2020 State Equality Index

By March and April - when the majority state legislatures are usually at their busiest points - many state legislatures found themselves needing to close or take prolonged recesses due to the crisis posed by COVID-19. State legislatures that remained in session did so only to deal with the state’s top priorities, including meeting constitutional obligations related to passing budgets. On the heels of the COVID crisis came a renewed push against police brutality and memorials acknowledging this country’s racist past. Some states called socially-distanced special sessions to deal with the crashing economy and social unrest. Most states, even those that generally tend to prioritize anti-LGBTQ legislation, hunkered down and stayed away from overt attacks on the LGBTQ community.

Idaho presented a notable exception. In the weeks after COVID came to Idaho, neither the legislature nor the Governor pivoted from their usual agendas to focus on the pandemic. Instead, the legislature passed and the Governor signed two pieces of legislation expressly targeting transgender people: one prohibiting transgender girls from participating in girls sports and the other barring transgender people from updating the gender marker on their birth certificates. Both laws were clearly motivated by discrimination and warned against by legal experts, including the state’s attorney general. The laws were immediately challenged in court and were blocked from implementation pending resolution of the case. Not even clusters of COVID infections across the state could deter Idaho from its determination to discriminate against transgender people.

Other states took notable action on LGBTQ issues prior to the pandemic, both on the pro-and anti-equality side. Tennessee passed a license to discriminate in child welfare services bill on its first day of session, which the Governor quickly signed into law. On the

pro-equality side, at least 47 laws and one regulation were implemented. Virginia passed 17 of those laws, including laws that prohibit discrimination in health care, ensure schools have adequate policies relating to the rights of transgender students, banning conversion therapy, strengthening hate crimes laws, and making it easier for transgender and gender non-binary people to update their identity documents. Notably, Virginia also passed the landmark Virginia Values Act, which expanded the state’s existing protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity and created all-new protections for Virginians in private employment and places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, disability, and status as a veteran. Virginia is the first state in the South to adopt non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, the first state in over a decade to add both sexual orientation and gender identity to existing non-discrimination law, and the first state since 1993 to add a prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations (protecting all Virginians) where none existed before.

Other important new laws include bans on the use of so-called “LGBTQ panic” defenses (NJ, WA), laws that streamline adoption policies for same-sex parents (NJ), requirements that government employees undergo training to become culturally competent regarding LGBTQ issues (VA), updating sex education curricula to be more LGBTQ-inclusive (VA, WA), ensuring that various fertility services are adequately covered by insurance (MD), and expanding access to PrEP (CO). As part of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some states also enacted laws or regulations requiring COVID-19 demographic data collection efforts to include sexual orientation and gender identity (CA, D.C., NV, PA, RI).

¹For more information about how LGBTQ people have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 crisis, please see HRC’s Issue Brief at hrc.org.

These states have a broad range of protections to ensure equality for LGBTQ people, including comprehensive non-discrimination laws, safer school policies, and healthcare access for transgender people. Advocates focus on the implementation of laws and advance innovative legislation that addresses the needs of vulnerable populations.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia are in the highest-rated category, “Working Toward Innovative Equality:" California, Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; District of Columbia; Hawaii; Illinois; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Oregon; Rhode Island; Vermont; and Washington

These states have several basic measures of equality, including non-discrimination protections or anti-bullying laws. Advocates work to ensure the broad implementation of these laws while advancing laws concerning parenting, youth, health and criminal justice to achieve full equality for the LGBTQ community.

Two states are in the category “Solidifying Equality:" Iowa; and Virginia

In these states, advocates focus on raising support for basic LGBTQ equality, such as non-discrimination protections in employment, housing and public accommodations. These states are most likely to have religious refusal or other anti-LGBTQ laws. Advocates often further LGBTQ equality by focusing on municipal protections for LGBTQ people or opposing negative legislation that targets the LGBTQ community.

