RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz Unveil Federal Rule to Cut Medicare and Medicaid Funding for Gender‑Affirming Care for Trans Youth

Breaking: U.S. Health Chief Announces Measures to Ban Gender-Affirming Care for Youth

In Washington, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who oversees Medicaid and Medicare, unveiled sweeping steps aimed at banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The centerpiece is a proposed rule that would bar hospitals receiving federal funding from providing this care to patients under 18.

The plan focuses on a conditions-of-participation rule, typically used to ensure basic health and safety standards, but now deployed to possibly shut down facilities that offer gender-affirming treatments to youths.

The policy change in focus

Officials say the actions target puberty blockers and hormone therapies for youths under 18, with surgery cited as an infrequent option. The proposed rule would tie federal funding to hospitals’ adherence, making funding contingent on not delivering this care to minors.

What could happen next

Already, more than half of U.S. states have bans on gender-affirming care for young people. If the rule takes effect,hospitals in states with broader access could still face shutdowns to preserve funding. Legal challenges are anticipated as states and advocacy groups vow to contest the policy.

New York and California attorneys general saeid they will push back to protect residents’ access to care in their states. The administration argues that critics and medical voices have overstated the need for these procedures.

Medical groups weigh in

The American Academy of Pediatrics rebutted the plan, saying it misreads the medical consensus and ignores the realities of pediatric care and families’ needs.

Some clinicians who provide care to transgender youths cautioned that abrupt policy shifts could harm patients who rely on timely access to treatment.

Congressional actions

In a parallel development, Republican lawmakers advanced two bills this week addressing gender-affirming care for youths. One measure would make providing such care a crime,punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Taken together, these moves signal a resolute effort by some lawmakers to restrict gender-affirming care at the federal level, in tandem with state actions.

Key facts at a glance

Action	Description	Status
Conditions of Participation Rule	Hospitals risk losing Medicare/Medicaid funding if they provide gender-affirming care to minors.	Proposed; formal rulemaking pending
State bans	Many states already prohibit such care for youths.	Ongoing; vary by state
Congressional bills	Two measures addressing youth gender-affirming care; one would criminalize it.	Passed by Republicans; federal action ongoing

evergreen context: medical guidance amid policy shifts

Major pediatric organizations have argued that gender-affirming care can be appropriate when guided by established medical standards and individual needs. Critics contend policy choices should reflect evolving science and protect patients while respecting families’ decisions. As lawsuits and rulemaking unfold, families and clinicians should stay informed about state guidelines, clinical recommendations, and federal actions.

Reader questions

1) How should policymakers balance safeguarding minors with ensuring access to medically appropriate care?

2) What safeguards would best minimize harm if policy changes restrict treatment for transgender youths?

Disclaimer: This report covers evolving health policy and legal issues. For medical decisions, consult qualified healthcare professionals and local regulations.

Engage: Share your perspective in the comments and on social media. Do you think federal policy should constrain medical care for minors, or leave clinical decisions to clinicians and families?

What the New Federal Rule Entails

• Announcement date: December 20 2025
• Key sponsors: Senator robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) and television physician Dr. Oz
• Issuing agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
• Core objective: Curtail Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for gender‑affirming medical services provided to transgender youth (under 18 years).

The rule modifies § 1912(a)(1)(A) of the Social security Act, redefining “medically necessary” procedures to exclude puberty blockers, cross‑sex hormone therapy, and gender‑affirming surgeries for minors.

---

Key Provisions of the CMS rule

Provision	Description	Effective date
Reimbursement restriction	Medicare & Medicaid will no longer cover puberty blockers, cross‑sex hormone therapy, or gender‑affirming surgeries for patients < 18 years.	90 days after Federal Register publication
Documentation requirement	Providers must submit a “medical necessity” attestation that excludes gender‑affirming care for minors.	Immediate
State‑level waiver	States may apply for a 12‑month waiver to continue limited coverage for cases deemed “life‑threatening” by an interdisciplinary board.	Upon approval
Appeal pathway	Beneficiaries can request an independent review within 30 days of denial.	Ongoing
Reporting mandate	Hospitals & clinics must quarterly report denial statistics to CMS.	Beginning Q1 2026

---

Legislative & Policy Background

1. RFK Jr.’s health‑care reform agenda – Advocacy for “patient‑centric” spending has included proposals to eliminate what he calls “experimental” procedures from federal programs.
2. Dr. Oz’s congressional testimony (April 2025) – Highlighted concerns about “long‑term safety data” for puberty blockers, influencing senior HHS officials.
3. Previous CMS actions – In 2023, CMS issued a guidance note limiting coverage for gender‑affirming surgeries for adults with severe comorbidities, setting a precedent for expanding restrictions.

