Governor vetoes hearing aid bill
Insurance companies doing business in Montana won't have to provide coverage for hearing aids after Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed House Bill 607 earlier this month.
State law currently requires insurance companies to cover hearing aids for individuals 18 years and younger. HB 607, brought by Rep. Paul Tuss, D-Havre, would have extended that to all ages. According to a fiscal note attached to a bill, the state estimates the average hearing aid to cost $5,000.
In the same note, it said the average number of ears requiring hearing aids is 1.37, meaning a fair number of people require two.
'Typically, insurance will cover the diagnoses for hearing loss. But after that, you're on your own,' Tuss said in a Monday press release. 'By age 75, nearly half of Americans experience hearing loss. The cost of treatment can be a major burden on people's finances— especially those living on fixed incomes. It causes people to put off getting hearing aids and try to get by with reduced hearing.'
In his veto letter, Gov. Greg Gianforte called the bill an 'unfunded insurance mandate' that would cost Montana taxpayers $3.5 million. He added that it would need 'increased contributions' from the state's roughly 30,000 public employees.
'Our administration is proud of our work with the Legislature to lower healthcare costs and expand access for Montanans through conservative, free-market principles, not government mandates,' Gianforte wrote in the letter, dated May 2. 'Our conservative, free-market approach stands in stark contrast to the approach of states that embrace costly government rules, regulations, and mandates that distort markets, limit consumer choice, and inflate health care costs.'
The day before the veto, Gianforte received a letter from Misty Ann Giles, the director of the state Department of Administration, urging him to veto the bill. In the letter, Giles said the legislation would cost the state between $500,000 to $600,000 annually, which is in line with the bill's fiscal note.
'During negotiations with employees, there was no indication that hearing aid coverage was a needed benefit, and no funding was included in the state's budget or HB 13 to pay for providing that additional benefit,' Giles wrote in the letter. 'Although the additional cost of the expanded hearing aid mandate was noted in the fiscal note for HB 607, no appropriation was included to offset the expense.'
Insurance legislation was a priority for Democrats during the session, including laws looking to regulate where the tech industry and medical insurance industry collide.
Democratic leadership slammed the veto.
'Under the Hearing Aid Coverage Act, thousands of Montanans would have finally been able to afford to get their hearing back,' House Minority leader Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula said in a release. 'But today, the Governor chose insurance companies over Montanans. Our multi-millionaire Governor does not know what it's like to choose between getting healthcare and putting food on the table or filling up your tank with gas.'
https-api-legmt-gov-docs-v1-documents-shortPdfUrl-documentId-320119-bill-id-HB-607
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Healthy Living Helps the Aging Brain
A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association makes a compelling case that a healthy lifestyle does an aging brain good. That might sound obvious. Eat well, exercise, challenge yourself mentally, have an active social life and you'll be better off for it. Yet researchers are just starting to offer concrete data to support the theory that making conscientious lifestyle changes can lower the risk of dementia, which is estimated to affect some 6 million Americans.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Did Trump just inadvertently help California save its high-speed rail?
Will we take it? Of course, Trump offered this opportunity in a nasty way. He had the Federal Railroad Administration claw back $4 billion for construction, and declared that he had killed a 'train to nowhere.' Yes, I realize that removing billions from a famously underfunded project wouldn't normally be good news. But we don't live in normal times or a normal country. These days, many us are motivated to act just because our enemies hate the idea. So, when Trump declares he is killing something, he is really offering a neo-fascist version of the biblical mark of Cain — a punishment that also confers a superpower. In Genesis, God banishes Cain for murdering his brother Abel, but also places a 'mark' of protection on Cain so that no one will kill him. Getting attacked by Trump delivers a similar protective mark — even a new lease on life. After the president cut Medicaid, the health program for the poor surged in popularity. When Trump blasted Europe's progressive policies, more Americans sought to move there. And Trump's lawless immigration raids inspired dramatic changes in public support for immigrants. A record-high 79% of Americans now call immigration a 'good thing' for the country. Now Trump's mark is working its magic on high-speed rail. After nearly two decades of indifferent pursuit of the project, the state's leaders are rallying to defend it. After Trump's claw-back, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit demanding all $4 billion returned. Gov. Gavin Newsom, long a skeptic on high-speed rail, now rallies behind it. The High-Speed Rail Authority, usually cautious politically, is blasting the Trump administration. Such shows of support