by Annette MacGregor
HRC's published the 2012 edition of the CEI, and I'm happy to see that my employer is finally rated at 100%! :-) It's been 95% for the last several years (the hold up was trans benefits... They had them, but they were provided on a case-by-case basis despite the exclusion in insurance. The exclusion is no longer in the insurance policies and benefits are awesome!).
A few weeks ago, I looked at the trans benefits, and was surprised at how complete/inclusive they were. Some examples include travel $, if no surgeon is in the local area, FFS, SRS, Lipo for waist shaping, hormones, labs, etc....
The down side is that by shifting to my work insurance, I'll be paying more out of pocket to see all my docs and meds (copay's go up) but saving a bundle for surgery! WOW.
Sadly, this benefit is only for the employee - not family. I've seen other places include spouses/dependents.
In any event, it's worth a look at the CEI to see if your employer is listed, how they do, etc.
Anne
P.S. It was brought to my attention in a PM that many here may not know what the "HRC" or "CEI" acronyms stand for:
HRC = Human Rights Campaign (Largest LGBT group in the country.)
CEI = Corporate Equality Index (HRC's report card on companies - primarily in the US, but many are international).
And, for those that want to look, here are three links
> CEI Criteria
> Online Index
> PDF Index
Comments
CEI Benefits - Issues outside the US
Anne
My employer also scores 100% which is great - until you look at the healthcare package outside the US which very specifically excludes transgender surgery. Perhaps someone should mention to HRC that for global companies you need to take a global perspective.
Persephone
Persephone
Non sum qualis eram
While I'm sure
it's a relief for employees, I'm rather puzzled that anyone who went for all that would be considered transsexual - it's not a sex change, it's a total rebuild - how much of you is left at the end? More like body dysmorphophobia. I'm totally gobsmacked and very concerned at the 'silk-purse' approach.
Angharad
Angharad
I'm not sure...
At this point - I'm not sure who makes the decision as to how much care is "needed" for each individual...
Some of it, I suspect you don't have any problems with (hormones, lab work, etc.). And getting the SRS/GCS (pick your acronym... I've actually seen at least five different for M2F bottom surgery.) covered, given recommendation letters, and such... The rest? I've talked to girls that have done a LOT more than that minimum. Some of us have very prominent "masculine" faces that make passing difficult. Others are blessed with faces that pass with only minimal or no effort (my therapist is a good example there). Some of us do not get much feminization from hormones - others are very lucky.
Personally, I'm glad that what's available is fairly comprehensive. I don't see myself taking advantage of everything (okay, none of the stuff on the F2M list, but that's obvious, I hope) by any stretch.
The fact that insurance covers things - doesn't mean they are always deemed necessary - by definition. I'll be glad to be able to get standard mammograms rather than having to get scheduled for a "diagnostic" screening for gynomostia to be honest... (As far as my current insurance is concerned that's how the referral has to be coded, in order for the mammogram to be covered. My spiro & labs for estrogen, etc. - that's covered as the diagnosis is "hormone imbalance"... It's a mess.
Anne
Unreliable Data?
I just did a run-down of the New York City based employers. As a matter of City human rights law, employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification is prohibited. With our state's new marriage equality law, married partners, of any sex, are entitled to the same benefits, so benefits for unmarried partners is no longer a good gauge of benefits equality.
My quick run-down shows a disconnect in HRC's ratings, at least where NYC-based employees are concerned. Many of those listed employers have employees in other cities and states, as well, so the ratings are not useless where those are concerned. But, there's sort of a minimum floor in New York City, and I imagine in other places as well, below which an employer can only fall with potentially expensive legal consequences.
One thing I do think I'll find the ratings useful for, is in evaluating companies for investment purposes. Companies with comprehensive and inclusive HR policies might have an advantage over other companies. It would be useful to test that theory.
___________________
I haven't tried job-hunting lately. Might be interesting.
Challenging benefits to get right
My company also scored 100%. While we had many transition items covered before, it was a challenge to cover the whole range deemed medically necessary by WPATH. I worked closely with our Human Resources (HR) people to make sure this was done right. The challenge was that much of this coverage is determine by the insurers' internal guidelines on transgender coverage, so our HR people had to work closely with the insurer to change their guidelines. The upside is that this will benefit trans people at the insurer's other client companies as well. Those in our HR department were eager to do it right, but this isn't an area they have much experience with, so they just needed a little help.
Though the Human RIghts Campaign really threw trans people under the bus with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) a few years back, this goes a long a long way to making up for that. These benefit changes would not have happened at mine and most companies without them pushing for it and providing assistance in doing it. I'm grateful to HRC for their commitment to this!