Here’s How Much It Would Cost the Military to Provide Transition Care to Transgender Troops
As the U.S. military studies the implications of lifting a ban on transgender people serving in the armed forces, a new study says that the cost of providing transition-related health care to those service members would be about $5.6 million a year, or “little more than a rounding error in the military's $47.8 billion annual health care budget.”
After U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced in mid-July that that Department of Defense would look into lifting the ban, opponents expressed concern about the potential high costs of providing care to transgender individuals. In last week’s debate among Republican presidential candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he wasn’t sure “how paying for transgender surgery for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines makes our country safer.”
Related: The Surprising Way the Military Could Save Millions
The new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that 12,800 transgender troops currently serve and are eligible for health care in the U.S., but only 188 transgender service members would require transition-related care annually. Aaron Belkin, the San Francisco State University researcher who conducted the survey, checked for accuracy using data from the Australian military, which already covers transition-related care, and compared costs with insurance plans offered to University of California employees and their dependents.
Belkin emphasized that costs could be lower than expected for several reasons. Among those, transition-related care would mitigate other serious and potentially costly conditions, such as suicidal thoughts, and might improve job performance.
Acknowledging that the costs might be higher than he estimates, Belkin still says they would be too low to matter and shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether the ban is lifted or not.
In June, the American Medical Association said there is “no medically valid reason” to prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military.
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The Pentagon’s Next-Generation Budget Busting Bomber
- Mark Cuban: Here’s Why Republicans Will Lose the Election
- The $1 Trillion Question for the F-35: Is the U.S. Buying an Interior Plane?
The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.
Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.
A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.
Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.
Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?
On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby. Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.
Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:
Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
1. Mississippi
- Budget Rank: 18
- Health Care Rank: 51
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29
2. Pennsylvania
- Budget Rank: 37
- Health Care Rank: 36
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51
3. West Virginia
- Budget Rank: 13
- Health Care Rank: 48
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50
4. South Carolina
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 43
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49
5. Nevada
- Budget Rank: 39
- Health Care Rank: 35
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46
6. New York
- Budget Rank: 46
- Health Care Rank: 12
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47
7. Louisiana
- Budget Rank: 8
- Health Care Rank: 50
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26
8. Georgia
- Budget Rank: 6
- Health Care Rank: 46
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43
9. Alabama
- Budget Rank: 3
- Health Care Rank: 47
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44
10. Arkansas
- Budget Rank: 12
- Health Care Rank: 49
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37
Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby
1. Vermont
- Budget Ranks: 17
- Health Care Rank: 1
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5
2. North Dakota
- Budget Rank: 10
- Health Care Rank: 14
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10
3. Oregon
- Budget Rank: 38
- Health Care Rank: 2
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14
4. Hawaii
- Budget Rank: 31
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1
5. Minnesota
- Budget Rank: 32
- Health Care Rank: 5
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12
6. Kentucky
- Budget Rank: 1
- Health Care Rank: 33
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20
7. Maine
- Budget Rank: 25
- Health Care Rank: 10
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15
8. Wyoming
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 17
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7
9. Iowa
- Budget Rank: 14
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9
10. Alaska
- Budget Rank: 50
- Health Care Rank: 6
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit
The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.
Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.
If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.
The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.
Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning
While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.
A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- This CEO Makes 1,951 Times More Than Most of His Workers
- Seven Reasons Why the Fed Won’t Hike Interest Rates
- $42 Million for 54 Recruits: U.S. Program to Train Syrian Rebels Is a Disaster