Governor vetoes hearing aid bill
Hearing aids can cost patients thousands out of their own pockets. (Photo courtesy of Sony Electronics)
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
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Long-lasting HIV prevention shot heads toward approval
June 6 (UPI) -- A new vaccine to prevent HIV is expected to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration later this month. If approved, the shot -- lenacapavir -- would be given twice a year and could be a big step forward in the fight against HIV. Drugmaker Gilead Sciences tested the shot in a study of women and girls. None of the participants who received the injections got HIV. That early success helped boost Gilead's stock by 73% over the past year, The Wall Street Journal reported. "We know it's challenging to take a daily pill for prevention, and we see an incredible opportunity here," said Johanna Mercier, Gilead's chief commercial officer Right now, more than 400,000 people in the United States use pills to prevent HIV, The Wall Street Journal added. These medications are referred to as PrEP, short for pre-exposure prophylaxis. Gilead expects the number of users to top 1 million by the next decade. Many people already say they'd prefer a shot over daily pills. In one survey of more than 500 PrEP users, 95% said they would switch to a long-acting injection. Sales of other long-acting options, like the shot Apretude from GSK, have risen sharply - up 63% in the past year. Even with strong results, Gilead faces several hurdles. One is reaching the people who need PrEP the most. Black Americans represent 39% of new HIV cases but only 14% of current PrEP users. Many people still face stigma or lack insurance coverage, which can limit access. Gilead says reaching underserved groups is a top goal. Most current PrEP users have commercial insurance, but Medicaid will be key for expanding access to lower-income communities. Another concern: Some experts worry the new shot may simply replace current Gilead products, like the daily pill Descovy, which now holds about 40% to 45% of the market. But Gilead says the shot should help expand the overall number of people using PrEP in both the U.S. and abroad. "We're thinking globally about the public health impact we can have," Mercier said. The company is working with governments and health groups in the United Kingdom and low-income countries to raise awareness and make these products more available. More information The National Institutes of Health has more on Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP). Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
DOGE employees can search Social Security records, Supreme Court says
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the DOGE team that had been led by Elon Musk to examine Social Security records that include personal information on most Americans. Acting by a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an appeal from President Trump's lawyers and lifted a court order that had barred a team of DOGE employees of freely examining Social Security records. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances,' the Social Security Administration, or SSA, 'may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. In a second order, the justices blocked the disclosure of DOGE operations as agency records that could be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The court's three liberals — Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented in both cases 'Today, the court grants 'emergency' relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans,' Jackson wrote. 'The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now—before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful.' The legal fight turned on the unusual status of the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency. This was a not true department, but the name given to the team of aggressive outside advisors led by Musk. Were the DOGE team members presidential advisors or outsiders who should be not given access to personal data? While Social Security employees are entrusted with the records containing personal information, it was disputed whether the 11 DOGE team members could be trusted with same material. Musk had said the goal was to find evidence of fraud or misuse of government funds. He and DOGE were sued by labor unions who said the outside analysts were sifting through records with personal information which was protected by the privacy laws. Unless checked, the DOGE team could create highly personal computer profiles of every person, they said. A federal judge in Maryland agreed and issued an order restricting the work of DOGE. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, Obama appointee, barred DOGE staffers from have accessing to the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. But her order did not restrict the Social Security staff or DOGE employees from using data that did not identify persons or sensitive personal information. In late April, the divided 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to set aside the judge's order by a 9-6 vote. Judge Robert King said the 'government has sought to accord the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) immediate and unfettered access to all records of the Social Security Administration ('SSA') — records that include the highly sensitive personal information of essentially everyone in our country.' But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court and said a judge should not 'second guess' how the administration manages the government. He said the district judge had 'enjoined particular agency employees — the 11 members of the Social Security Administration (SSA) DOGE team—from accessing data that other agency employees can unquestionably access, and that the SSA DOGE team will use for purposes that are unquestionably lawful. ... The Executive Branch, not district courts, sets government employees' job responsibilities.' Sauer said the DOGE team were seeking to 'modernize SSA systems and identify improper payments, for instance by reviewing swaths of records and flagging unusual payment patterns or other signs of fraud. The DOGE employees 'are subject to the same strict confidentiality standards as other SSA employees,' he said. Moreover, the plaintiffs 'make no allegation that the SSA DOGE team's access will increase the risk of public disclosure.' He said checking the personal data is crucial. 