This RCD discusses the recent development in Lange v Houston County. In this case, the United States District Court for The Middle District Of Georgia Macon Division found that an Exclusion Policy, prohibiting health insurance coverage of gender-affirming surgery for an employee, Anna Lange, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On appeal, the Defendants argued that the District Court erred in its decision and relied on the cost burden of gender-affirming surgery as one of their defenses. This RCD highlights that cost is a common defense tactic used by defendants in these cases. However, the author argues that these concerns are unfounded and meritless given the cost-effectiveness of including gender-affirming surgeries in health insurance plans, as highlighted in the RCD.

中文翻译：

---

性别肯定手术健康保险覆盖范围的成本担忧的合法性：降低保险成本的利益与将性别肯定手术纳入雇主健康保险计划的成本效益的比较

本 RCD 讨论兰格诉休斯顿县案的最新进展。在本案中，美国佐治亚州中区梅肯分部地方法院裁定，一项禁止为雇员安娜·兰格 (Anna Lange) 提供性别确认手术医疗保险的排除政策违反了《民权法》第七章。在上诉中，被告辩称地方法院的判决是错误的，并以性别确认手术的费用负担作为其辩护理由之一。该 RCD 强调，成本是被告在这些案件中常用的辩护策略。然而，作者认为，正如 RCD 所强调的那样，鉴于将性别确认手术纳入健康保险计划的成本效益，这些担忧是没有根据的，也是毫无根据的。