Twenty-Five states are in the lowest-rated category “High Priority to Achieve Basic Equality:" Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Kentucky; Louisiana; Michigan; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; West Virginia; and Wyoming

Following this historic ruling, several states have continuously introduced bills that would limit recognition of same-sex marriages or allow state officials to refuse to provide licenses or other services for same-sex couples.

STATE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
RESTORATION ACTS

This item indicates state laws that purport to preserve “religious freedom”, but which may in fact undermine state non-discrimination protections. Their laws generally fall within one of two categories: the so-called “religious freedom restoration acts”, and the laws that specifically allow marriage-service providers to discriminate on the basis of their religion. State laws that explicitly make clear that civil rights protections are not subject to religious refusal will not fall in this category.

RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING or PRACTICE

This item indicates state laws that specifically prevent public institutions of higher education

or state professional licensing boards from disciplining students or professionals for failing to meet their professional standards of conduct (generally relating to non-discrimination) on the basis of their personal religious beliefs.

FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT

This item indicates state laws that purport to protect religious expression but actually grant a right to discriminate. These laws protect people working at a public agency, or a private individual or agency that receives funds, licensing, or other recognition from the state, from losing any of those benefits as a result of discriminatory action that is based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Recognizing that LGBTQ people should be free of discrimination in all areas of life, this publication takes a comprehensive view of non-discrimination laws & policies by looking at areas where not every state provides protections. This category evaluates whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is explicitly prohibited through statewide laws or policies in a host of areas, including employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. In some states, the protections outlined in a specific area do not exist for any characteristic—including race, sex, or disability.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are prohibited under federal sex-based employment protections. Nevertheless, it is imperative that states continue enacting explicitly LGBTQ-inclusive

comprehensive non-discrimination laws since it will likely take additional litigation for Bostock to be fully applied to all sex-based protections under existing federal civil rights law. Moreover, federal law currently lacks sex-based protections in numerous key areas of life, including public spaces and services. Lastly, there are many invaluable benefits to enacting inclusive protections even when they exist on higher levels of government (see pg. 40 of the full report). For these reasons, the SEI will continue to only award credit for state non-discrimination laws that expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity. Credit may be awarded on the state level if a state has definitively applied Bostock’s reasoning to include LGBTQ people under state sex non-discrimination protections.

For each item in this category, it is noted whether the law or policy provides non-discrimination protection on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or both.

This category evaluates state criminal laws to determine whether they equally protect residents on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, include LGBTQ people in hate crimes laws, eliminate unjust defenses to violent crimes committed against LGBTQ people, and proscribe police profiling of LGBTQ individuals.

This category also notes the presence of negative laws that harm public health efforts, like those that criminalize people living with HIV, as well as unconstitutional statutes like anti-sodomy laws that perpetuate stigma against LGBTQ people by their continued existence.

This category evaluates a range of measures concerning the safety and well-being of LGBTQ youth, including safe school laws, laws to protect youth from dangerous and discredited conversion therapy, and laws to address

youth homelessness. Recognizing that schools play an especially important role in the growth and development of young people, we looked at a number of measures relating to bullying prevention and school safety.

In June of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia confirming that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are prohibited under the sex-based employment protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This represents a major step forward for LGBTQ equality and has implications that ought to reach federal civil rights laws forbidding discrimination in all federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination, including education, health care, and housing.

Despite this significant progress on the federal level, it is important that state governments continue enacting comprehensive non-discrimination protections that are expressly inclusive of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Opponents of LGBTQ equality have already begun executing legal strategies to attempt to stymie the full and proper implementation of Bostock beyond the federal employment context. Current federal civil rights laws contain sex-based protections in numerous areas, including education, housing, health care, credit, and jury service. Pursuant to the reasoning of Bostock, LGBTQ people ought to be protected under these federal laws as well. However, due to the resistance of anti-equality officials and organizations, the full implementation of Bostock will likely require protracted litigation that could take years.

