I recently engaged with another commenter on the Vanguard’s Facebook Page about peer review research.
As these things tend to do, the conversation devolved to a Pharma conspiracy theory where the commenter claims that each transgender child generates $1 million to $2 million in lifetime revenue for pharmaceutical companies.
I asked for them to account for such exorbitant costs and they provided me with four pieces from clearly right wing sources.
This is not a unique claim as it comes up from time to time, suggesting that there are huge monied interests behind gender-affirming care that somehow override medical concerns.
I decided to drill further and the individual kindly provided me some source material. In these conversations, the claim is often presented as self-evident, bolstered by links to opinion pieces and political commentary warning of a so-called gender industrial complex.
What is striking is not only the severity of the accusation, but the complete absence of basic reporting behind it.
If such a figure were real, substantiating it would be straightforward. It would not require speculation about motives, ideological suspicion, or market rhetoric. It would require reporting — actual journalism.
At minimum, responsible journalism would require reporting actual numbers rather than circulating suspicions or projections.
That would mean contacting health systems and payers, requesting de-identified aggregate data, and documenting what medical services are actually provided, to how many patients, for how long, and at what cost. It would involve examining insurer reimbursement rates, hospital price transparency filings, and pharmacy pricing data, and distinguishing between adults and minors, common care and rare interventions, and billed charges versus amounts paid.
Reporters regularly do this work when covering the costs of cancer treatment, dialysis, neonatal care, or mental health services.
Claims about pediatric gender-related care should be held to the same standard.
Journalism has a long-established method for evaluating health care cost claims.
When reporters investigate the cost of cancer treatment, dialysis, neonatal intensive care, or mental health services, they do not begin with advocacy narratives or aggregate market projections. They contact health care providers, insurers, and clinicians.
They ask what services are actually delivered, how often those services are used, what is billed, what is reimbursed, and how many patients receive each category of care. They examine line-item costs and utilization rates.
They distinguish between adults and minors, between rare interventions and common ones, and between billed charges and actual payments.
That is the work that would need to be done here. It has not been done — at least in the articles provided to the Vanguard.
A responsible evaluation of the $1 million to $2 million claim would begin with direct inquiries to health systems and payers such as Kaiser Permanente or UC Davis Medical Center.
A reporter would ask what services are provided to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, how many patients receive each service, how long treatment typically lasts, and what the actual costs are.
They would request de-identified aggregate data, insurer reimbursement figures, and publicly available price transparency information. They would speak with clinicians about real-world practice patterns rather than theoretical pathways.
None of the articles cited in support of the claim follow this approach.
The four sources most often invoked are pieces published by The New American, National Review, Stockhead, and The Spectator. Each serves a different audience, but none attempts to cost out pediatric gender-related medical care using primary data.
The New American article focuses on pharmaceutical funding of an advocacy group’s hospital scorecard. It does not analyze medical billing data, insurer reimbursements, or patient-level costs. Funding relationships are treated as suggestive rather than evidentiary, and no attempt is made to quantify what care actually costs or who pays for it.
The National Review column references broad estimates about an industry said to be worth billions. These figures are aggregate market projections that mix adults and minors, surgeries and counseling, pharmaceuticals and services. They do not provide per-patient figures, let alone per-child lifetime costs, and they do not explain how such numbers would translate into actual revenue attributable to an individual patient.
The Stockhead article is perhaps the most telling example of citation drift. It is a business profile of a pharmaceutical company operating in Australia and New Zealand, discussing niche drug development strategies. It is not an article about transgender health care, pediatric medicine, or gender dysphoria. It contains no analysis of gender-affirming care and no financial claims related to it. Its inclusion in this debate underscores how loosely some sources are being marshaled.
The Spectator piece cites overall market size estimates in political commentary about health care policy. It relies on projected growth figures and rhetorical framing rather than audited financial data. Like the others, it offers no breakdown by age, no separation of adult and pediatric care, no insurer data, and no per-patient accounting.
