Connect with us

National

New report outlines problems faced by LGBTQ+ nursing home residents

Authors recommend supportive policies, training for nation’s 15,000 facilities

Published

on

A new study emphasizes the need for culturally competent care for LGBTQ+ people living in nursing homes.

A recently published academic journal article by two University of Indiana researchers reports on problems faced by LGBTQ+ older adults living in the nation’s nursing homes and recommends actions nursing homes should take to ensure LGBTQ+ residents are treated equitably and without bias. 

The article, entitled “Postacute Care and Long-Term Care for LGBTQ+ Older Adults,” was published Nov. 9 in the peer reviewed journal Clinics In Geriatric Medicine. It is co-authored by geriatric physician Jennifer L. Carnahan, a research scientist with the Regenstrief Institute, which is affiliated with Indiana University’s Center for Aging Research and Andrew C. Picket, an elder care researcher and assistant professor at Indiana University’s School of Public Health in Bloomington. Carnahan also serves as an assistant professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine.

 “Cultivating an inclusive and LGBTQ+ culturally competent nursing home culture means that all staff and clinicians should receive training specific to working with this group and time should be allocated for this to reduce staff burden,” the article states.

 It points out that while some older LGBTQ+ adults fear being forced into the closet while in a nursing home, “they also simultaneously fear unwanted disclosure of their sexual orientation or gender identity status, and their autonomy should be respected either way.”

 The article says there are more than 15,000 nursing homes in the U.S. that provide rehabilitative and skilled nursing care to mostly older adults. It notes that nursing home residents fall into two distinct groups–post-acute care residents who often can return to their own home after recovering from an illness or injury; and long-term care residents who are no longer able to care for themselves. It says that among the long-term care residents in nursing homes, about 50% are living with dementia or another type of cognitive impairment.

According to the article, LGBTQ+ older adults “at a minimum have the same risk of dementia as the general U.S. population, and dementia increases the risk of nursing home admission.”

Among the article’s recommendations is that when new residents are being admitted to a nursing home, whether for short term or long term, “standard practice should be to ask sexual orientation and gender identity questions of every new resident along with other demographic identifiers.” Doing this “normalizes sexual and gender minority status” and can also “help to reduce the invisibility and health disparities” that LGBTQ+ nursing home residents experience.

“For transgender individuals, the personal care received in nursing homes can be supportive, as intended, or traumatic,” the article states. When nursing home staff provide assistance to transgender persons unable to care for themselves, “such as toileting or bathing, they may become newly aware of a resident’s transgender status,” the article says, adding, “If staff are not prepared for such an unintentional outing and how to react in a supportive manner, they may demonstrate microaggressions.” That type of biased reaction can be psychologically harmful for a transgender resident, the report states.

 “We think about younger LGBTQ+ individuals and the challenges and risks of their lifestyles, but older adults in this  population are often forgotten,” co-author Carnahan said in a statement. “They’ve experienced many health disparities. As these accumulate over a lifetime, we see the potential long-term ill effects of being from a marginalized population,” she says in the statement.

 “More and more LGBTQ+ older adults are comfortable being out with their providers, while many living in nursing homes fear unwanted disclosure of their sexual orientation or gender identity status,” Carnahan says. “Their autonomy should be respected either way so they can age in an environment where they feel safe, where they feel comfortable and where they are able to live with dignity.”

The article points to a 2018 survey conducted by AARP, which advocates for people over the age of 50, that found most LGBTQ+ older adults, when considering entering a nursing home, “anticipate neglect, abuse, refusal of services, harassment, and being forced back into the closet.” 

The article says this fear of abuse and stigmatization may be related to older LGBTQ+ adults’ experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ bias in their younger years.

 “Health care workers across disciplines are not well trained in care for LGBTQ+ older adults,” the article says. “Stereotypes and inadequate knowledge of the LGBTQ+ population are not uncommon among those who care for older adults,” it says. And it says LGBTQ+ residents in nursing homes may also face stigmatization from other residents.

