Coverage of weight-loss drugs should be a no-brainer for state's Medicaid program
If North Carolinians lived in a perfect world, everyone would have easy access to plenty of healthy and affordable food, the self-control to resist junk food, and genes that would let them stay active, trim and fit throughout their lives.
Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world.
And it's in light of this that it was a no-brainer for state Health and Human Services officials to make prescriptions for weight-loss drugs a covered expense under the state Medicaid program.
As Jonathan Ray – a Charlotte physician assistant – wrote in a recent essay for NC Newsline, these medicines have helped thousands upon thousands of people to achieve significant weight loss, improve their metabolic health, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease.
Unfortunately, recent actions by state legislative leaders could end the funding for these essential medications.
The bottom line: In the imperfect world we inhabit, weight-loss drugs save health, lives and money. It would be cruel and foolish to end Medicaid coverage for these essential medicines.
For NC Newsline, I'm Rob Schofield.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
23 minutes ago
- Medscape
Medicare at 60: Successes, Failures
Sixty years ago, Congress passed legislation that created Medicare . In 1966, its first year of implementation, there were 19.1 million enrollees. Almost a decade later, enrollment had grown to 22.5 million. Today, 68.8 million Americans have Medicare coverage, with about half enrolled in Advantage plans. The original idea for this insurance program was even bigger, with President Harry Truman endorsing universal coverage in 1945. As Medicare turns 60, Medscape convened an expert panel to discuss the successes — and shortcomings — of this landmark insurance program. Jen Brull, MD: What do you all think the impact will be of the coming Medicaid cuts in the budget bill? For people who are dual eligible, who need help with shared costs, how do you think physicians might be affected if those patients lose access to Medicaid copays? Claudia M. Fegan, MD: The problem is that a lot of people think Medicaid cuts don't really affect me; I have private insurance. But as Norm alluded, there are going to be a lot of hospitals that close, especially rural hospitals. And as he said, when hospitals close, it puts stress on all the other hospitals that remain. And whether it's emergency room services or just services in general — women not having places to deliver babies — all of these things are going to have a tremendous impact. As for the dual-eligible patients, they are not the sharp edge of the point, right? Dual-eligible patients will have some challenges because of the amount that they can't pay. That 20% of healthcare costs is a lot of money to come up with, and it is going to be a problem in terms of being able to access their routine care and everyday care. But I think the more dramatic impact is going to be on services that are available in communities. I think even some outpatient facilities will close as a result. It's going to have a greater impact on the healthcare of everyone because it's going to be an access issue. Nursing Home Care Norman Ornstein, PhD: We have an enormous misunderstanding of what Medicaid is. People think it's a program for poor people, but it's far more than that. The single largest component is nursing home care. You make these cuts and nursing homes, many of which are also struggling, what are they going to do? Some will close. Others are going to cut back on the number of people serving their patients, and they're going to cut the rates at which they pay people. We are going to have people making the minimum wage, and we are going to see more and more elderly with bed sores, with abuse, and with other problems. Or we are going to see not just the elderly who use up their assets and have Medicaid to allow them to go into nursing homes, but the nightmare that families are going to have when the nursing home isn't there, and they will have to take their elderly parents or grandparents into their own homes and can't be reimbursed for any of the costs that they have or the stresses that it puts on their lives. We have a lot of issues here: the hospitals, the nursing homes. Also, we were talking before about the problems in Medicare Advantage, with prior authorization for an awful lot of people. I think it's not quite the same, but it's a little bit like these work requirements in Medicaid. The number of able-bodied people who are sitting back, cracking open a beer, and watching TV and taking their Medicaid because it doesn't cost them anything is, at best, a trace element. The tiny number of people — 3% or so — able-bodied people who are not working are taking care of other family members, or they have big health issues of their own. These work requirements are designed not to get those people working, but to take people off the Medicaid rolls because they're so complicated that people can't fill them out. They don't know what to do about them. This is going to have a devastating impact on a large number of Americans, and not just the poor. Jonathan Gruber, PhD: Let me just confirm what's been said and emphasize that three-quarters of Medicaid spending is for the elderly and disabled. Republicans want to pitch it as a program for undeserving minorities. That's not true. Almost everyone who gets Medicaid deserves it. It's a program for our moms and dads and everyone we know. We need to recognize that when Medicaid gets cut, everyone suffers. Ornstein: I just want to add one other thing that I think is important. I recently saw a documentary about the advent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was one of the most significant pieces of legislation to help people in this country. And it is now under siege. Jon had said, and Claudia said, disabled people are going to be devastated by this. Just yesterday [July 14] , the Supreme Court bizarrely allowed the President to go forward and cut the heart out of the Department of Education, which provides almost all of the support for students with special needs in the country. The people who are going to suffer more than anybody else in the country, other than many of the immigrants, are the disabled. And that's a problem for humanity. It is basic decency here that is under assault. That's true with a lot of these cuts in Medicaid. It's true that there will be a broader assault on people who can't care for themselves. Medicare's Influence on Independent Practice Brull: Dr Gruber, a survey of doctors by the American Medical Association in 2022 found that roughly 46% were working in practices wholly owned by physicians. The figure had fallen from 60% a decade prior. Dr Fegan, you referenced this earlier. In what ways has