Connect with us

Opinions

The LGBTQ+ community, telehealth, and rural broadband access

Congress must act to preserve lifeline of remote healthcare

Published

on

The LGBTQ+ community has come to rely more and more on remote general and specialized healthcare as the pandemic continues to limit access to in-person services. This lifeline is in danger of going away unless Congress acts, delivering a serious blow to the diverse community of people who struggle to access care in-person in their communities. 

Telehealth allows doctors and other providers to provide care without an in-person visit. More specifically, telehealth refers to the health care services accessible through telecommunications services, including via audio and video (either real time or asynchronous). These services are best delivered via high-speed broadband services. Medical care appointments, consultations, prescriptions, follow-up visits, and more can be done safely and virtually. 

Telehealth is a modern necessity made even more relevant due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and demand for these resources is growing. The LGBTQ+ community in particular is experiencing a significant need for improved telehealth provisions and access. Recent relaxations of telehealth regulations have expanded the reach of telehealth and positively impacted marginalized communities including the LGBTQ+ community, especially in rural and remote areas. Effective and reliable broadband access is instrumental for telehealth services and as telehealth expands, advancements to universal broadband access will be critical to reach these communities.

Telehealth and the LGBTQ+ community

More than 18 million Americans identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersex (LGBTQ+), and more younger Americans than ever before are identifying as LGBTQ+. The health concerns of these individuals deserve utmost respect and care, demonstrable through high-quality health care both in person and online. Telehealth plays an important role in connecting the LGBTQ+ community with competent and affirming health care providers and services. The LGBTQ+ community has always been more heavily reliant on internet connectivity, and healthcare is no different, with 81% of LGBTQ+ youth reportedly using the internet to search for health information.

LGBTQ+ communities face many of the same healthcare concerts as non-LGBTQ+ communities, though there are differences in rates of some chronic conditions including cancer, diabetes, obesity, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and tobacco-related health conditions. LGBTQ+ individuals have higher rates of mental and physical disability, and the impact of loneliness on health quality is experienced at higher rates by LGBTQ+ individuals in both urban and rural settings. Routine healthcare for these conditions improves quality of life, but LGBTQ+ individuals often report high cost as a deterrent from going to the doctor. Telehealth provides an affordable avenue to routine health care.

Many individuals in the LGBTQ+ community report a history of medical trauma as a barrier to receiving healthcare. Gender-affirming health care is one major motivator for telehealth access in the LGBTQ+ community. Nearly one-fifth of transgender individuals have been refused healthcare due to their gender identity. Online servers such as Folx Health, Plume, and QueerDoc provide gender-affirming care including hormone therapy, mental health, and documents for gender marker change. Telehealth allows users to bypass the barrier of proximity to medical care and to access providers who are informed on medical concerns and considerations that uniquely impact the LGBTQ+ community. 

Regulations that previously restricted the delivery of telehealth have been eased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, rules previously limited telehealth to rural areas received in a clinical setting. The new rules allow urban and suburban patients to access telehealth from their home or other convenient setting. This makes sense as many urban areas lack convenient access to physicians and other providers. Individuals across America have benefitted from the ability to access basic health services at home, but those whose care has been most significantly enhanced are poor, elderly, members of marginalized communities such as the LGBTQ+ community, and/or those who live in remote areas of the country. For example, the total number of telehealth visits in Medicare increased from less than 1 million to more than 50 million during COVID. 

There are currently hundreds of proposals pending before state and federal legislatures that address extending or expanding telehealth beyond the pandemic’s public health emergency. Current changes to telehealth regulations include loosened restrictions around telephone-based check-ins and the allowance for telehealth visits between providers and persons across state borders. Before the pandemic, patients filled a prescription after first meeting with a doctor in-person, but telehealth expansion has eliminated the required in-person appointment. Telehealth treatment for addiction is also on the rise, with addiction-specific treatments available online. General mental health resources are also increasingly accessible virtually and by phone. Now that these practices are commonplace, regulators are looking to pass legislation that will maintain this ease of service.

