Telehealth has become one of the most contested and misunderstood tools in transgender healthcare. To supporters, it represents access where none existed. To opponents, it is something dangerous, unregulated, or deserving of restriction. And to overstretched healthcare systems, it is often treated as a cheaper substitute for building real infrastructure.
A new German study examining the i²TransHealth program offers a more grounded reality. Telehealth can expand access, reduce travel burdens, and provide continuity of care. But it does not replace trained providers, in-person services, or healthcare systems willing to support transgender patients beyond a screen. When telehealth is treated as a shortcut instead of a supplement, its benefits quickly hit a ceiling.
As US lawmakers debate telehealth rules, licensure restrictions, and gender-affirming care bans, the German experience provides a timely reminder. Digital care works best when it is embedded in a system that actually wants people to be healthy.
RELATED: New Research Tests Digital Model for Transgender Healthcare
The Telehealth Boom in the United States
The United States saw a rapid expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency waivers allowed providers to practice across state lines, insurers expanded coverage, and patients quickly adapted to virtual care. For many transgender people, telehealth became the first reliable point of contact with a knowledgeable provider.
But as emergency measures expired, access fractured. Telehealth rules now vary widely by state. Some states maintain broad coverage through Medicaid and private insurers. Others impose strict licensure requirements that limit cross-state care, even when no in-state providers exist. In states hostile to gender-affirming care, telehealth has become both a lifeline and a legal target.
The result is a patchwork system where access depends less on medical need and more on geography and politics. Telehealth is often framed as the solution to this problem. The German study suggests that framing is incomplete.
What the German Study Actually Examined
The i²TransHealth program was developed to address transgender healthcare gaps in northern Germany, particularly in rural and underserved regions. Like much of rural America, these areas face shortages of specialists, long travel distances, limited referral networks, and insufficient crisis support.
Rather than focusing solely on outcomes, researchers conducted a qualitative evaluation of how the program functioned in practice. Participants included transgender and gender-diverse adults, mental health therapists, general practitioners, and psychiatrists. The program combined video consultations, chat-based communication, and a network of locally trained providers.
The findings were neither utopian nor dismissive. Telehealth improved access. It reduced travel, lowered entry barriers, and helped patients navigate complex systems. But it also exposed the limits of digital care when the surrounding infrastructure was weak.
Access Improved, But Systems Still Mattered
Participants consistently reported that telehealth made care possible where it previously felt unreachable. Video consultations allowed people to connect with affirming providers without traveling hours to urban clinics. Chat functions offered reassurance and continuity between appointments.
These benefits mirror what many US transgender patients report. Telehealth reduces geographic isolation. It allows people to access care discreetly. It can stabilize patients who might otherwise disengage from the healthcare system entirely.
But access alone did not resolve deeper systemic issues. Providers struggled with administrative burdens and high workloads. Referral options remained scarce. For patients experiencing severe psychological distress, telehealth alone was often insufficient.
Telehealth expanded the front door to care. It did not magically build the rest of the house.
Provider Burnout Is Not a Side Issue
One of the most relevant findings for US policy debates was provider strain. Therapists reported heavy workloads, particularly around asynchronous communication like chat messaging. While patients valued constant access, providers warned that without clear boundaries and staffing support, burnout was inevitable.
This is not unique to Germany. In the US, transgender-competent providers are already in short supply. Many carry patient loads far beyond what is sustainable, especially in states where care access is restricted. Telehealth can concentrate demand even further, pulling patients from multiple states toward the same limited provider pool.
When policymakers promote telehealth without addressing workforce development, they risk accelerating provider burnout rather than solving access problems.
Digital Care Cannot Replace In-Person Services
Another key finding was the limitation of video care for complex cases. Providers noted difficulty assessing nonverbal cues, managing acute distress, or supporting patients with severe mental health needs exclusively through screens.
Patients often viewed video care more positively, valuing convenience and comfort. Both perspectives can be true. Telehealth works well for many needs, but not all of them.
In the US, this distinction is often lost in political debate. Some states attempt to restrict telehealth for transgender care under the guise of safety, while others quietly rely on telehealth as a substitute for building in-person services. Both approaches misunderstand the tool.
Telehealth is neither dangerous by default nor sufficient on its own.
The US Problem Telehealth Cannot Solve Alone
The German study repeatedly returned to one reality. Digital care cannot compensate for missing infrastructure.
In the US, that infrastructure gap is severe. Many states lack providers trained in transgender care. Referral networks are thin or nonexistent. Mental health services are overburdened. Insurance coverage varies wildly.
Telehealth can connect patients to providers across distance. It cannot create specialists where none exist. It cannot replace crisis services. It cannot fix underfunded systems unwilling to invest in training and support.
When lawmakers treat telehealth as a cost-saving alternative to healthcare investment, they shift the burden onto providers and patients.
Licensure and State Borders Make It Worse
Unlike Germany, the US healthcare system is fragmented by state borders. Telehealth access depends heavily on whether providers can legally treat patients across state lines. Licensure compacts exist, but participation is uneven and often excludes mental health professionals most involved in transgender care.
This means telehealth is most effective where it is least needed and least effective where access gaps are largest. Rural states with hostile policies often have the tightest restrictions.
The German study highlights what happens when telehealth is supported by coordinated networks. The US system often does the opposite.
Telehealth as a Political Target
In recent years, telehealth has become a focal point for attacks on transgender care. Some lawmakers frame it as a way to bypass parental involvement, medical oversight, or state authority. These narratives rarely align with clinical reality.
Ironically, these same political actors often promote telehealth in other contexts as a way to expand access and reduce costs. The contradiction is not accidental. Telehealth is accepted when it serves system efficiency and rejected when it serves transgender people.
The German findings challenge this framing. Telehealth did not lower standards. It did not remove oversight. It worked precisely because it was integrated into existing medical frameworks.
What a Functional US Telehealth Model Would Require
The German experience points toward conditions that make telehealth effective rather than symbolic.
First, workforce investment. Training more providers in transgender care is non-negotiable. Telehealth without providers is just bandwidth.
Second, integration with in-person services. Patients need clear pathways to physical exams, crisis support, and specialized referrals.
Third, infrastructure investment. Digital platforms must be reliable, secure, and supported by adequate staffing.
Fourth, policy stability. Providers and patients need predictable rules, not shifting legal threats.
None of these requirements are radical. They are basic healthcare principles applied to a digital context.
The Bottom Line
Telehealth has helped thousands of transgender people access care they would otherwise never receive. That matters. It should be protected and expanded.
But telehealth cannot shield a healthcare system from its own failures. It cannot replace training, funding, or political will. When treated as a shortcut, it becomes fragile. When treated as part of a larger system, it becomes powerful.
The German study does not argue for less telehealth. It argues for better systems around it. In the United States, that lesson is easy to ignore and costly to forget.