Medicare affected physicians' ability to remain independently owned? Gruber: I'm not sure that's been the primary driver. At the end of the day, the primary driver has been essentially the rise of the profit motivation in medicine. There's more money to be made by consolidating doctors into larger groups and specializing. That's not obviously bad; there are pros and cons of that movement, but I wouldn't say Medicare's really been a primary driver. I think the primary driver's been the fact that there's money to be made to this consolidation. The one thing to which Medicare has contributed is what I said before, which is that Medicare probably overpays subspecialists and underpays primary care. By combining them into one group, you can take advantage of that mismatch to have a more profitable overall group. Financial Uncertainty Brull: Dr Ornstein, back in 1999, the American Enterprise Institute wrote that analysts projected Medicare would reach insolvency in the following two decades, which would be now. But you also said that the first estimation of this came in the 1970s. A more recent projection from the board of trustees is 2036, so we kicked the can down a little bit. What do you think of this, and do you think it'll actually happen in the next 60 years? Ornstein: This program is so popular, for all the reasons that we know, that I just do not see Medicare becoming insolvent unless there's a deliberate attempt by those in government who want to undermine it to force insolvency. Otherwise, the closer you get, the more we're going to see fixes to make sure that the program can continue. We have seen efforts to eliminate Medicare, but they haven't gotten anywhere because of the enormous popularity of the program, for all the right reasons. So, we have to worry about it, but I'm not worried about it in the foreseeable future. Brull: Which aspects of Medicare's original mission do you think have either succeeded or fallen short, and why? Let's start with you, Dr Ornstein. Ornstein: I think the main reality here is that Medicare has saved enormous numbers of lives. It has made this country better all the way across the board. If there were no Medicare, we would have a hellscape for a large number of people — not just the elderly, but their children and their grandchildren. I would say it's also managed to deliver care pretty damned efficiently, more efficiently in many instances than the private system of insurance. There are gaps here. I think we have seen, and we continue to see, fraud because we haven't put enough resources into dealing with it, mostly on the provider side. I will just give you one very quick story. My wife has gotten from Medicare several times now a claim for a device she had nothing to do with, from a company. She spent hours on the phone with Medicare and they said, 'We know this company, it's horrible, we're going to take care of it.' Then 3 months later, we get it again and we get it a third time. We need to find more efficiencies. Gruber: I think the pros could not have been stated better by Norm. I mean, basically we would have a significantly more financially insecure country and less healthy country if Medicare didn't exist. As for the con, I would say that Medicare has not done enough to take advantage of its position as the dominant payer. There's fascinating economic research which shows that private payers often just follow what Medicare does. Pushing Health and Private Insurers Forward Gruber: Everybody talks about how the private sector is innovating, but in fact, all the innovation in medical compensation over the past 50 years has been by Medicare, and the private sector just copies them and pays X% of Medicare. I feel like Medicare could be much more innovative. Like I said, the physician reimbursement system is largely broken. Medicare could have invested a lot more — and should invest a lot more — in thinking about answering some of the hard questions we've raised today about what is the appropriate use of prior authorization, what are the appropriate rates to pay? These are important topics that Medicare should be taking the lead on understanding, experimenting with through CMMI [the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation], which can run pilots, and actually trying to be much more innovative in how it sets payment policy. Fegan: I agree with both of the previous speakers. Medicare has succeeded in providing access to care to a very vulnerable population and has succeeded in providing assured compensation for the providers who take care of that population. It's one of the reasons why I've spent the past 30 years advocating for a Medicare for All that we could afford, to take care of the entire population with the program, with some improvements that we've alluded to during the discussion today. But Medicare has been a success. What it set out to do, which was to offer care and ensure that care would provide compensation for the people who delivered it — I think that we are a better society because of that. We certainly spend enough on healthcare in this country; we just fail to provide care to everyone who needs it. We allow too many people who are not engaged in the delivery of care to take profit from it. There's a lot of opportunity to address the fraud and abuse, and we just fail to do so. Part of the problem is because we have three healthcare lobbyists for every single member of Congress. Congress tends to hear those lobbyists over the cries of the public, which would really benefit from a universal healthcare system. Brull: Thank you all for joining us today and for such a productive discussion. We appreciate your time and expertise.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Centene raises Wall Street optimism that Medicaid insurers can improve profits
By Amina Niasse NEW YORK (Reuters) -Wall Street regained confidence in Medicaid insurers after Centene said on Friday it expects to be able to raise rates charged to states for 2026 health plans for low-income Americans and strengthen profit margins. Insurer shares rose across the board. Centene shares were up 5% in early afternoon trading after falling 16% on the company's announcement of a second-quarter loss and forecast cut. Rivals UnitedHealth, CVS Health and Humana rose 1.61%, 2.69% and 3.45%, respectively. All three report earnings next week. Centene in an earnings call reassured investors it would work with states to ensure their payments for Medicaid plans match the company's increased medical costs for 2026. 