>   Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 10:52:57
>   From: "Kristine W. Holt" <kholt@astro.ocis.temple.edu>
>   Subject: PA DPW denial of services based on transsexualism (fwd)
>
>                                   ALERT!
>
>   The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has just launched a campaign to deny
>   medicaid benefits to TG/TS persons.  Not only is the DPW denying
>   current services, but they are seeking reimbursement from service
>   providers for past services rendered.  This is going to have the effect
>   of making doctors reluctant to provide *any* services (including
>   psychiatric/counseling services related to depression, alcoholism,
>   etc.)  to anyone identifying as transsexual/transgendered.
>
>   This policy is the result of a decision made by a particular director
>   (whose name I will ascertain) that "the constituents shouldn't have to
>   pay for this kind of thing."  We previously have been denied surgical
>   benefits under DPW policy; that policy is now expanded to exclude *any*
>   medical treatment even remotely related to gender identity disorders.
>   It's a moralistic judgement, with the result that people will suffer
>   medically.
>
>   Doctors are being coerced into settling accounts for past services, and
>   being threatened by this director with negative publicity and
>   revocation of *all* medicaid and medicare payments if they challenge
>   what's going on.
>
>   WE CANT'T ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!  Pennsylvania's policy is a clear
>   violation of federal medicaid regulations (denying benefits on the
>   basis of diagnosis.)  Maybe it even violates constitutional equal
>   protection.  A suit challenging PA's policy needs to be filed in
>   federal district court.  I'm able to do it myself, pro se, if
>   necessary.
>
>   Please -- discussion, comments, suggestions, assistance?  If we don't
>   act and take a stand somewhere, we, as a group, will become legislated
>   out of existence.  Because what we are permeates every fiber of our
>   existence (including our medical and psychological needs), the state is
>   denying the otherwise-eligible among us benefits we need, and have a
>   right to under law.  Only us, and only because of what we are (not even
>   because of what we do!)
>
>   Let's mobilize on this.  I'm open for response.
>
>
>   Kristine W. Holt
>