to study trans issues and removed information about transgender people from government websites. Trump has ordered trans troops out of the military, and on Tuesday, he threatened to withhold federal funding from California over a transgender athlete’s participation in an upcoming sporting event. Earlier this year, the administration moved to strip funding from Maine, to include funding that fed children and disabled adults, because the state allows trans students to compete in athletics. Gender-affirming care for youth has also been a growing target for state governments. As of March, 27 states have enacted restrictions on such care, meaning about 40% of trans youth live in a state with limited gender-affirming health care options, according to KFF, a health policy organization.
HHS letter tells health care providers to disregard treatment protocols for trans people, adhere to report by unnamed authors
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"HHS Urges Healthcare Providers to Update Gender Dysphoria Treatment Protocols Amid Controversy"
TruthLens AI Summary
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken a controversial stance on treatment protocols for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, as outlined in a recent letter from Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The letter, which was shared via social media, instructs healthcare providers and medical boards to prioritize a newly released HHS review over established science-based guidelines from professional organizations. This review, released on May 1, is described as 'not a clinical practice guideline' but urges practitioners to align their treatment protocols with its findings. In addition, the letter emphasizes HHS’s commitment to protecting whistleblowers and suggests that new policies may be forthcoming to hold healthcare providers accountable for practices deemed harmful to children. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has also initiated an oversight program targeting hospitals that perform experimental procedures related to gender transition for minors, echoing concerns about the lack of evidence supporting such practices and potential long-term harm to patients.
The HHS report has been met with significant criticism from major medical organizations, which have affirmed the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care. The American Medical Association and other leading associations maintain that gender-affirming treatment is clinically appropriate and can be lifesaving. However, the report's authors, who remain unidentified, argue that the science behind gender-affirming care is weak, and they have criticized medical associations for allegedly suppressing dissenting views. This situation highlights a broader political and social debate over transgender rights and healthcare, particularly as many states enact restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. As of March, 27 states have implemented such restrictions, impacting approximately 40% of transgender youth in the U.S. This controversy reflects ongoing divisions in the healthcare community and society regarding the treatment of transgender individuals, especially minors, amid a backdrop of heightened scrutiny and political pressure surrounding transgender issues.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The news article outlines a recent directive from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), emphasizing a shift in treatment protocols for youth experiencing gender dysphoria. This letter from Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. encourages healthcare providers to prioritize a controversial HHS review over established scientific guidelines, sparking debate within both medical and social contexts regarding the treatment of transgender individuals.
Intentions Behind the Publication
The article seems aimed at promoting a specific narrative around gender-affirming care, particularly questioning established medical protocols and practices. By urging healthcare providers to disregard widely accepted guidelines, it seeks to shift the conversation towards a more government-centric approach, potentially appealing to groups that are skeptical of gender-affirming treatments.
Public Perception and Impact
This directive could foster a perception that current medical practices are harmful and untrustworthy, particularly regarding the treatment of transgender youth. By framing the conversation around the protection of children, the article may invoke emotional responses from the public, positioning the government as a protector against perceived medical malpractice.
Concealment of Information
The article does not directly indicate what may be concealed from the public. However, by focusing on the HHS report and disregarding established guidelines from professional medical organizations, there might be an underlying intention to downplay the consensus among healthcare professionals regarding gender-affirming care.
Manipulative Nature of the Article
The article's manipulative aspects could stem from its presentation of the HHS directive as a protective measure for children while simultaneously discrediting scientific consensus. The language used suggests a binary view of the issue—either one supports the government’s directives or one is seen as complicit in harming children, which could polarize public opinion.
Truthfulness of the Information
While the article presents factual information regarding the HHS letter and the stance of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the framing may omit critical perspectives from the broader medical community. Therefore, while the facts may be accurate, the portrayal could be misleading.
Overall Societal Impact
This directive has the potential to influence public opinion on gender-affirming care, possibly leading to increased scrutiny of medical professionals who provide these services. It may also galvanize opposition to certain medical practices, impacting healthcare policies and funding for transgender health services.
Support from Specific Communities
The article is likely to find support among conservative groups and those advocating for more restrictive policies on gender-affirming care. It may resonate with communities that prioritize traditional views on gender and child welfare.
Economic and Market Implications
The announcement could create volatility in healthcare sectors dealing with gender-affirming treatments. Companies involved in these services might face increased regulatory scrutiny, impacting their stock prices and market performance.
Global Power Dynamics
This news may not directly affect global power dynamics, but it does reflect ongoing cultural battles over gender identity and healthcare in the United States. The issue ties into broader discussions about human rights and medical ethics globally.
AI Influence in Reporting
There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that artificial intelligence was used in creating this article. However, the language and structure could reflect common patterns found in AI-generated news articles, which often aim to simplify complex issues for broader audiences.
The overall analysis indicates that while the article presents factual claims, the framing and language used may aim to manipulate public perception and generate a specific narrative around gender-affirming care, leaning towards a more conservative viewpoint.