While advocates continue the fight for Bostock to be correctly applied throughout all relevant federal civil rights law, state governments have the ability to immediately protect residents from discrimination in many areas beyond employment. States should exercise the fullest extent of their legal authority to clearly and holistically protect the LGBTQ community.

Importantly, Bostock only impacts areas of federal law where sex discrimination is already explicitly prohibited. Existing federal statutes do not outlaw discrimination on the basis of sex in public spaces and services as well as all federally-funded programs.

While advocates across the country continue to push for the passage of the federal Equality Act, which would remedy these deficiencies and fully codify Bostock, states can, and should, extend vital protections to LGBTQ people including in public accommodations and taxpayer-funded programs.

Even when LGBTQ-inclusive protections exist at higher levels of government, state legislation can provide many additional, invaluable benefits. This is why states and localities across the nation have enacted laws codifying and expanding protections that exist on the federal and state levels, respectively, for decades.

• Scope
  Even if federal protections already exist, state non-discrimination laws and policies can provide more expansive protections for workers, visitors, and residents. For example, federal employment non-discrimination law only covers employers that employ fifteen or more people. This excludes many workers of smaller employers all across the country.
  
  
• Enforcement
  States can and should create better, more accessible enforcement options for those who have been discriminated against.

• Education and Awareness
  The legislative process and implementation of state non-discrimination laws create significant opportunities for preventive anti-discrimination education and awareness. Additionally, state human rights commissions created by non-discrimination laws play an important role in regularly educating communities on the harms of prejudice and discrimination and the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

• Economic Strength
  The enactment of strong, comprehensive, and fully-inclusive state non-discrimination laws is one of the strongest statements of a community’s values. People in search of new places to live, visitors in search of leisure getaways, and businesses looking to begin or expand operations take heed. States that care enough to adopt inclusive protections position themselves to attract new residents, visitors, and businesses who value diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Although Bostock represents a watershed victory in the fight for LGBTQ-inclusive non-discrimination protections, it does not signal the end of the struggle for full, comprehensive legal equality. The decision itself directly applies to federal sex non-discrimination protections in employment and does not automatically apply to sex non-discrimination
protections under state and local law.

While the only correct implementation of Bostock requires immediate application to all other federal sex non-discrimination protections and ought to apply to state level sex non-discrimnination laws, anti-equality opponents are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening. Even when

Introduction: In every state across the United States, race is a defining social construct that has major impacts on the life of every resident, including those who make up the incredibly diverse LGBTQ community.

The precise form this impact takes is defined by one’s actual or perceived race along with other intersecting identities. The actual or perceived race and intersectional identity of some opens the door to opportunity and advantage, while that of others engenders discrimination, disadvantage, and disparities in virtually every area of life. This has been true since the founding of this country and unfortunately remains true today.

Systemic racism, also known as structural racism, refers to an overarching system of racial bias across institutions, culture, and society. Systemic racism does not necessarily mean that institutions are overtly racist or have patently racist policies. It also refers to systems, institutions, and policies that create or allow disparate negative impacts for individuals who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC).

The origins of modern systemic racism in this country is embedded in its very founding, and the rampant racial disparities—used herein to refer to the stark overrepresentation of BIPOC communities in negative outcomes based on their proportional representation in the general population—that persist today are grim manifestations of the enduring, destructive effects of systemic racism.

Modern American policing provides one of the most prominent examples of enduring systemic racism, an issue thrown into the national spotlight this year by widespread protests against police killings of Black people.

• Protesting While Black
  The troubled relationship between law enforcement and demonstrators has a history steeped in racial injustice and inequality and unchecked abuses of state-sanctioned power have led to historic confrontations. Nonviolent protesters in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement were routinely met with brutal retaliation from police officers enforcing segregation. These violent skirmishes have been countlessly repeated since and unsurprisingly, they are more likely to occur when protesters are Black.
  
