Connect with us

Health

EXCLUSIVE: Meet the director of Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender Health

Dr. Fan Liang on politicizing healthcare, fear among patients

Published

on

Fan Liang (Photo courtesy of Fan Liang)

The topic of gender affirming healthcare has never attracted more attention or scrutiny, presenting challenges for both patients and providers, including Dr. Fan Liang, medical director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health and assistant professor of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Speaking with the Washington Blade by phone last week, Liang shared her perspective on a variety of topics, including her concerns about the ways in which media organizations and others have shaped the discourse about gender affirming care.

Too often, she said, the public is provided incomplete or inaccurate information, framed with politically charged and polarizing language rather than balanced and nuanced reporting for the benefit of audiences who might have little to no familiarity with the topics at hand.

“This is an evolving field that requires input from many different types of specialists,” Liang noted, so one issue comes when providers “start to comment outside of their scope of practice, or extrapolate into everybody’s experience.”

A more intractable and difficult problem, Liang said, is presented by the fact that, “issues with transgender health have really taken center stage with regard to national politics, and as a result of that, the narrative has really been reduced to an unsophisticated representation of what’s going on.”

“I think that is dangerous for patients and for the community that these patients live in and have to work in and survive in because it paints a picture that is really inaccurate,” she said.

Conservative state legislatures across the country have introduced a record number of anti-LGBTQ bills this year, passing dozens, including a slew of anti-trans healthcare restrictions. The Human Rights Campaign reports 35.1 percent of transgender youth now live in states that have passed bans on gender affirming care, many of which carry criminal penalties for providers.

A big part of the Center’s work, Liang told the Blade, involves working closely with trans patients and organizations like Trans Maryland and the Trans Rights Advocacy Coalition “to make sure that the community’s voices are being heard, so that we’re able to represent those interests here.”

She described “a generalized sense of anxiety and fear,” concerns that she said are “pervasive throughout the community,” over “access to surgery and to overall gender healthcare.”

“I get a lot of questions about that,” she said.

While Liang has not yet worked with any patients who traveled to the Center because gender affirming care was banned in the states where they reside, she said, “I do anticipate that will happen in the relatively near future.”

Challenges for clinicians

The political climate “really interferes in physician autonomy and basically using our training and discretion to provide the best therapies that we can,” based on research and evidence-based guidelines from medical organizations on best practices standards of care, Liang said.

“I earnestly believe that people who go into medicine try to do right by their patients and try to provide exceptional care whenever they can,” she said. “When I speak to other providers who are engaged in trans care, the reason they entered the field was because they saw patients that were suffering and had no other providers to go to and they were filling a need that desperately needed to be filled.”

“It is unfortunate that their motives are being misinterpreted, because it is causing significant emotional harm to these providers who are being targeted,” Liang said, noting “there is so much vitriol from the anti-trans side of things,” including “this narrative out there that physicians are providing trans care because of financial reasons or because of some sort of politically motivated, I don’t know, conspiracy.”

The political climate, along with the realities of practicing in this speciality, may threaten to stem the pipeline of new providers whose practice would otherwise include gender affirming care, said Liang, who serves on the interview board for incoming residents who are looking to specialize in plastic surgery.

Many, perhaps even most, she said, are eager to explore transgender care, often because, particularly among young trainees, they are friends with trans and non-binary people. “I don’t know how much of that interest persists as they move through the training pipeline, because — especially if they are at an institution that does provide trans care — they do see a lot of the struggles that physicians encounter in being able to offer these services.”

Liang noted the “significant hurdles from an insurance standpoint” and the “significant prerequisites in order to access surgery,” which require “a tremendous amount of back-end coordination and optimization of the logistics for surgical readiness.”

“And then,” she said, “they see a lot of the backlash in the media against trans providers, and I think that that does discourage residents who otherwise would be interested in the field because physicians, by and large, are a pretty conservative bunch. And having them start their practice where they’re sort of stepping into a political minefield is not ideal.”