What unites these articles is not evidence, but insinuation. They substitute suspicion for sourcing and aggregate projections for reporting.
None of them quantifies lifetime medical spending per child.
None distinguishes minors from adults in a meaningful way.
None provides insurer reimbursement data.
None cites peer-reviewed economic analyses of pediatric gender-related care.
None documents a $1 million to $2 million figure, or anything close to it.
This matters because accusations of financial exploitation are serious and these articles feed into conspiracy claims without proper investigation.
To suggest that physicians, hospitals, or pharmaceutical companies are profiting from the medicalization of children is not a rhetorical flourish but rather an allegation of systemic misconduct.
Allegations of that magnitude require evidence commensurate with the charge.
If the $1 million to $2 million figure were accurate, documenting it would not be difficult. Insurance claims data, hospital billing records, and pharmacy pricing information exist. Providers and payers routinely publish or disclose aggregated cost figures for other forms of care. Reporters request and receive such data every day.
The absence of that reporting, coupled with the continued repetition of an unsourced number, should itself raise skepticism, but people are not reading this stuff skeptically.
Instead, what we see is a feedback loop in which opinion pieces cite one another, market projections are mistaken for real spending, and advocacy funding is treated as proof of clinical motive.
The number circulates not because it has been demonstrated, but because it fits the narrative of anti-trans folks.
That is not journalism, and it is not evidence.
None of this forecloses legitimate debate about pediatric gender medicine. Questions about long-term outcomes, appropriate safeguards, and evolving standards of care are real and deserve careful, evidence-based discussion. But those debates are not advanced by inventing numbers or laundering them through commentary outlets without verification.
The standard should be simple.
In fact, I have created a template for reporting that could do this full report rather easily. That sounds like a good project for 2026.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
So I see that you’re not denying that there’s a cost, but decided to write a lengthy article suggesting that the amount claimed is not supported.
Have you considered investigating it yourself?
For what it’s worth, I did see a video of a presentation (maybe a year or two ago) of a hospital administrator apparently speaking to an audience of doctors, discussing the money to be made from sex-changing surgeries – and that any doctor who objects should consider employment elsewhere.
Until recently, I noticed that such interventions were required to be paid by medical insurance (apparently under Obamacare regulations).
Obviously, there is permanent “care” required beyond the initial intervention (since there’s then a lifelong battle against one’s own hormones) – the only question being how much it costs (per your own article).
There has to be a cost
I’ll bet that cost is fairly large and no I’m not going to do a study on it. This is not a an issue that mainstream media is willing to investigate. As I’ve often said, the bias in media is not just the stories that they report on but also the stories that they decide to ignore and not investigate.
What part of the cost do you believe is high?
All of it, the surgeries, hormone treatments and puberty blockers all add up. Many have to take the drugs for life. Then there’s the voice therapy and psychological support.
Less than a quarter of transgender people have surgery. And from what I’ve been able to find even surgery is in the four to five figures, not seven figures.
Getting the cost of anything medical is a problem in this country thanks to our awful system but surgeries arent to hard to find the cost because many trans people pay out of pocket for the best surgeons so they are a good high end figure. anyway the overal cost is nowhere near a mill
thats redic
A vagina is going to set you back about 40k
Vaginoplasty$2,500~$9,000 $30,000 (or higher)
Phalloplasty (add a penis)40,000–$110,000
Top Surgery$6,000–$10,000
Orchiectomy (testicle removal) $2,000–$8,000
Hysterectomy $10,000–$30,000
What many people dont consider is the cost of not offering these surgeries…. its going to cost the public more due to the individual not contributing to society, on top of that the issues related to their lack of treatment WILL SNOWBALL into lifetime cost… easily closer to that $1 mil figure
its also worth noting that these surgeries are not controversial AT ALL for non transgender people
have breast cancer, u get the cost of top surgery and often a boob job AND reconstruction
have man boob? thats called gynocamastia and thats covered by insurance and cost the same becasue its the same procedure
What about a hysterectomy…. these are paid for ALL THE TIME for cis women……. why is it a problem for trans men?
the trans population is 1:100 why is any of this controversial?
I dont get to say “screw your 70 year old nona” when she gets diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer and gets to chew up $190,000.00 for cancer treatment…….
why are we doing this to trans ppl?
same goes for trans kid.s……
they want to restrict their accsess to puberty blockers but they DONT care abouot doing the same thing for cis kids…. literaly same drug, same cost, but if your trans= bad
Spare me the concerns for trans kids…. if it was about concerns cis kids wouldnt get them either…..
lastly ALL of the medications given to trans people are also routinely given to cis people… thjey are the same…
these arent drugs on patent… these are drugs that are DIRT CHEAP and have been around for decades… \
All in all…. if its about the money PAY FOR THE F-KN SURGERY its cheaper than 2 months in a mental institution which cost the state about $45,000 and oh yea…. that person likely looses their job and stops paying taxes…
you know, vs getting the treatment we know works…… allowing trans ppl to live fulfilling and PRODUCTIVE lives
Side note….. The worst part about this “debate” is that 99% of the population can’t speak about the condition because THEY DONT HAVE IT. Trans people are simply not belived…. its like because someone else doesn’t have it then they cant understand… this is fact. yet time and time again its those people making rules to exclude trans people yet they allow cis people the same treatments…..
LET US LIVE OUR FKING LIVES
” . . . they provided me with four pieces from clearly right wing sources.”
The horror!
No horror, just not reliable and more to the point, not on point with evidence.
attack the cost of not doing anything
attack the principal that CIS people get these same surgeries covered
attack the idea that the 99% gets to dictate medical care for the >1%
Attack the idea that western civilization is behaving draconian in regards to health (YOU HAVE 1 LIFE)
Attack the idea of elderly getting treatment at all………
again I belive medicine should be free for all people…. we pay into a system that gives us less back.. Insurance companies are bringing in billion dollar profits year after year… thats DISGUSTING
because at the end of the day NO HUMANS HEALTH SHOULD EVER DEPEND ON THE BOTTOM DOLLAR
remember when republicans were talking “death panels”
this is their desire…. they want healthcare privatized…. makes sense when we have let the system ballon like this… insurance is draining our economy and no one wins except them
“” . . . they provided me with four pieces from clearly right wing sources.””
As opposed to left wing sources, which we all know are to be trusted…
My point, KO, clearly . . .
Why do you guys care so much about trans people? why can’t you leave us be? Keep sports honestly, but its pretty clear the agenda is about trans people ONLY and nothing to do with actual issues.
Great work on getting trans athletes banned… now Kieths coming for their healthcare? at what point do people start realizing this is one big witch hunt for a minority that’s pissed them off on principal?
idk, if you actually are the p prize winner you will appreciate this massive piece of work which outlines the anti trans movement globally. This kid deserves more that what he gets from youtube compiling this……… his sources are in the video description including the transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiOc0r31-Os&t=398s
its like 4 hours long
Assuming this is the P prize
You know who could probably give you really good insight into all of this? Trans people…….
They know the cost; they know the barriers.
It would be funny if it weren’t my own life at stake here, but it seems so odd to me how far removed the conversation about trans healthcare is from trans people.,… it seems like regular old cis people are willing to speak on behalf of what trans people get….. As if they have any idea what that’s like…..
Trans ppl talk to other trans ppl, often times because cis people really just cannot understand what it feels like to be trans.
instead what ALWAYS ends up happening is the token “look what they did to me” de transitioner comes up and tells their story. On vibes alone it undoes the 99.3% of the community because some anti trans platform parades a detransitioner around…. not to mention MANY of these de transitioners do so because they lack the support they need, and when they do get it they end up transitioning again………..
this would be like the ppl who got knee replacement and hated it getting to ban knee replacements for everyone else…..
the % of ppl who are dissatisfied by knee replacement
this study finds 94% of care recipients are highly satisfied with their gender treatment
care to guess what knee replacement is? 80%
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1007/s11420-018-9614-8
Make it make sense