RFK Jr, Dr Oz and weight-loss drugs: A high-price health clash may be looming
Trump's nominees for top health jobs agree that Americans need to lose weight, but they disagree on whether they should provide drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy to achieve that aim - especially when those medicines are quite so expensive.
As a weight management doctor, Mollie Cecil has seen first-hand how the latest weight-loss drugs help her patients.
She knows from personal experience, too. After a year on one medication, the West Virginia doctor lost 40 pounds. Her cholesterol and arthritis improved, allowing her to be more active with her young children.
"I just felt like a new person on them," she said.
But she worried about the same obstacle facing many of her patients - losing insurance coverage - so she tapered off the drugs as a precaution.
It turned out she was right. Dr Cecil later learned her new non-profit insurance plan could not afford to cover the cost of the drugs.
She gradually gained back most of the weight she lost.
The latest class of weight-loss drugs - also known as GLP-1 agonists - are "the most potent weight-loss medications we have ever had", Dr Cecil said.
"But when I can't get them to [my patients], as a physician who really cares about taking care of people … it just feels helpless," she said.
The new class of drugs - often not covered by private insurance - can cost $1,000 (£809) a month on average. Federal law bans Medicare from covering the drugs when used for weight loss, though they usually are covered when used to treat diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Only 13 states provide coverage under Medicaid for weight loss purposes.
To make them more accessible, then-President Joe Biden recently proposed that Medicare and Medicaid cover them, but now that will be up to President Donald Trump's new administration.
Its weight-loss drug policy would fall to Trump's pick for health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, and Mehmet Oz, Trump's choice to lead Medicare and Medicaid services. But this could mean a potential clash: Kennedy is a vocal critic of the weight-loss drugs while Oz is an ardent advocate.
The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment about how it would handle the Biden administration's proposal for Medicare - federal insurance for those 65 and older - and Medicaid - government insurance for low-income people - to cover the drugs.
Trump's future approach remains unclear, with several people in his inner circle holding contradictory views, said Jonathan Zhang, a professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy.
"GLP-1, Ozempic, this is a drug that has so much patient demand," Mr Zhang said. "It's really taken on a life of its own on social media. So the Trump administration - or any administration - faces a tonne of pressure to do something about this in the near term."
During his presidential run last year, Kennedy made tackling the obesity epidemic a central part of his platform. Over 100 million people in the US are obese, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
After dropping out and endorsing Trump, Kennedy launched his "Make America Healthy Again" initiative to reduce obesity by eliminating ultra-processed foods and additives, among other more controversial ideas.
But the 71-year-old has been outspoken about weight-loss drugs, telling Fox News in October: "They're counting on selling [weight-loss medications] to Americans because we're so stupid and so addicted to drugs."
"If we just gave good food, three meals a day, to every man, woman and child in our country, we could solve the obesity and diabetes epidemic overnight," Kennedy added.
Shortly after Trump chose Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), he announced that he selected Oz, a former TV show host and surgeon, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), an agency within HHS that administers the government health insurance.
As a television show host, Oz spent years promoting various weight-loss drugs, including more recently, GLP-1 drugs.
"For those who want to lose a few pounds, Ozempic and other semaglutide medications can be a big help," Oz posted on Instagram in 2023. "We need to make it as easy as possible for people to meet their health goals, period."
Another popular drug, Wegovy, also comes under the semaglutide category to which Oz was referring.
Decisions about Medicare and Medicaid drug coverage would likely involve leaders from both HHS and CMS, experts said.
Spokespeople for Oz and Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment about how they would handle the policy decision. Neither has been confirmed to their appointments yet.
The high price of GLP-1 drugs - which are patented, meaning cheaper copycat versions can't be made - has led to a debate among insurance companies, said Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Harvard Medical School.
The companies have to decide whether to raise insurance premiums, in general, to cover the costs, or to forgo coverage of GLP-1s altogether, he said.
Many have decided not to cover them. Others cut off coverage to patients once they lose weight and reach a body mass index (BMI) below the obesity range of 30 or higher, Dr Cecil said.
When Dr Cecil was on a GLP-1 using her previous insurance, she said she wouldn't allow herself to lose as much weight as she wanted to avoid crossing the BMI threshold.
"They'll cut off coverage, saying, 'Well, you don't need it anymore. You've lost weight.' But of course, the reason they lost weight is because of the medicine," she said.
Getting off anti-obesity drugs too quickly also can cause unpleasant withdrawal effects, and many gain back the weight.
Government insurance faces a similar cost predicament when it comes to covering the new weight-loss medications.