Speaking up can be beneficial but risky

“Some physicians feel like they can make the most amount of impact by being advocates for the patient population on a national stage or being more vocal about how anti-trans legislation has been impacting their patients,” Liang said.

“My goal, as the director for the Center for Transgender Health here at Hopkins is really to normalize this care to allow for the open conversation and discussion amongst providers to create a safe space for people to feel comfortable providing this care,” she said.

Destigmatizing gender affirming care and connecting clinicians who practice in this space will help these providers understand they are not “functioning in isolation” and instead are part of “a national effort and a nationally concerted effort toward delivering state-of-the-art health care,” Liang said.

“It’s important,” she said, to “bring the generalized healthcare community to the table in offering these services and have a frank discussion when it comes to education, research and teaching.”

Other providers, however, “do not feel comfortable putting themselves into that place of vulnerability,” Liang said, “and I don’t fault them for it because I personally know people who’ve received death threats and who have been targeted because of what they say to the media,” in many cases because their comments were reported incorrectly or out of context.

In July, Liang participated in an emergency trans rights roundtable on Capitol Hill with representatives from advocacy groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Transgender Law Center, as well as members of Congress including U.S. Reps. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.).

She told the Blade it was “a really wonderful experience” to “hear the heartfelt stories” of the panelists advocating on behalf of themselves, their friends, and their families, earning the attention of members of Congress.

“I do think advocacy is important,” Liang told the Blade. “I try to make time for it when I can,” she said, “but I have to balance that with all of my other clinical obligations.”

Finding compassion and lowering the temperature

On Aug. 1, The Baltimore Banner reported that the director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs in Baltimore filed a discrimination complaint with the city’s Office of Equity and Civil Rights against the Hopkins Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health. (The story was also published by the Washington Blade, which has a media partnership with the Banner.)

Asked for comment, Liang said “it was an upsetting article to read,” adding, “I was upset that there wasn’t more due diligence done to investigate a little bit further” because instead the article presents “just this one person’s account of things.”

She noted there is “not much I can say from a physician standpoint because everything is contained within HIPAA,” the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits providers from even acknowledging which patients they may or may not have worked with.

The Banner article underscores the importance of journalists’ obligations to “make sure there is due diligence to confirm sources and make sure things are accurate,” Liang said, including, of course, when covering complicated and politically fraught subjects like gender affirming care.

“On the one hand, it’s really wonderful that there’s a fair amount of press being dedicated to trans issues around the country,” Liang said, but what is “frustrating for me is these conversations always seem to be so loaded and politically charged, and there doesn’t seem to be much space for people to ask earnest and honest questions” without taking heat from either side.

There is “compassion to be offered for patients who are struggling to receive basic health care” as well as for “people who are struggling to understand how this issue is evolving,” those for whom the matter is “uncharted territory” and therefore likely to “cause consternation and fear,” she said.

“Most of the time, the way to overcome” this is to cultivate “relationships with people who do identify as transgender or non-binary” on the grassroots level, she said, while leaving room “for people to ask earnest and honest questions.”

Removing the artificial “us-versus-them” paradigm provides “opportunity for more compassionate interactions,” Liang said.

At the same time, she conceded, amid the heightened polarization and escalation of an anti-trans backlash over the last few years, efforts to fight sensationalization with compassion and understanding have often fallen short, presenting hurdles that have long plagued other areas of science and medicine like abortions and vaccines.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

Trans activists arrested outside HHS headquarters in D.C.

Protesters demonstrated directive against gender-affirming care

Published

on

(Photo by Alexa B. Wilkinson)

Authorities on Tuesday arrested 24 activists outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in D.C.

The Gender Liberation Movement, a national organization that uses direct action, media engagement, and policy advocacy to defend bodily autonomy and self-determination, organized the protest in which more than 50 activists participated. Organizers said the action was a response to changes in federal policy mandated by Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”

The order directs federal agencies and programs to work toward “significantly limiting youth access to gender-affirming care nationwide,” according to KFF, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that provides independent, fact-based information on national health issues. The executive order also includes claims about gender-affirming care and transgender youth that critics have described as misinformation.