are, put simply, unprecedented. While California Republicans have been most outspoken in criticizing high-speed rail, the state's Democratic establishment has been its real opposition. That's because high-speed rail wasn't a Democratic idea or a priority. Future-minded governor Jerry Brown championed high-speed rail in the 1970s, but got nowhere. Approval for the project came instead from California voters in 2008, thanks to a ballot initiative campaign led by the independent state lawmaker Quentin Kopp. Since then, California Democrats have often quietly registered support for the project in public while seeking to undermine it in private. Democratic legislators don't like building things, especially expensive infrastructure. They prefer to spend on labor interests that fund campaigns, and on social programs that benefit California voters. In recent years, legislative leaders have sought to repurpose high-speed rail funds for regional projects, especially in Southern California. Then, in 2019, Newsom used his state of the state speech to criticize the program and shrink its starting construction footprint to a 171-mile stretch connecting Merced and Bakersfield. The speech made it sound like Newsom was abandoning high-speed rail, and the first Trump administration followed up by withholding hundreds of millions for the project. Subsequent headlines (and even columnists) suggested the project was dead. But facing death, high-speed rail has made real progress in the current decade. Construction on the first phase, in the Central Valley, has produced more than 50 new structures for the rail project. Officials completed environmental reviews on the 463 miles from L.A. to San Jose. Caltrain electrified its Bay Area corridor, a prerequisite for expanding high-speed rail service there. Earlier this year, crews began the process of laying track, with the railhead groundbreaking at Bakersfield. Trump's current attack only highlights this progress. As the president lies, California responds with photos of all that has been built. The state also stands a good chance of winning back the $4 billion in court — the money is already obligated under legally binding agreements. Politically, Trump's attack is an enormous gift. Backers of the project, long a punching bag for populists, now have their own populist target: the dictatorial president who seeks to cancel America's only public high-speed rail. Already, state officials are putting Trump on the defensive. They say Trump is providing a gift to China, which has built the world's most robust high-speed rail network. They note that he's hurting his own voters, by canceling a construction project in the conservative Central Valley. They remind Californians that he's pulling billions from high-speed rail based on personal animus toward a state that doesn't like him. 'Trump's termination of federal grants for California high-speed rail reeks of politics,' Newsom said after the cancellation. 'It's yet another political stunt to punish California.' But Trumpian punishment also opens new possibilities. With the incompetent and corrupt federal administration no longer involved in the project, private investors might be willing to jump in. Recently the state has been discussing a $1 billion annual investment in the project, along with new public-private partnerships. Polls now show support as high as 67% for high-speed rail — twice Trump's approval rating in the state. Make this a contest between fast new trains and an aging autocrat, and California wins.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In the age of Ozempic, is there still a role for weight-loss surgery?
As weight-loss medications like Ozempic exploded across the U.S. over the past four years, bariatric surgeons faced a bit of an existential crisis: Were their jobs about to become obsolete? For the first time, health care providers have a combination of highly effective therapies to offer patients with obesity, a condition that has long been one of the most difficult to treat. The outlook is especially exciting for patients who are severely overweight — including those who are considered too heavy for surgery. Indeed, there may exist a future where drugs and other interventions prevent people from ever becoming obese and needing weight-loss surgery. But that future is far off, say surgeons and other weight-loss experts. In fact, even as millions of Americans are now taking drugs that dramatically improve weight loss, surgeons say their tool may be more powerful than ever. 'A massive amount of people have tried these medications, so the question becomes: 'How well do they work and is there a role for bariatric surgery in the era of these drugs?'' said Dr. Jonathan Carter, a UCSF surgeon who specializes in minimally invasive procedures. Bariatric surgery has for decades been the most effective and durable weight-loss tool available. The specific procedures vary, but the most common operation now is the gastric sleeve surgery, in which a large portion of the stomach is removed. Roughly a quarter of a million Americans undergo a bariatric procedure each year. The surgeries are highly effective for weight loss — patients can lose about a third of their body weight within two years, and they generally keep off most of those pounds long-term. The side effects with the sleeve procedure are minimal and may include gas, bloating and nutritional deficiencies that can be alleviated with diet. Meanwhile, more than 1 in 10 Americans have now taken the newest weight-loss medications. On these drugs, patients can