  A comprehensive study of protests between 1960 and 1990 found that those with Black participants were more likely to be met with police presence than those without. Once police officers arrived at protests, they were also more likely to make arrests and use violence as a method of crowd control.¹ It was clear then, as it is now, that police perceive BIPOC to be a greater threat than their white peers. Rubber bullets and tear gas may have replaced water hoses and German Shepherds, but modern laws have failed to adequately address disparities in the treatment of BIPOC by law enforcement.
  
  Additionally, while this issue received unprecedented national attention this year, the problem of police killings disproportionately affecting Black people has been present throughout our history. Enduring systemic racism in policing is evinced by data clearly showing that police kill Black people at disproportionate rates. In the United States, Black people are three times more likely to be killed by police. One study found that Black Chicagoans are over 650% more likely to be killed by police than white Chicagoans. Even when unarmed, Black people are still more likely to be killed by police.
  What’s more, racial disparities exist throughout police interactions. A recent study found that Black people are 20% more likely to be pulled over, twice as likely to be searched, and less likely to be carrying illegal contraband compared to their white peers. Stark racial disparities do not end with police interactions but hold true throughout the broader criminal justice system. Fortunately, states can take decisive action to begin addressing systemic racism in policing. State authorities should expeditiously implement the following reforms in their law enforcement agencies.

• Demilitarize the Police.
  Public confidence in law enforcement declines with the presence of militarized units. The transfer of military weapons to police departments increases officer-induced fatalities among civilians. While there is a troubling lack of public data on police militarization, a review of police militarization in Maryland shows that SWAT teams are more likely to be deployed to Black neighborhoods regardless of crime levels, consistent with anecdotal evidence across the country. Because much of the process of militarization occurs as a result of transactions between the federal government and state law enforcement departments, state authorities should take a firm stance against militarization by explicitly prohibiting the purchase and transfer of military equipment by their state and local law enforcement agencies through law, policy, or budgetary decisions
  

• Redirect Funds.
  Research shows that investing directly in communities, including vital social services, reduces crime. State governments can reduce incidents of crime by redirecting funds to critical assistance programs as well as housing programs, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and early intervention programs. (See discussion on intersectionality and equity below for important frameworks that should guide funding decisions.
  

• Create Standards for Acceptable Use of Force
  States should create acceptable use of force standards for police departments. At a minimum, it should permit use of force only when necessary and as a last resort when all reasonable options have been exhausted. It should also expressly prohibit maneuvers and restraints that restrict the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain, including neck holds and chokeholds. Moreover, this policy should ban the use of force as a punitive or retaliatory measure and require law enforcement to use de-escalation tactics instead. Peaceful de-escalation tactics should exclude the use of riot and tactical gear by officers.
  
  Police officers must also act when they observe misconduct by fellow officers. When witnessing a colleague using excessive force or engaging in wrongdoing, police officers should have a duty to intervene and accurately report the incident to supervisors, making it clear to the community and to other officers that law enforcement’s primary responsibility is to protect and serve the public.

• Transparency and Accountability.
  Police departments must aim to become more transparent by making trainings and departmental procedures accessible to the public. Departments must collect robust data on types of police stops, instances of use of force, and the treatment of vulnerable populations, including immigrant, LGBTQ, and Black and Brown communities. Departments of state police should also be transparent with records regarding officers charged with or disciplined for misconduct. Additionally, body cameras have the potential to increase transparency and provide an additional perspective to police-community encounters. Coupled with a consistent standard of use, body cameras can be used to promote both civilian and officer safety. An appropriate standard should emphasize public availability and regular footage review.

• End Racial Profiling.
  Profiling and discrimination in policing must be strictly and explicitly prohibited. These policies must prohibit law enforcement from targeting a person based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Anti-racial profiling policies should also require law enforcement to take affirmative measures to eliminate profiling, including implementing data collection and analysis to accurately assess the extent of the problem, regular mandatory training on issues of profiling, and clear procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding to complaints of alleged profiling.