Members of ACT UP NY and ACT UP Pittsburgh also participated in the demonstration, which took place on the final day of the public comment period for proposed federal rules that would restrict access to gender-affirming care.

Demonstrators blocked the building’s main entrance, holding a banner reading “HANDS OFF OUR ‘MONES,” while chanting, “HHS—RFK—TRANS YOUTH ARE NO DEBATE” and “NO HATE—NO FEAR—TRANS YOUTH ARE WELCOME HERE.”

“We want trans youth and their loving families to know that we see them, we cherish them, and we won’t let these attacks go on without a fight,” said GLM co-founder Raquel Willis. “We also want all Americans to understand that Trump, RFK, and their HHS won’t stop at trying to block care for trans youth — they’re coming for trans adults, for those who need treatment from insulin to SSRIs, and all those already failed by a broken health insurance system.”

“It is shameful and intentional that this administration is pitting communities against one another by weaponizing Medicaid funding to strip care from trans youth. This has nothing to do with protecting health and everything to do with political distraction,” added GLM co-founder Eliel Cruz. “They are targeting young people to deflect from their failure to deliver for working families across the country. Instead of restricting care, we should be expanding it. Healthcare is a human right, and it must be accessible to every person — without cost or exception.”

(Photo by Cole Witter)

Despite HHS’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for trans youth, major medical associations — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society — continue to regard such care as evidence-based treatment. Gender-affirming care can include psychotherapy, social support, and, when clinically appropriate, puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

The protest comes amid broader shifts in access to care nationwide. 

NYU Langone Health recently announced it will stop providing transition-related medical care to minors and will no longer accept new patients into its Transgender Youth Health Program following President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order targeting trans healthcare. 

Continue Reading

Health

CMS moves to expand HIV-positive organ transplants

HIV/AIDS activists welcome potential development

Published

on

Earvin 'Magic' Johnson, right, and NMAC CEO Harold Phillips speak at the 2025 U.S. Conference on HIV/AIDS in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is pushing forward a proposed rule that would make it not only easier for people with HIV in need to get organ transplants from HIV-positive donors, but also make it a priority where there was often a barrier.

The Washington Blade sat down with people familiar with this topic — from former heads of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to HIV activists and to the first HIV-positive person to donate an organ — about what this proposed change could mean.

HIV is a virus that attacks the body’s immune system, particularly targeting the body’s T-cells, which makes it harder to fight off infection and disease. If left untreated, HIV can become AIDS. Without treatment, AIDS can lead to death within a few months or years. The virus is spread through direct contact with bodily fluids — often through sex, unclean needles, or from mother to baby during pregnancy.

According to HIV.gov, a website managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 1.2 million people in the U.S. were living with HIV in 2022. Of those 1.2 million, 13 percent don’t know they have it.

The virus disproportionately impacts men who have sex with men and people of color.

The CDC’s statistics show men are most affected, making up almost 80 percent of diagnoses, with gay and bisexual men accounting for the majority. Racial disparities also are present — Black people make up 38 percent of diagnoses. The World Health Organization estimates that around 44.1 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses globally as of 2024.

Since the virus was first detected 45 years ago, scientists have been working on ways to treat and prevent its spread. In 1987, the first breakthrough in fighting HIV came as the U.S. approved the first HIV medication, AZT — marking the beginning of antiretroviral therapy. This medicine — and later descendants of it, like today’s widely prescribed Biktarvy — stop the HIV virus from reproducing and allow the body to keep its T-cells.

Then in 2012, another big step toward minimizing the scope of the potentially fatal disease came as the CDC approved the first HIV prevention medication, Truvada, more commonly known as PrEP. As of 2024, nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. are using PrEP, according to AIDSVu, which uses data from Gilead Sciences (manufacturers of Truvada and Biktarvy) and is compiled by researchers at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University.