"Although there's obviously a lot of interest in doing so to make these highly effective drugs more available to patients who need them, the cost of doing so would be enormous because so many people are eligible and because the prices are so high," Dr Rome said.
When Biden officials issued the rule requiring Medicare and Medicaid to cover the anti-obesity medications, they did so after the election, knowing it would not be up to them to carry the policy out, said Mark Fendrick, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design.
The federal government said last year that it could cost about $25b for Medicare and $11b for Medicaid to provide the drugs over the next 10 years.
"How do we pay for that?" Dr Fendrick asked.
The Biden-era rule must go through a public comment period before the Trump administration ultimately decides whether to move forward with it, experts said.
Dr Cecil said the government and private insurance companies may remain hesitant to foot the bill for such expensive medications.
But she believes the savings that would come from tackling obesity for millions of Americans would greatly outweigh the short-term costs.
"Five to ten years is when we would really see a huge payoff, because that's when we would really start to see trending downwards for some of these more serious long term complications," Dr Cecil said.
"If everyone who needed the drugs could afford them and wanted to take them, it would be pretty game changing."
Can RFK Jr make America's diet healthy again?
Weight-loss drugs may boost health in many ways
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Intermittent fasting's surprising biblical roots revealed as diet trend grows
A popular diet trend may have its origins in the Bible. Intermittent fasting, a pattern of eating based on time limits, is intended to assist with weight loss and other health benefits, according to Mayo Clinic. There are several types of intermittent fasting, but they all follow the same concept of alternating between fasting and eating — a practice that is often mentioned in biblical scripture. With a time-restricted approach to intermittent fasting, the dieter only eats during a certain window. For example, with the 16/8 method, the person fasts for 16 hours and then can eat within an eight-hour span, between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Other versions involve fasting for a full 24 hours once or twice per week — or only consuming limited calories on fasting days. "The idea is that intermittent fasting causes the body's cells to change how they work," states Mayo Clinic's website. "Timed eating may push cells to focus on repair, energy use and balancing body-wide functions." Religious fasting is practiced in many faiths, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Jainism, as well as Hinduism, Judaism and Taoism, research shows. Around 21% of Americans report that they fast for certain periods of time for religious reasons, according to a 2024 survey from the Pew Research Center. Some view intermittent fasting as a modern-day form of biblical fasting. Fasting is mentioned in the Bible as a way to be closer to God. In Matthew 6:16-18, for example, Jesus instructs his followers on how to fast. "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. Specifically, when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face. So, that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Fasting is also mentioned in Joel 2:12, when the Lord declares, "Yet even now, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning." Various religions teach that fasting improves self-control, increases spiritual awareness and even fosters empathy for the less fortunate, according to Pew. While religious fasting is for spiritual purposes, intermittent fasting may also have physical and mental benefits that go beyond the primary goal of weight loss. Studies have shown that the practice may have positive impacts on blood pressure, cardiovascular health, cognitive function and other health factors — but the long-term effects aren't as clear. Fasting is mentioned in the Bible as a way to be closer to God. "When changes occur with this metabolic switch, it affects the body and brain," Johns Hopkins neuroscientist Mark Mattson, who has studied intermittent fasting for 25 years, states on the hospital's website. Mattson's research has confirmed multiple health benefits associated with fasting, including greater longevity, a leaner physique and a sharper mind. "Many things happen during intermittent fasting that can protect organs against chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, age-related neurodegenerative disorders, even inflammatory bowel disease and many cancers," he said. However, Fox News Digital previously reported on a 2024 study that linked time-restricted eating to a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death. "Intermittent fasting is not appropriate for people with a history of disordered eating or active eating disorders, those with hypoglycemia or type 1 diabetes on insulin, children under 18, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and more," New Jersey-based registered dietitian Lauren Harris-Pincus told Fox News Digital at the time. Ohio-based cardiologist Dr. Lou Vadlamani was not involved in the study, but told Fox News Digital that it would be "a stretch" to conclusively say that fasting has a direct impact on heart attack risk. "It certainly raises a lot of questions and supports the need for a more comprehensive study, since intermittent fasting has become so common," he said. For more Health articles, visit As with every major lifestyle change, it's important to check with a doctor before starting intermittent fasting, experts advise.
7 hours ago
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. 'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?' The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Benefits can be difficult to navigate even without a work requirement Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. 'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.' Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. 'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.' There's broad reliance on Medicaid for health coverage About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said. Some people don't if they might lose coverage with a work requirement Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. 'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. 'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
