logo
Three Big Medical Costs That Retirees Often Underestimate

Three Big Medical Costs That Retirees Often Underestimate

Yahoo08-06-2025

Drugs, remote locations and concierge care can add tens of thousands of dollars to healthcare costs in retirement.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say
Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say

Fox News

time24 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Body fat predicts major health risk that BMI misses, researchers say

Body mass index (BMI) may not be the most accurate predictor of death risk. A new study from the University of Florida found that BMI — a measurement that is commonly used to determine whether a person's weight is in a healthy range for their height — is "deeply flawed" in terms of predicting mortality. Instead, one's level of body fat is "far more accurate," concluded the study, which was published this week in the Annals of Family Medicine. To measure participants' body fat, the researchers used a method called bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which uses a device to measure the resistance of body tissue to a small electrical current. Over a 15-year period, those who had high body fat were found to be 78% more likely to die than those who had healthy body fat levels, researchers found. They were also more than three times as likely to die of heart disease, the study noted. BMI — which is calculated by dividing weight by height, squared — was described as "entirely unreliable" in predicting the risk of death over a 15-year period from any cause. The study included 4,252 people in the U.S. and pulled data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BMI should not be relied upon as a "vital sign" of health, according to senior author Frank Orlando, M.D., medical director of UF Health Family Medicine in Springhill. "I'm a family physician, and on a regular basis, we're faced with patients who have diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other conditions that are related to obesity," Orlando said in a press release for the study. "One of the routine measures we take alongside traditional vital signs is BMI. We use BMI to screen for a person having an issue with their body composition, but it's not as accurate for everyone as vital signs are," he added. BMI has been the international standard for measuring obesity since the 1980s, according to many sources, though some experts have questioned its validity. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." An individual is considered obese if their BMI is 30 or above, overweight if it is between 25 and 29.9, of "normal" weight in the range of 18.5 to 24.9, or underweight if lower than 18.5. While BMI is easy to calculate, one of its main limitations is that it cannot distinguish between muscle and fat mass, the researchers noted. "For example, people who are bodybuilders can really elevate their body mass index," Orlando said. "But they're healthy even with a BMI indicating that they're obese." "BMI is just so ingrained in how we think about body fat," Mainous added. "I think the study shows it's time to go to an alternative that is now proven to be far better at the job." Other methods, such as a DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) scan, may be even more accurate than BIA, but are much more expensive and not as accessible, the researchers noted. "If you talk to obesity researchers, they're going to say you have to use the DEXA scan because it's the most accurate," Mainous said in the release. "And that's probably true. But it's never going to be viable in a doctor's office or family practice." Dr. Stephen Vogel — a family medicine physician with PlushCare, a virtual health platform with primary care, therapy and weight management options — echoed the limitations of BMI. "It has been an easy measurement tool that helps us understand at-risk groups across various populations and demographics, but it doesn't provide accurate data from patient to patient," the North Carolina-based doctor, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. "These findings don't challenge the assumptions about BMI — they strengthen the message that new standards, delivered in a consistent and low-cost way, would provide better nuance for the individual when it comes to their overall physical health." "The main strengths of this study are a better correlation to an individual's risk of morbidity and mortality — however, the limitations lie in the fact that we don't have enough data to determine the right cutoff for these numbers, or to identify the right tools that will be both accurate and precise across the population," Vogel said. The researchers also acknowledged that body fat percentage thresholds haven't yet been as standardized as BMI and waist circumference. Also, the age range of the participants in the study was limited by the data source. "Future studies should extend this comparison of body fat to BMI in older adults," the researchers wrote. The study was also limited by focusing only on mortality as an outcome, they noted, without taking into account any developing diseases — such as heart failure or cancer — that could deepen the understanding of body fat as a risk factor. The goal, according to Vogel, is to have a cost-effective, consistent method that can be used across the population with reliable accuracy. "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all." "Benefits would come in the form of a more detailed list of information that helps providers and patients make informed decisions about the patient's health, which is ideal," Vogel noted. "I'm hopeful there's enough buzz around these measures that steps will continue to be taken toward regular implementation." For more Health articles, visit The researchers are hopeful that once standards are validated, measuring body fat percentage with bioelectrical impedance analysis could become standard of care. They added, "These data will drive better discussions in the doctor's office, as well as public health initiatives with the goal of improving the health of all."

Why a G.O.P. Medicaid Requirement Could Set States Up for Failure
Why a G.O.P. Medicaid Requirement Could Set States Up for Failure

New York Times

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Why a G.O.P. Medicaid Requirement Could Set States Up for Failure

The strict Medicaid work requirement at the center of the Republicans' major policy bill wouldn't just require millions of poor Americans to prove they are employed to sign up for health insurance. It would also require dozens of states to quickly build expensive and complex software systems to measure and track who is eligible. This new responsibility for states, whose existing Medicaid computer systems are often outdated, would be accompanied by reduced federal funding through other changes in the bill. The result, according to state officials, software developers and policy experts, could be major failures in state systems for enrolling people in Medicaid. 'That's how happens,' said Julie Brinn Siegel, a former top Biden administration budget official, referring to the Obama administration's botched launch of the online Affordable Care Act enrollment portal in 2013. Ms. Siegel and others familiar with Medicaid systems envision problems like websites that don't load or incorrectly tell applicants they are not eligible. And Medicaid workers may be overwhelmed as they try to run call centers and process applications. The fallout could mean eligible Americans will have their coverage dropped. Republicans contend that the work requirement achieves twin goals: It ensures that the government directs resources to Americans who are contributing to society, while saving money to help finance an extension of President Trump's tax cuts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Gilead, Kymera Partner in $750M Deal to Develop Novel Molecular Glue Degraders for Cancer
Gilead, Kymera Partner in $750M Deal to Develop Novel Molecular Glue Degraders for Cancer

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gilead, Kymera Partner in $750M Deal to Develop Novel Molecular Glue Degraders for Cancer

Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD) is one of the undervalued S&P 500 stocks to buy according to hedge funds. On June 25, Gilead Sciences expanded its oncology pipeline through an exclusive agreement with Kymera Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:KYMR). This deal is potentially valued at up to $750 million and focuses on advancing Kymera's innovative molecular glue degrader/MGD program targeting cyclin-dependent kinase 2/CDK2. Gilead will make an upfront payment of up to $85 million, with additional payments contingent on future development milestones and product sales, plus tiered royalties on net product sales. Kymera's MGDs are designed to selectively eliminate CDK2, which is a protein crucial for cell division that often drives uncontrolled growth in various cancers, such as breast cancer and other solid tumors. A physician and a patient having a discussion in a hospital about biopharmaceutical medicines. Unlike traditional CDK2 inhibitors that merely block protein activity, MGDs aim to remove the protein entirely. Kymera will lead all research activities for the CDK2 program. If Gilead exercises its option, it will gain worldwide rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize all resulting products. This move for Gilead follows closely on the heels of the US FDA approval of Yeztugo (lenacapavir) for HIV prevention. Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD) is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of unmet medical needs. Kymera Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:KYMR) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops small-molecule therapeutics. While we acknowledge the potential of GILD as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store