The following year, in 2013, the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act was signed into law, enabling the use of organs from HIV-positive donors for transplants into HIV-positive recipients, overturning a 1988 ban.

There are an estimated 123,000 people waiting for organ transplants in the U.S. The number of HIV-positive people on that list is estimated to be smaller, harder to precisely quantify, but they are still in dire need.

A study from the New England Journal of Medicine, published in 2024, analyzed the outcomes of 198 kidney transplantations to people with HIV at 26 medical centers across the U.S. from 2018 to 2021.

Results from the study showed that for kidney transplants performed using organs from 99 donors with HIV and 99 without HIV, one-year survival rates for HIV-positive recipients were nearly identical (94 percent and 95 percent, respectively). Three-year survival rates were also similar (85 percent and 87 percent). Organ rejection rates were also numerically on par after three years (21 percent and 24 percent). Other measures for surgical outcomes, including the number of side effects that occurred, were also roughly the same for both groups.

This shows that, overall, HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive transplants are nearly identical in outcome to transplants between HIV-negative donors and recipients.

Where we are now

Now in 2026, CMS is pushing past the clinical trial testing phase it has been in, making HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive organ transplants more widespread and more accessible.

Adrian Shanker, the former deputy assistant secretary for health policy and senior advisor on LGBTQ health equity at HHS, explained to the Blade that the HOPE Act was a step in the right direction, but this policy change from CMS will expand the ability to help HIV-positive patients in need.

“The original HOPE Act asked for scientific research,” Shanker explained. “There were 10 years of clinical trials. The Biden administration promulgated a rule that removed clinical trial requirements for kidney and liver transplants between people living with HIV. This proposed rule is further implementation on the CMS side with the organ procurement organizations to ensure they’re carrying out the stated intent of the HOPE Act law. It’s building on consensus that has existed through multiple administrations.”

The proposed change would go into effect on July 1, and, according to Shanker, would help everyone in need of an organ — not just HIV-positive people.

“People living with HIV, their ability to receive organs from other people living with HIV in a more streamlined way means that the overall organ waitlist is sped up as well,” he added. “So it benefits everyone on the waitlist.”

Shanker, who was also a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, spoke about how this is a rare moment of bipartisanship.

“There’s no secret that the Trump administration has been quite adversarial to LGBTQI plus health, and to the health of people living with HIV/HIV prevention resources as well … From destabilizing PEPFAR to shutting down one of the primary implementation partners, which is USAID, to firing almost the entire staff of the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV Policy at HHS … But what this is is a glimmer of hope that we can have bipartisan solutions that improve quality of life for people living with HIV.”

Harold Phillips, the CEO of NMAC, a national HIV/AIDS organization that pushes policy education and public engagement to end the HIV epidemic, and an HIV-positive American, sees this as a huge gain for the HIV-positive community.

“For a number of years, we were excluded from that pool of potential donors,” Phillips said. “Many people living with HIV were excluded from being able to get organ transplants. So this opens up that door. This is a positive step forward that will help save lives.”

That “open door,” Phillips said, does more than just provide life-saving organs to people in the most need. It provides a sense of being able to support their community.

“I remember when I was no longer able to check that box on my driver’s license,” Phillips recalled during his interview with the Blade. “I remember what that meant — that my organs might not be able to save a life. The potential that now they could is really exciting for me.”

“To think about people living with HIV donating their organs to other people living with HIV and helping extend their health and well-being — that’s an exciting moment in our history. It reinforces that HIV is not a death sentence anymore.”

Human Rights Campaign Senior Public Policy Advocate Matt Rose also sat down with the Blade to explain the realities of HIV-positive people in the U.S. right now who are looking for a transplant.

“If you’re HIV positive and on the waitlist for an organ right now, your chance of getting one is slim to nil,” Rose said. “This at least gives you a real shot.”