'For instance, a birth date of 1900 can be telltale evidence that an individual is probably deceased and should not still receive Social Security payments, while 15 names using the same Social Security number may also point to a problem,' he said.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOGE can access sensitive Social Security records, Supreme Court rules
The Department of Government Efficiency can have unimpeded access to sensitive Social Security records for millions of people, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. The justices granted the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower-court order that had blocked a DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration from viewing or obtaining personal information in the agency's systems. The court's majority provided no detailed explanation for its ruling, but in a three-paragraph unsigned order, the majority wrote: 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented. In a 10-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision creates 'grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' Trump administration lawyers claimed the DOGE team members needed unfettered access to Social Security's data in order to detect and halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the breadth of DOGE's access violated federal law and put the data at risk of intentional or unintentional disclosure. The legal fight over DOGE's access to Social Security data is one of several that broke out in the early weeks of Trump's second term as the budget-slashing team overseen by Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk fanned out across the federal government. In response to lawsuits, federal judges also limited DOGE access to sensitive databases at the Treasury and Education departments, as well as the Office of Personnel Management. Some of the restrictions have been eased over time as the Trump administration convinced the judges that adequate safeguards were in place to avoid disclosure of personal information. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, a Baltimore-based Obama appointee, blocked DOGE's access to Social Security's databases, which include tax and wage reports as well as retirement and disability payments. In her March ruling, she concluded that the access granted to the cost-cutting team violated the Privacy Act because agency officials did not show that it was necessary to include identifying information in order to carry out the search for fraudulent payments. Justice Department lawyers defending the move offered only 'cursory, circular statements' to justify the DOGE team's access, the judge said. However, Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the limits Hollander imposed interfered with President Donald Trump's ability to carry out his 'critically important' agenda to eliminate wasteful spending and update archaic systems at federal agencies. 'Employees charged with modernizing government information systems and routing [sic] out fraud, waste, and abuse in data systems plainly need access to those systems,' Sauer wrote. 'District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads.' In her dissent Friday, Jackson said the government had presented 'next to nothing' to explain what harm the DOGE operation or the Social Security Administration would suffer if the limits the lower-court ordered remained in place. The Biden-appointed justice also contended that her conservative colleagues were bending the court's usual standards to allow the Trump administration to pursue its favored course of action. 'It seems as if the Court has truly lost its moorings,' Jackson wrote, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'The Court is … unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.' Justice Elena Kagan also dissented from the court's order, but did not provide any explanation of her views. Among the projects DOGE staffers were working on at Social Security was one targeting improper payments to dead people. Trump has frequently falsely claimed that large numbers of deceased people receive Social Security checks, including earlier this year during a high-profile address in March to a joint session of Congress. 'One person is listed at 360 years of age … More than 100 years older than our country,' Trump said. 'But we're going to find out where that money is going, and it's not going to be pretty.' Musk also made staggering claims, suggesting in a social media post that 20 million people over 100 years of age were receiving Social Security. However, computer experts said most of the outlandishly implausible ages were the product of a default setting in the 60-year-old COBOL programming language, which interprets incomplete or missing age data as the system's oldest possible date in 1875. Musk's term as a special government employee ended last week with Trump hosting an Oval Office send-off for the tech entrepreneur. While the pair were upbeat and complimentary there, Musk's escalating attacks on Trump's budget bill currently before Congress led to a spectacular flame-out of the relationship in recent days, with Trump threatening to cut government contracts to Musk's businesses and Musk accusing Trump of delaying the release of FBI records that could be embarrassing to him.