  No-knock warrants authorize police to enter a premise without announcing their presence or their purpose. Intended to prevent the destruction of evidence or ensure police safety, no-knock warrants have instead led to the killing and injuring of innocent people. An analysis of no-knock warrant raids conducted by the New York Police Department found that 10 percent were wrong-door raids. State governments must prohibit the use of no-knock warrants to ensure the safety of the people.

• Prohibit No-Knock Warrants.
  No-knock warrants authorize police to enter a premise without announcing their presence or their purpose. Intended to prevent the destruction of evidence or ensure police safety, no-knock warrants have instead led to the killing and injuring of innocent people. An analysis of no-knock warrant raids conducted by the New York Police Department found that 10 percent were wrong-door raids. State governments must prohibit the use of no-knock warrants to ensure the safety of the people.

While policing presents a highly visible illustration of the presence and effects of systematic racism, systemic racism affects the municipal institutions with which residents interact in virtually every area of life.

Racial disparities run deep in employment. The U.S. economy was built on the exploitation and occupational segregation of BIPOC. By some estimates, slaveholders extracted more than $14 trillion in labor costs (in today’s dollars) from enslaved people. The legacies of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, racist aspects of the New Deal, and limited funding and reach of government anti-discrimination bodies helped keep BIPOC individuals concentrated in undervalued occupations and promoted employment discrimination as well as wage and benefits disparities based on race.

A recent study by the Harvard Business Review found that since 1990, white applicants received 36% more callbacks on average than Black applicants and 24% more callbacks than Latinx applicants with identical resumes. As of August 2020, the Black unemployment rate is twice as high as the white unemployment rate. Moreover, as we’ve seen in many areas, the COVID-19 pandemic amplifies existing disparities. A recent Human Rights Campaign report found that BIPOC LGBTQ people are 70% more likely than the general population to have lost their jobs since states initiated reopening policies due to COVID-19.

Federal New Deal housing policies played a central role in the creation and persistence of segregated Black neighborhoods during a significant part of the 1900s. The federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, created to refinance home mortgages in default to prevent foreclosure, institutionalized “redlining,” or the practice of denying mortgages based on the racial and ethnic makeup of neighborhoods. Communities with large BIPOC populations were assigned the lowest investment rating and deemed too risky for government-backed mortgages. The Public Works Administration, which built the first civilian public housing in the U.S., primarily benefited white middle- and lower-middle class families and built explicitly segregated housing for Black families. What’s more, the Federal Housing Administration subsidized the building of entire suburbs with explicit requirements of restrictive covenants—provisions in deeds prohibiting resale to Black Americans—while subsiding white families to move out of urban areas into all-white suburbs. Housing discrimination and inequality persists today.

A 2012 study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Urban Institute found that real estate agents and rental housing providers recommend and show fewer available homes and apartments to racial minorities than equally qualified whites. Additionally, the Census Bureau reported that Black households had the lowest homeownership rate at 44%, nearly 30 percentage points behind white households.

Systemic racism also begins disadvantaging Black students from the moment they enter the educational system. For example, a 2014 Department of Education study found that although Black students make up only 18% of all preschoolers, they represent 50% of all preschool suspensions. White children, on the other hand, make up 40% of all preschool enrollment but represent 26% of those receiving suspensions. Black students in K-12 are suspended at three times the rate of white students who commit similar infractions. 2015-16 data from the Department of Education found that while Black students make up 15% of the total student population in public schools, 31% of students who were arrested or referred to law enforcement were Black. Furthermore, research shows that majority-Black schools are chronically underfunded.

The economic disparities engendered by enduring systemic racism in all of these areas of life are striking. The income gap between Black and white people in the U.S. has persistently grown over time. The difference in median household incomes between white and Black Americans has grown from about $23,800 in 1970 to roughly $33,000 in 2018. Poverty is particularly high for those who live at the intersection of racial minority and LGBTQ status. BIPOC LGBTQ people have statistically significant higher poverty rates than their same-race non-LGBTQ counterparts. For example, 30.8% of Black LGBTQ people live in poverty, whereas 25.3% of Black non-LGBTQ people live in poverty.