He went on to explain that while the HOPE Act started to move in the right direction, it hasn’t done enough for HIV-positive people in dire need.

“This bill [HOPE] was supposed to fix that — and it never really has. But every administration, we keep chipping away at the next hurdle,” he said. “This latest move will drastically expand the ability for someone who is HIV positive to donate an organ.”

That slow chipping away, in addition to the non-stop trials being done to prove the efficacy and ability for HIV-positive people’s bodies to accept organ donation, is part of the broader push to normalize this practice and remove outdated restrictions.

Shanker elaborated, explaining all that time was necessary to figure out the efficacy of HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive organ transplants but now that the data has been collected — its time to expand the availability.

“There were over a decade of clinical trials between the original HOPE Act law being signed by President Obama and our rule being promulgated at the end of the Biden administration. It was to allow those clinical trials to run their course,” Shanker said.

Nina Martinez is the first HIV-positive person to donate an organ to another person with HIV.

She explained that the stigma and lack of understanding from the general public is another hurdle that those working to improve the quality of life for people living with HIV have to deal with.

“People don’t generally understand that treatment works,” Martinez said, who became the first person to undergo HIV-positive organ donation in 2019. “When you have access to antiretroviral therapy, it lowers the virus in your bloodstream to levels so low that lab tests can’t detect it. Clinically, that correlates to good health and an inability to transmit HIV sexually. I was healthy enough to pass the same evaluation as any other living donor without HIV.”

She continued explaining:

“Just by having a diagnosis of HIV, they’re labeling donors as medically complex, and that’s not accurate. Every donor with HIV has to pass the same evaluation as donors without HIV,” she said. “If someone passes that evaluation and still isn’t allowed to donate, that’s discrimination. If a patient is willing to accept that organ and you block it because of preconceived notions, you’re denying someone care based on disability. That runs counter to basic fairness.”

When asked about her decision to become a donor and what message she hopes it sends, Martinez emphasized that the choice should remain personal.

“I didn’t undertake this endeavor to say that people with HIV should donate. This is a community that’s been through a lot and has contributed to science — we have served. But for people who wanted a way to leave a legacy, and that is what I wanted, they should be supported in that. There shouldn’t be arcane scientific perceptions and myths getting in the way of that.”

National Donor Day, which raises awareness of organ donation, is on Feb. 14. To become an organ donor, visit registerme.org.

Continue Reading

Health

CVS Health agrees to cover new HIV prevention drug

‘Groundbreaking’ PrEP medication taken by injection once every six months

Published

on

CVS Health, the nation’s second largest pharmacy benefit manager company that plays a key role in deciding which drugs are covered by health insurance policies, has belatedly agreed to cover the new highly acclaimed HIV prevention drug yeztugo.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of yeztugo as an HIV prevention or “PrEP” medication in June 2025 as the first such drug to be taken by injection just once every six months. AIDS activists hailed the drug as a major breakthrough in the longstanding effort to end the HIV epidemic.

“We are pleased that CVS Health has finally decided to cover this groundbreaking new PrEP mediation,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute.

“Four months ago, 63 HIV organizations joined us in sending a letter to CVS’s president urging them to reconsider their refusal to cover Yeztugo and reminding them of their legal obligation to cover PrEP and describe the important benefits the drug would bring to preventing HIV in the U.S.,” Schmid said in a statement.

He noted that CVS Health now joins other leading pharmacy benefit manager companies and insurers in covering yeztugo. Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that developed and manufactures yeztugo, has said 85 percent of all people with health insurance in the U.S. now have coverage for the drug, according to Schmid.

“However, coverage does not automatically translate into access and usage,” Schmid said in his statement. “Too many people are being forced to pay copays while other payers, including employers, are failing to cover all forms of PrEP,” he said.

According to Schmid, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute is joining other HIV advocacy organizations in urging federal and state government officials to engage in “aggressive enforcement of PrEP insurance coverage requirements and sustained funding of state, local, and community HIV prevention programs.”

Continue Reading

Popular