The expansion of telehealth has proven especially effective for the LGBTQ+ community. Easing accessibility of telehealth and prescriptions reduces the cost of care for routine medicines and check-ups for conditions that disproportionately affect the LGBTQ+ community, such as HIV. Increased availability of telehealth mental resources is critical for all youth, but especially for those in the marginalized LGBTQ+ community. Through online resources, transgender adults can safely and reliably access gender-affirming healthcare including hormone replacement therapy and counseling with specialized professionals. Additionally, telehealth access can reduce or eliminate the stigma and discrimination that LGBTQ+ individuals face daily when selecting providers, especially in remote or rural areas where there may be few providers to choose from and even fewer knowledgeable about and sympathetic to the special health care needs of LGBTQ+ individuals.   Making permanent the COVID-19 exemptions currently in place that regulate telehealth services will have far-reaching, positive impacts for the LGBTQ+ community.

Rural need for telehealth

An estimated 2.9 to 3.8 million Americans living in rural and remote parts of the country identify as LGBTQ+ and deserve high-quality and informed healthcare. Accessing a healthcare provider is, in general, more challenging in rural areas. Consider, for example, costs associated with distance. To add insult to injury, where providers are available in rural communities, the potential for discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and misdiagnosis of medical conditions is prevalent. Lack of access to sympathetic providers or specialized providers makes telehealth a crucial tool for the rural LGBTQ+ community. 

Given the need for broadband access to ensure quality telehealth services (to access video consultations, for example), the quality of an individual’s access to broadband services will directly affect their health care experience. Rural Americans are routinely left behind in broadband deployment, contributing to the digital divide, or the gap in use of online resources. Improvements to broadband access is key for expanding the reach of telehealth services across the country, especially in rural America. The recently enacted infrastructure law includes $65 billion in new broadband funding. It must be rolled out quickly to ensure marginalized communities in rural areas gain from improvements to broadband access and the telehealth resources that come along with it. 

Telehealth has become a critical tool to expand access for all patients, but especially the LGBTQ+ community. Marginalized individuals benefit the most from increased telehealth access and those living in rural areas may be the most significantly impacted. Telehealth offers a number of benefits including facilitating community health and social wellness, the delivery of gender-affirming medical care, accessible mental health care, and ease of prescription access.

Recently relaxed regulations around telehealth delivery have increased the reach of these services and provided healthcare to individuals who may have gone without care. Rural and remote marginalized communities, such as the LGBTQ+ community, will experience an especially positive impact from telehealth, and increasing rural broadband access is critical to expanding high-quality, informed healthcare to LGBTQ+ individuals across America.  Crucially, Congress can permanently expand telehealth services and capitalize on the recent infrastructure law to roll out high-speed broadband that facilitates telehealth in areas with limited internet access.  Without congressional action, many of the benefits marginalized communities have experienced from telehealth services will expire thereby reducing or eliminating supportive and specialized care options for these communities.  

For more information visit www.LGBTQ+tech.org/telehealth.

Carlos Gutierrez is deputy director and general counsel for the LGBT Technology Partnership & Institute, which works to improve access, increase inclusion, ensure safety and empower entrepreneurship for LGBTQ+ communities around technology.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Black Educated Lesbians: A movement rooted in community

Organization’s annual conference is part of a much larger mission

Published

on

When people hear the word “conference,” they often imagine a weekend event that begins on Friday and ends on Sunday. For Black Educated Lesbians (BEL), our annual conference is only one part of a much larger mission.

BEL was founded because Black lesbians deserve spaces intentionally created with us in mind. Too often, we are overlooked in conversations about health, leadership, philanthropy, education, and community. We exist at the intersection of multiple identities, yet organizations and institutions frequently assume our needs are being met by broader groups. Our lived experiences tell a different story.

BEL is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to creating opportunities for Black lesbians and Black queer women through leadership development, wellness programming, research, education, and community building. While our conference has become one of the few events in the country centered specifically on Black lesbians, our work continues year-round.

Throughout the year, BEL hosts virtual wellness sessions, leadership development opportunities, financial education workshops, community discussions, and mentorship programs designed to help our members thrive personally and professionally. We are also investing in the next generation through our EmpowerHER initiative, connecting Black queer youth with mentors, resources, and leadership opportunities.