The scourge of systemic racism extends to many other areas of life, including health care and public services. This reality combined with transphobia and sexism contributes to the tragic, escalating epidemic of fatal violence against Black and Brown transgender women.

While the pervasiveness of systemic racism and the severity of the racial disparities it creates may seem daunting, municipal officials have many tools at their disposal to begin addressing these issues in their communities.

Understanding and operationalizing the core concepts of intersectionality and equity are central to developing and implementing effective state laws, policies, and services to begin addressing the disparities engendered by systemic racism.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality refers to the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect, especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups. A person who identifies as Black, transgender, and female, and who is living with a disability, lives at the intersection of all of these marginalized identities. Their life and daily experiences are unfortunately shaped by a complex, compounded mix of prejudices and discrimination on account of their actual or perceived identities as Black, transgender, female, and a person living with a disability. This term was born out of Black feminism, coined by lawyer, scholar, and professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in a 1989 paper published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum entitled “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.”

Equity

Equity is an important concept that is distinct from the concept of equality. Equity means providing tools and resources according to need such that historically disadvantaged communities truly have the same access to opportunities intended to be equally available to everyone. This takes into account the unequal footing traditionally marginalized groups, including LGBTQ people and Black and Brown communities, start off on because of the effects of historical and extant systemic marginalization and discrimination. Equality, on the other hand, refers to treating everyone the same and offering everyone the same opportunities. In essence, equality is the foundation that makes the ultimate goal of equity possible. Equity is important because even if opportunities are equally available to everyone, those who are oppressed by systemic barriers (like systemic racism) face unique difficulties in accessing those equal opportunities, often resulting in continued inequality.

Advocate for Reform Beyond State Limits

The voices of state officials, as close representatives of the people, carry significant clout. Governors, general assembly members, state police superintendents, human rights commissioners, and other state officials should voice their support for policy reforms to address systemic racism not only within their own spheres of authority, but also in the federal government. State officials can make their voices heard in many ways including through official statements, social media channels, proclamations, and resolutions.

Systemic racism is a grave and pervasive problem deeply rooted in our nation’s history. The legacies of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, the New Deal, and many other racially biased governmental laws and policies still affect the institutions and systems that shape every aspect of American life. Together, these create the conditions where racialized police violence endures with impunity and where Black Americans continue to suffer the worst racial disparities in virtually every area of life. These racial disparities are often drastically compounded for BIPOC individuals who live at the intersection

of multiple marginalized identities, like BIPOC transgender and gender non-conforming people. Though the issue of systemic racism may seem dauntingly colossal, state officials have many tools at their disposal to begin addressing this issue head on, including reshaping state budgets and creating task forces to promote genuine equity for BIPOC communities. As leaders entrusted with the most important task of ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of all residents, state officials must immediately begin to address the blight of systemic racism in their communities and beyond.

Positive

• LGBTQ cultural competency training requirements for various types of professionals (doctors, mental health professionals, educators, etc.)
• Proper gender and name requirements on death certificates for transgender people
• Mandatory LGBTQ-inclusive training for law enforcement
• LGBTQ-inclusive paid leave laws
• Gender marker updates for identification documents that include a non-binary, ‘X’, or similar option
• States must offer at least one health insurance plan for public employees that expressly covers transgender healthcare needs, including gender-affirming surgical procedures, hormone therapy, mental health care, and all related medical visits and laboratory services. The lack of express exclusions for these services is not sufficient for credit because this care is routinely not covered. The plan should also ensure coverage of routine, chronic, or urgent non-transition services and eliminate other barriers to coverage including, but not limited to, separate dollar maximums and exclusions for covered dependents. Moreover, all out-of-network gender-affirming care for which in-network care is unavailable should be covered on the same terms as out-of-network coverage for other types of necessary care.

We look forward to working with you again for the 2021 SEI!

For questions or additional information, please contact sei@hrc.org or visit www.hrc.org/sei.