Federal mandate to cover 'reversal' care for gender-affirming procedures sparks insurance, medical c
H.R. 9743 — TRUTH in Coverage Act of 2026 · Filed by Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) · 13 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 16, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires health insurance plans and issuers that cover gender-affirming medical procedures to also cover medical treatment for complications and harms from those procedures—including surgical revision, hormone management, mental health care, and fertility restoration—with the same cost-sharing and coverage limits as other medical benefits. The bill defines 'sex-rejecting procedures' broadly to include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, and mandates coverage of 'restorative care' to address physical, psychological, and reproductive harms, effective January 1, 2027.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a straightforward insurance coverage mandate—plans covering gender-affirming procedures must also cover treatment for complications. However, the bill's language, definitions, and framing (e.g., 'sex-rejecting,' 'restore healthy human form') embed a particular ideological stance on gender-affirming medicine rather than neutral medical language, making this both a coverage mandate and a statement of contested medical philosophy.
What the text implies
- The bill's definition of 'restorative care' is extremely broad and includes psychiatric/psychological treatment for 'identity distress' and 'regret'—potentially mandating coverage of conversion therapy-adjacent mental health interventions, depending on state law and plan interpretation.
- The mandate applies retroactively to individuals who received procedures before the bill's effective date ('at any point during the individual's lifetime'), creating open-ended liability for insurers for past procedures and potentially triggering coverage disputes over causation.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
surgical and medical device manufacturers (revision surgeries, prosthetics, implants); mental health and rehabilitation service providers; pharmaceutical companies (hormone management, complication treatment)