Research is another critical part of our work. We are committed to ensuring Black lesbian voices are included in conversations about healthcare, mental health, economic opportunity, and overall well-being. Data drives policy, funding, and services. If our experiences are absent from the research, our needs often remain invisible.

Our annual conference, taking place Sept. 18–20 in Hapeville, Ga., brings this mission to life. Attendees will participate in conversations about physical and mental health, healthy relationships, financial literacy, entrepreneurship, leadership, aging, women’s health, and sexual wellness. The conference also creates opportunities to build meaningful relationships, support Black-owned businesses, and connect with professionals and organizations that understand our community.

Creating spaces like this is not easy. As a small nonprofit, every workshop, meal, scholarship, and resource requires fundraising, partnerships, and countless volunteer hours. Yet we continue because our community deserves spaces where they can simply exist, learn, heal, and grow without explanation.

What makes BEL unique is not simply that we serve Black lesbians. It is that Black lesbians lead every aspect of our organization. We understand the importance of creating programs that reflect our lived experiences rather than asking our community to fit into spaces never designed for them.

Community is not built during moments of crisis. It is built through consistent investment, authentic relationships, and showing up year after year. That is the work BEL is committed to doing.

Whether someone joins us as an attendee, sponsor, volunteer, donor, or community partner, they become part of something much larger than a conference. They become part of a movement dedicated to ensuring Black lesbians are seen, heard, valued, and supported.

As we prepare to welcome attendees from across the country this September, we invite readers to learn more about BEL, support our mission, and help us continue building spaces where Black lesbians don’t just survive, they thrive.


LaJoya Johnson is founder and executive director of Black Educated Lesbians, a national nonprofit dedicated to advancing leadership, wellness, and education for Black lesbians and Black queer women.

Continue Reading

Opinions

I respect AOC, even though I often disagree with her

She should work toward House leadership role and skip presidential run

Published

on

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

There is a column in the New York Times asking, “Is Ocasio-Cortez ready for the glass cliff?” The author thinks it’s a great idea for her to run for president. I believe it’s a bad idea for her personally, and a disastrous idea for the Democratic Party. However, that is not the only column written recently about Ocasio-Cortez, discussing her options and private life. I think it is cringeworthy what social media, and even some mainstream media, are focusing on these days. 

Politicians have become fodder for what were once just stories about Hollywood, and loud showmen like the felon in the White House. Now, like the showman, those like AOC, can’t claim they aren’t asking for it by striving for the biggest online following possible. They obviously see that as a way to validate themselves; politicians use it as a way to raise money, become influencers, and get their message out. 

But they also open themselves up to even more intrusion into their private lives. Those who do that also open the door for all politicians to have their private lives made public. Running for president, which the column suggests AOC should do, and which she herself has said she isn’t ruling out, is a great way to grab a headline, and leads to reporters digging to find every little fact about her. AOC is trying to get ahead of the curve by talking about a breakup, and then about harvesting her eggs — topics once considered private that should stay that way. There was once just the National Enquirer, but today every news outlet incorporates what the Enquirer did, as it makes for great clickbait.

I feel for her, thinking all this has to be public, when a single woman wants to run for higher office. We have seen married women, including Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris, run and be subjected to dealing with questions about their husbands, their former boyfriends, and in some cases, more reporting about those things than what they stood for. Maybe for AOC, that would be a good thing, as the country is far from ready for a candidate who up until now, proudly represents the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Yes, she is trying to step away from them a little, but I don’t think that is possible, which is why I feel it is a disaster for her to run, both for herself, and the Democratic Party. She could decide to run for the Senate if Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) understands it is time for him to retire. Even that could be a difficult race. She might win a primary, which another progressive representative, Bella S. Abzug (D-N.Y.), tried and lost in 1976, if she gets a big enough New York City vote. Should she try, we would see how much change there has actually been.

Back when JFK had women in and out of the White House, Ronald Reagan got Nancy pregnant before they married, and George H.W. Bush allegedly had a mistress traveling with him, those were not the headlines. I think we were all better off. Gary Hart asked for it when he told the press to follow him, and they caught him with a woman not his wife. Again, he asked for that. Then we got to the Clinton era and the right wing, actually David Brock, got the information on Paula Jones, and it all exploded, eventually cascading down to harm Hillary. They tried to find anything they could on Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, but couldn’t find the salacious bits they were looking for. But I bet they will find some things that sound salacious on AOC, even if they have to make them up. She appears to be a normal, highly intelligent, motivated, single woman. 