 “Training programs that engage nursing home staff in LGBTQ+ cultural competency can remediate staff knowledge and ensure more equitable care,” the article stresses.

 In addition to calling for better training, the article includes several other recommendations, including providing legal advice to LGBTQ+ nursing home residents on how best to assign the legal authority to make decisions about their care if they become incapacitated and unable to make those decisions for themselves.

 Carnahan said in an interview with the Blade that obtaining legal advice about designating a trusted surrogate to make medical decisions for them if they are no longer able to do that is especially important for LGBTQ+ nursing home residents. In at least some cases, LGBTQ+ people are estranged from their biological families and may have chosen families, Carnahan points out. Without having assigned legal health care power of attorney to someone of their choosing, under the laws of most states, the biological family becomes the entity that a nursing home will go to in making these health-related decisions for all residents, including LGBTQ residents. 

The article also provides a list of LGBTQ+-related resources for nursing homes and LGBTQ+ older adults considering entering a nursing home. Among the resources on this list is the Long-Term Care Equality Index prepared by the LGBTQ+ organizations Human Rights Campaign and SAGE, an LGBTQ+ elders advocacy organization. The Index is a document that identifies LGBTQ+-supportive facilities, including residential facilities and nursing homes.

SAGE, based in New York City, arranges for LGBTQ+-supportive training for older adult residential facilities across the country and designates facilities that SAGE believes are LGBTQ+ supportive as “SAGECare credentialed” facilities, which are listed in the Long-Term Care Equality Index.

 “It is the case now that in almost all states there are one or more elder care facilities that have been trained throughout our SAGECare program,” SAGE CEO Michael Adams said in a recent interview. “But it’s nowhere near where it needs to be,” he said. “It needs to be that there are welcoming elder care facilities in every single community in this country” for LGBTQ+ elders.

 The article by elder care researchers Carnahan and Picket reaffirms Adams’s claim that most U.S. nursing homes don’t have the type of LGBTQ+ supportive credentials advocated in the SAGECare program. The two stress in their article the need for all nursing homes to take steps to train their staff on LGBTQ competency issues.

 “Yes, that’s what I would like to see,” Carnahan told the Blade. “I would like more nursing homes and assisted living and even senior communities to embrace cultural competency and embrace the SAGE designation,” she said.

Carnahan said a common impediment to nursing homes providing LGBTQ+-related training is it is sometimes difficult to set aside the time to do that because of the busy and often stressful work involved in operating a nursing home. “Working in a nursing home is very hard work. I’ve done it,” she said.

 “What leadership really needs to do is to say this is important enough to me that I’m going to set aside a couple of hours where you don’t have critical duties and they just want you to participate in this cultural competency training,” Carnahan concludes. “And that’s what really needs to happen.”

 The journal Clinics In Geriatric Medicine has a policy of not releasing articles it publishes to the public who are not paid subscribers to the journal until one year after an article has been published. Additional information about the topic of LGBTQ+ nursing home residents can be found on these sites from the Regenstrief Institute:

regenstrief.org/article/culturally-inclusive-care-lgbtq-nursing-home-residents/

regenstrief.org/article/carnahan-inclusive-long-term-care-video

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story

Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.

Published

on

President Donald Trump at the State of the Union in February 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.

While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.

“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.

“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”

His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.

White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.

Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”

He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.

The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.

Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.

His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.

Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.

Continue Reading

National

Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents

Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community

Published

on

The Trump administration has moved from identifying trans people as as threat to the family to claiming that trans people are a threat to the spiritual health of the nation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”

The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.” 

This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.

As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.” 

Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation. 

By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents. 

With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”

This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions. 

While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933. 

In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare. 

Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people. 

The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.” 

As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.” 

In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law

Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure

Published

on

Pennsylvania Capitol Building (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.

House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.

“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”

Continue Reading

Popular