lose about 15% of their weight, but they must remain on the drugs for life — those who stop gain all of the weight back. Side effects are similar to the surgery. The drugs and the surgery work somewhat similarly by essentially quashing people's hunger and cravings. And though the surgery is more expensive at the outset — about $12,000 to $15,000 — it's cheaper in the long-term compared to drugs that cost about $1,000 a month. Both treatments are often, but not always, covered by insurance. With the surgery, 'You take someone who is 100 pounds overweight and their knees hurt and they have sleep apnea,' said Carter, 'and you do a one-hour intervention and a year later they've lost 100 pounds and their knees don't hurt and the sleep apnea is gone. It's like a butterfly coming out of a cocoon.' But bariatric surgery has never been a popular weight-loss option for those who need it most. Of all Americans who are eligible for surgery, only about 1% undergo the procedure. Surgeons and weight-loss experts say that's largely been due to misconceptions about the procedure and stigma around obesity. 'If you've been treating patients with obesity for decades, you always felt like, 'Yes, I have a great treatment, I can do these surgeries and do them safely, I believe in them whole-heartedly,'' said Dr. Dan Azagury, a Stanford University bariatric surgeon. 'But you were still limited in your capacity to treat patients.' Azagury took over Stanford's Lifestyle and Weight Management Center in February 2020, about a year before Ozempic, the first blockbuster weight-loss drug, blew up. Over the next 18 months, the number of patients on weight-loss medications jumped from 50 to 2,000. He said friends would often ask him if he would be out of a job soon. The drugs, though, have in some ways validated the surgical interventions, Azagury said. Weight loss has notoriously been a fraught topic in doctors offices, with patients feeling judged and doctors feeling frustrated by their lack of treatment options. 'A lot of times doctors would just say that you should eat less,' Azagury said. 'And I think patients intrinsically didn't see obesity as a medical condition,' he said. The success of recent weight-loss drugs, though, has made that conversation more palatable both to patients and providers, Azagury said. And he believes that is making some patients more amenable to a surgical option. There are, broadly, now three buckets for treating weight loss: diet and exercise, medication and surgery. The first option is likely best for people who don't have a lot of weight to lose and who are not facing any immediate complications related to their weight. They can manage their own treatment, or get a referral to a community or private weight-loss program. From there, patients with more serious obesity can decide if medication or surgery — or both — is the best option for them. Some people may be resistant to the idea of any surgical procedure and opt for medication. Others may decide that they would rather not deal with weekly injections for the rest of their life and prefer a one-time operation. Many patients, though, will end up with multiple interventions over their lifetime. They may start with medication and eventually decide they want a more permanent solution. Or they may get bariatric surgery and a few years later decide to start a medication if their weight is creeping back up. Mandy Hinz, 47, fought with her weight all her life, and it's only in the past two years that she finally felt like she had options. She had inquired about bariatric surgery about 20 years ago but was told she would need to lose 100 pounds before doctors would consider it safe. After that, she was up and down, peaking at about 415 pounds on her 5-foot, 3-inch frame. She started Ozempic in early 2023, and though the drug made her feel 'super sick,' she stuck with it and lost about 30 pounds. Around that time, Hinz, a Sacramento resident, was referred to the bariatric program at UCSF, and in October 2023, she finally got a gastric sleeve. She got down to about 200 pounds from the surgery, then started a different weight-loss drug and lost another 20 pounds. Though she's still obese for her height, Hinz said she's not interested in losing much more weight. 'I'm 180 and completely happy,' Hinz said. 'My journey has been absolutely amazing.' She noted that even with all of the tools at her disposal, losing the weight was never easy. And she has friends for whom even the newest therapies aren't solving all of their weight issues. But for Hinz, the weight-loss drugs finally unlocked a path that had never felt accessible to her. 'Being big my whole life, I missed out on a lot of stuff,' she said. Walking up and down stairs had become difficult, or spending a day on her feet at an amusement park. 'Now I can run up and down the stairs, I can walk around the amusement park the whole day. I went on my first hike a year and a half ago. It's like, let's go, let's do this.' Azagury said he's most thrilled for the patients — and their doctors — who have the most weight to lose, and especially those for whom a combination of medical and surgical therapies could be life-saving. 'The worst thing for a bariatric surgeon is when you get a patient in your clinic and it's too late — their condition is so bad that surgery is unsafe,' Azagury said. 'The conversation is, 'You have a condition I can treat, but I can't treat you.' It's the worst conversation. And I never have to have it anymore. Now I can tell them: 'I can't do surgery, but I have a good alternative for you.''