Recent primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin, and general election results, will clearly impact what she decides to do. DSA candidates are not an easy sell to most Democrats, let alone the general electorate. We will find out how Dr. El-Sayed does in the general election. While I didn’t support him in the primary, I do in the general election. Those results, and looking back at other women who have run, may give AOC second thoughts about giving up working toward seniority in the House. I predict she could be much more impactful than one of her idols, Bernie Sanders, has been. He has been there for 40 years and accomplished nothing. I think AOC could accomplish a lot.  


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Will Michigan save the GOP?

We must stop fighting each other as Democrats and rid country of Trump

Published

on

(Photo by SSilver/Bigstock)

Last week in Michigan we saw how dramatically wrong, and misleading, political polling can be. Because of that, and the media hype, it might have made a difference in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate. Haley Stevens lost by about 16,000 votes, and the second Democrat closest to Stevens’s views, withdrew from the race, but her name was still on the ballot, and she received 61,000 votes. So, what would have happened if she had withdrawn in time to keep her name of the ballot? We will never know. 

The media have been hyping the few wins the DSA, and far-left Democratic candidates, have had, to the point you might think they are winning hundreds of primaries around the country. I think they have won fewer than 15. But those 15, and the hype, could actually make a difference in the general election. They could make a difference because they clearly divided the Democratic Party, and we don’t know if it will come back together in time to rid ourselves of the control of the felon, his fascist advisers, and their sycophants in Congress, now running our country. 

While strongly opposed to parts of the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, (DSA), and those who would espouse them, I am even more opposed to the felon in the White House who has proven he has no redeeming values. The DSA platform is a mixed bag. In my view there are some frightening parts such as calling for total defunding of the police, for workers to own every business, for the abolishment of the State of Israel, telling their endorsed candidates they may not meet with any Zionist organization, and now, elimination of the United States Senate. Before you respond telling me about what is not in the platform, please just read some of it. But then I am for the parts calling for universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, strong union support, and working toward affordable housing, and a decent life for all. 

So, what do the candidates who won with the support of the DSA do between now and Nov. 3? They must be very clear which parts of the DSA platform they believe in, and tell voters clearly, how they will govern and legislate. Make clear their priorities. That is the only way we will unite Democrats in time to win the general election.

Then those who lost to them should do what Rep. Stevens did in her concession statement in the Michigan U.S. Senate primary. It was a classy statement responding to the election results. She said: “I want to congratulate Abdul El-Sayed on winning the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. He is a doctor, a community health official, a Rhodes Scholar, and a dedicated Michigander. I am proud to offer my support as he takes on Mike Rogers in the general election. This was a thorough and rigorous campaign that brought out the full span of views within the Democratic Party – and that is why we have primaries. I am proud to have put up my hand to serve, and prouder to continue to work together to make sure this Senate seat remains blue, that we flip the United States Senate and continue the work for MichiganNow I hope Dr. El-Sayed will run a campaign understanding which voters he needs to appeal to in order to win, and to keep the Michigan United States Senate seat in Democratic hands. When a vote is split 50/50, which was basically the case in this race, reading the 50% who voted against you correctly, is the key to winning. Many of those voters didn’t trust Dr. El- Sayed for a multitude of reasons. But he must now convince them, even with what they didn’t like about him, he is still a better choice than the Republican candidate. This is no different than in so many races around the nation, although it might be harder for a very far-left candidate to sway more moderate voters.” 

I would say to the voters of Michigan, “While I did not support Dr. El-Sayed in the primary, I would definitely vote for him in the general election. The goal is saying to the felon in the White House that we will not let you continue to destroy our country. We Democrats may speak with a host of different voices, but they should all say to the felon: you are a loser, and we will see you, your fascist government, and your sycophants in Congress, defeated.”  

We must stop fighting each other as Democrats, at least long enough, to accomplish this goal.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular