Lawyers defend transgender care at Philly hospital in blistering response to Trump administration seeking patient information
Published in News & Features
PHILADELPHIA — The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia called new evidence presented by President Donald Trump’s administration weak and untrustworthy in a blistering legal response to federal efforts to investigate its doctors providing gender-affirming care.
CHOP’s response, filed late Monday in federal court in Philadelphia, came in defense of accusations by the U.S. Department of Justice that it’s investigating “fraudulent billing practices“ at the hospital. Federal officials say they’re looking into whether CHOP doctors were fudging or lying about diagnoses to get private and public health insurance companies to cover off-label drug prescriptions used to treat patients with gender dysphoria — a medical condition in which a person’s body does not match their gender identity.
In its filing, CHOP lawyers called the DOJ’s allegations “unreliable,” and urged U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Kearney to disregard claims that are “threadbare, of dubious origin, and so heavily qualified and caveated as to offer the court no meaningful information.”
CHOP and the DOJ are locked in a legal battle over a sweeping federal subpoena sent to the hospital in June. The subpoena seeks patient names, Social Security numbers, addresses, diagnoses, and treatment notes, in addition to doctor emails and encrypted text messages.
In July, CHOP filed a motion to limit the scope of the subpoena to protect patient privacy. Judge Kearney is now weighing CHOP’s motion.
In the latest filing, CHOP’s lawyers argued the DOJ’s “new evidence” against the hospital was unfairly “shoehorned” into a separate but related case filed last month by a group of CHOP patients and their families who also want Kearney to block the release of private medical records to the DOJ.
“That new evidence should not be considered because it is not before the Court in this case and is unreliable in any event,” CHOP lawyers wrote in the filing. “The government (still) cannot establish that its need for extraordinarily sensitive and personal patient information outweighs the highest-order privacy interests on the other side of the ledger.”
The DOJ did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.
Feds seek patient information from CHOP
In April, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo, entitled “Preventing the Mutilation of American Children,” in which she tasked the DOJ with enforcing measures targeting gender-affirming care for youth.
About two months later, the DOJ sent subpoenas to CHOP and at least 19 other hospitals nationally that are under scrutiny for treating transgender youth. The subpoenas sparked legal opposition playing out in federal courts in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
The DOJ’s key focus is how doctors are prescribing puberty blockers and hormones “off-label,” meaning for a condition not specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Once a drug is approved by the FDA, it is legal for doctors to prescribe it to treat other conditions that could benefit from the medication. Off-label prescribing is a common and widely accepted medical practice, especially in pediatrics.
Gender-affirming care for children and adolescents has been deemed medically appropriate by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other major medical and mental health organizations. Research shows young people with gender dysphoria suffer higher rates of suicide, self-harm, depression, and anxiety.
CHOP’s Gender and Sexuality Development Program, created in 2014, is one of the nation’s largest such clinics and provides medical care and mental health support to hundreds of new families each year.
CHOP’s legal fight for patient privacy
Late last month, families and patients joined in CHOP’s fight against the federal subpoena by filing a separate motion to protect their privacy rights. That motion was filed on behalf of five parents with transgender children and one adult who received care at CHOP.
In response to that case, the DOJ filed a “Declaration,” or sworn statement, from Lisa Hsiao, acting director of the DOJ’s Enforcement and Affirmative Litigation Branch, formerly known as the Consumer Protection Branch. In it, Hsiao said the government has new evidence “particular to CHOP that raises concern that federal healthcare offenses may be occurring there.”
Hsiao said the government analyzed CHOP’s insurance claims and found that between 2017 and 2024, CHOP providers diagnosed 250 minors with central precocious puberty at age 10 or older, “including numerous teenagers aged 14 to 18.”
“This is well beyond the age at which children are typically diagnosed with precocious puberty,” Hsiao stated. The government, she said, suspects doctors are improperly using the precocious puberty diagnosis to get insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria.
In Monday’s court filing, CHOP lawyers accused the DOJ of attempting to “shoehorn its new evidence into CHOP’s case” through the other case.
CHOP also argued Hsiao’s declaration provides nothing to support its contentions surrounding precocious puberty diagnosis.
“Moreover, the government fails to contextualize the findings of its rudimentary analysis, offering no comparator for the use of the code for precocious puberty at peer hospitals, let alone hospitals that, like CHOP, have providers who specialize in treating endocrine disorders,” CHOP lawyers wrote.
The source of “the data set is entirely unknown,” CHOP’s lawyers noted, adding the declaration never says how many patients were treated for gender dysphoria during that time frame.
The CHOP lawyers also criticized Hsiao for writing in her sworn declaration that the government was aware of a lawsuit filed against CHOP that alleges doctors hastily prescribed puberty blockers and hormones to a minor who later regretted it.
Hsiao later refiled the declaration to remove any reference to a lawsuit after learning that it hadn’t been filed.
CHOP lawyers wrote they believe the lawsuit reference came from a news article about a former CHOP patient. The article said the patient “was suing the hospital.” However, CHOP was unaware of any such lawsuit.
“The similarities between the report and the allegations in the Hsiao Declaration — including the reference to a lawsuit — raise suspicions that, in looking to justify its investigative interest in CHOP, the government simply searched the internet for stories fitting its narrative and presented the one it found as fact without adequately scrutinizing its veracity.”
_____
©2025 The Philadelphia Inquirer. Visit inquirer.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Comments