Committee deadlocks on proposal to let insurers deny malpractice coverage tied to gender‑affirming care; bill postponed

A heated, hours‑long hearing in the House Health & Human Services Committee produced no final passage for HB25‑1068, a bill that would permit medical‑malpractice insurers to deny or alter coverage for providers who furnish gender‑affirming care to minors. After extensive testimony from physicians, parents, detransitioners and advocacy organizations on both sides, the committee postponed the measure indefinitely by an 8‑4 vote.

Sponsor Representative Bottoms framed the bill as a narrow insurance carve‑out to let insurers refuse malpractice coverage for providers or groups that elect to provide gender‑affirming procedures and said the measure “is not a mandate” banning care. “No insurance company has to do anything,” Bottoms told the committee, adding the change would allow insurers and providers who disagree with these interventions to avoid shared liability.

Opponents included multiple physicians who urged rejection of the bill. Dr. Michelle Shipman, representing the Colorado chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said gender‑affirming care is “evidence based” and life‑saving and argued the bill would “undermine the health and well‑being of transgender youth by restricting access to evidence‑based, life‑saving care by targeting the medical professionals and the institutions who provide care to these youth and their families.” Similar statements came from Dr. Lauren Brave, Dr. Anne Frank and Dr. Analisa Munson, who described clinical experience treating gender‑diverse youth and warned of a “chilling effect” on providers and on access to care.

The Division of Insurance told the committee it enforces non‑discrimination across lines of commercial insurance and expressed concern that the bill would “carve out exceptions for medical malpractice insurance companies to discriminate” and could disincentivize providers from offering gender‑affirming care.

Witnesses and members debated competing claims about risks and outcomes. Opponents pointed to published guidance from major medical societies and to testimonies that gender‑affirming care reduces suicide risk for some youth; supporters and several detransitioned people told personal stories of harm and urged tighter insurance accountability. Testimony included data points cited by witnesses: a Colorado Healthy Kids survey figure cited by physicians that 26 percent of transgender youth had attempted suicide in the prior year; witness estimates that surgeries for minors are rare (a speaker cited a Harvard 2024 figure of roughly 2.1 per 100,000 minors); and disputed assertions about regret and long‑term outcomes. Several physicians said systematic evidence reviews are limited and called for more long‑term studies.

First procedural motion: Representative Bradley moved to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; Representative Garcia Sander seconded. The roll call on that motion resulted in a committee vote recorded as failing by an 8‑4 tally.

Postponement: After closing remarks the committee’s majority later moved to postpone the bill indefinitely (reverse roll call); that motion passed 8‑4 and the bill was postponed indefinitely.

Why it matters: The bill would not directly ban or mandate care for any patient, sponsors said, but would permit malpractice insurers to decline coverage for providers that perform certain services — a change supporters argued protects insurers, providers and taxpayers from perceived malpractice risk, while opponents said it would reduce access to medically accepted care and create a chilling effect for clinicians.

Next steps: With the bill postponed indefinitely, HB25‑1068 will not advance this session. Sponsors and opponents said the hearing underscored deep disagreement over how to balance clinical decision‑making, insurance markets and protections for young people and for medical practitioners.