'Our goal is to reprice 100%' of plans, said company CEO Sarah London. Insurers are paid a set amount by states for Medicaid plans, which are jointly funded with the federal government. Centene, UnitedHealth and Elevance have said this year that state reimbursements for these plans have lagged behind actual costs of care. Cautious investors have been looking for Medicaid health plan design changes and strategic geographic changes by the companies to reduce use of healthcare services. New work requirements for Medicaid recipients in President Donald Trump's signature tax-cut and spending bill have made some investors worry that healthy people could disenroll in coming years. The bill requires states to verify certain members are working or volunteering a minimum of 80 hours per month to qualify for Medicaid coverage starting in 2027. After a COVID-19 era requirement to keep people enrolled expired in 2023, Medicaid plans redetermined each person's eligibility. This pushed members off, changing the mix of sick and healthy participants, and some Medicaid insurers struggled. 'The Medicaid redeterminations have proven to be far more disruptive than anyone thought," said Jeff Jonas, a portfolio manager at Gabelli Funds. "The entire industry is focused on restoring margin over winning new contracts and membership." More detailed data could justify midyear price increases, said Kevin Gade, chief operating officer at Bahl & Gaynor, and correct mismatched rates set by states after the pandemic. More data over the next year will also enable insurers to improve cost management techniques and raise rates paid by states, Gade said. "With enough data you can take care of the problem.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
An Expensive Health Care Cliff Is Coming Unless Republicans Stop It
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Republicans indicated this week they'd be open to extending one of former President Joe Biden's signature health care policies to avoid a politically poisonous spike in insurance costs ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The enhanced premium tax credits, which Democrats included in President Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan Act, reduced the cost of health insurance for many middle-class people enrolled in Obamacare exchanges. The average person who buys insurance through the exchanges is expected to pay 75% more for their premium if the tax credits expire, according to an analysis from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also projected that letting the subsidies lapse would lead to about 5 million Americans losing their insurance over the next 10 years. 'I am part of a small group that is looking to try to find a path forward to extend those,' said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). 'I think it is recognized that our failure to do that could result in some pretty precipitous increases in costs for Americans for their health insurance, and that's not where we want to end up at the end of this year.' 'It's not these people's fault that they're forced onto Obamacare in the first place and then to take away what the government promised them in terms of this credit, seems to me to be not exactly the most desirable outcome,' added Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). The looming expiration of the tax credits was put on the back burner by Republicans during the first six months of President Donald Trump's term as the party focused on passing his agenda of tax cuts and historic cuts to Medicaid, as well as slashing foreign aid and public broadcasting funding. Discussions are now underway in the Senate for a bipartisan solution to a problem that could have serious ramifications for the GOP in next year's elections, with high prices and inflation still on top of voters' minds. They are being led by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the Senate health committee, who has previously criticized the credits, but who is also facing voters at the ballot box next year. Passing a bipartisan fix is easier said than done, however. For one, it'll be costly. An estimate from CBO said it would cost $380 billion over a decade to make the subsidies permanent. Senate Republicans are eyeing a smaller fix of about $125 billion with a lower income threshold to qualify for the credit, as well as an offset to pay for it. 'I think we'll be able to offer an appropriate offset, and I think it would be very difficult for Democrats to be able to say no to that,' Rounds said. Many conservatives are flat-out opposed to extending the tax credits, however. Some are pushing for rolling back Obamacare more broadly, including by winding down its Medicaid expansion, in future reconciliation bills. 'Nobody's losing coverage, that's what's important to me,' Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said when asked what Congress ought to do when the tax credits expire. Even if the Senate can agree on a fix — something that would require 60 votes — passage could be more complicated in the GOP-controlled House, where there's no guarantee that leadership would even take it up. Lawmakers could potentially tuck it into an end-of-the-year government funding bill, but that could also risk a government shutdown. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet. But it's on the radar,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters this week when asked about the ACA credits. Waiting until the end of the year to address the issue may be too late, however. While the tax credits technically expire on Dec. 31, insurers must file their final rates for health plans offered on ACA exchanges for next year by Aug. 13, according to the centrist think tank Third Way. That's smack-dab in the middle of Congress' annual recess. It's not clear where the White House stands on the issue. Getting Trump on board with extending the subsidies could help move Republican votes on Capitol Hill. A memo from a conservative advocacy organization, for example, warned this week that the benefits of the president's tax cut law will be nullified if the subsidies are not extended and people's health care costs go up. Not extending the subsidies will also hand Democrats — who are already eager to run against Trump's cuts to Medicaid — a further advantage on health care issues, particularly in purple battleground states that could determine the control of the House and Senate next year. The issue, for now, remains a bit of a sleeper: A KFF poll conducted last month found just 28% of Americans had heard 'a lot' or 'some' about the credits' potential expiration. But a full 77% of Americans, including 56% of self-identified MAGA supporters, back their extension. 'For some people, their premiums will as much as double, and people don't have the resources in their household income in order to be able to absorb that,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) told HuffPost. 'Donald Trump and the Republicans are doing the opposite of what he said he was going to do. He said he was going to drive costs down. He's driving them up every single day. So I think they've got a decision to make about whether they're OK with that.'