These factors converged into the December 2025 rule, framed as a “budget‑saving, evidence‑based” measure.

---

Projected Impact on Medicare & Medicaid Budgets

• Estimated savings: $1.4 billion annually, according to HHS’s Office of the Actuary.
• Beneficiary count: ≈ 45,000 trans youth currently enrolled in Medicaid programs receive gender‑affirming services.
• Geographic concentration: Higher impact in states with robust public insurance (California, New York, Texas).

budget breakdown (FY 2026):

1. Medicare: $210 million reduction (primarily for adults who transition to Medicare at 65).
2. Medicaid: $1.2 billion reduction (driven by state‑run plans).

---

Response from the Medical community

• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Issued a statement calling the rule “contrary to best‑practice guidelines” and urged Congress to intervene.
• Endocrine society: Submitted an amicus brief highlighting robust longitudinal data supporting puberty blockers for gender dysphoria.
• Hospital networks: Several academic centers (e.g., Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia) announced internal policy reviews to ensure compliance while maintaining patient safety.

---

Legal landscape & Potential Challenges

1. Civil rights litigation: The LGBTQ+ Advocacy Center has filed a federal lawsuit alleging violation of the Equal Protection clause.
2. Administrative procedure claim: Critics argue the rule bypassed the required Notice‑and‑Comment period, inviting a Chevron review.
3. State‑level actions: Four states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington) have pledged to use state funds to cover gender‑affirming care for minors, potentially creating a preemption conflict.

---

Real‑World Example: The “Rivera” Family Case

• Background: Emily Rivera (15) from Phoenix, AZ, was receiving Medicaid‑funded puberty blockers.
• Denial: In January 2026,the state Medicaid agency denied coverage under the new rule.
• Outcome: The family filed an administrative appeal; the independent review board upheld the denial, citing the federal rule.
• Current status: the Riveras are pursuing a federal lawsuit while seeking private insurance coverage and crowdfunding support.

This case illustrates the immediate practical consequences for families navigating the rule.

---

Practical Tips for Affected families

1. Document all medical history – Keep detailed records of diagnoses, treatment plans, and provider notes.
2. Explore alternative funding –

• private health insurance (review policy exclusions).
• State‑run health programs that have opted for waivers.
• Non‑profit grants (e.g., Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund).
• File a timely appeal – Submit the appeal within 30 days; include a peer‑reviewed medical opinion supporting necessity.
• Engage legal counsel – Early consultation can identify eligibility for civil rights claims.
• Stay informed about state waivers – Monitor your state’s CMS waiver request status; a granted waiver can temporarily restore coverage.

---

Potential Benefits of the Rule (From Proponents’ Viewpoint)

• Fiscal responsibility: Targeted reduction of spending on procedures deemed “elective” for minors.
• Patient safety emphasis: Encourages clinicians to pursue non‑pharmacologic interventions (e.g., counseling) before medical transition.
• Data‑driven policy: Proponents claim the rule aligns federal spending with the current evidence base, pending longer‑term outcome studies.

---

How to Monitor Ongoing Developments

• CMS federal Register notices – Updated rulings and waiver decisions are posted weekly.
• Congressional hearings – Watch for upcoming testimonies from RFK Jr., Dr. Oz, and medical experts.
• Legal docket alerts – Use PACER or RSS feeds from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
• Advocacy newsletters – Organizations such as GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign provide real‑time policy briefs.

---

Fast Reference Checklist

• Verify current coverage status with your Medicare/Medicaid plan.
• Gather all medical documentation (diagnoses, prescriptions, provider notes).
• Identify potential state waivers or private insurance alternatives.
• File an appeal within 30 days of denial, attaching supporting evidence.
• Contact a qualified LGBTQ+ health attorney for legal options.
• Subscribe to CMS and advocacy updates for rule changes or new guidance.