Medicare and Medicaid will not cover weight loss drugs, Trump administration decides
The Trump administration has decided against implementing a proposal for Medicare and Medicaid to cover
weight loss drugs
, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said
in a filing
published Friday by the agency.
A CMS spokesperson said the agency now believes that finalizing the proposal "is not appropriate at this time."
"CMS may consider future policy options for AOMs pending further review of both the potential benefits of these drugs including updated clinical indications, and relevant costs including fiscal impacts on stakeholders such as state Medicaid agencies," Catherine Howden, the spokesperson, said in an email.
Medicare already covers drugs that are also widely used for weight loss, like Ozempic and Mounjaro, when they are prescribed by doctors for other reasons like managing diabetes.
But under the statute governing Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government is generally banned from covering drugs "when used for weight loss."
Under the Biden administration, CMS had
proposed
to reinterpret this statute, bypassing the Congressional ban on coverage of weight loss drugs for obese, but not overweight, patients.
Since
obesity
is now widely agreed to be a disease, the Biden administration had said, treatment of that disease should be covered by Medicare's Part D prescription drug benefit.
They pointed to other situations when these kinds of drugs are allowed to be covered, like when weight change is caused by AIDS.
Expanding coverage of anti-obesity medications this way would also affect state Medicaid plans, officials said, since they are governed by the same law.
"CMS' revised interpretation would recognize obesity to be a chronic disease based on changes in medical consensus," the agency had said
last year
.
The proposal was expected to be costly for the federal government.
The Congressional Budget Office had
previously estimated
that expanding Medicare coverage to anti-obesity medications could add up to $35 billion over the next decade, even after factoring in expected savings from improved health of beneficiaries.
Medicaid programs would also have shouldered billions more in costs to cover the medications, Biden administration officials acknowledged, split between the federal government and states.
"States are also feeling substantial state budget pressure and we are doing our part to make sure patients, Medicaid enrollees all across the country can get access," Dan Tsai, the agency's top Medicaid official under the Biden administration, had told reporters.
Top advisers to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who now oversees CMS, among the nation's federal health agencies, had criticized the Biden-era move.
Healthcare entrepreneur Calley Means, now a special government employee under Kennedy,
had called it
a "betrayal of any American who cares about" the
Make America Healthy Again
movement's principles.
"Americans did NOT vote for mass injections in this election. They voted for a shift to ROOT CAUSE interventions and benefit flexibility," Means said in a
post on X
at the time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth Seeks $1B Latin America Exit: Sources
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH) is one of the best Dow stocks to invest in. The company is considering several offers for its Latin American business, according to two insiders familiar with the situation, as it works to recover from a series of major setbacks, including the removal of its CEO and a reported criminal accounting investigation. The largest US health insurer has aimed to exit Latin America since 2022, but selling its Banmedica unit has become more urgent recently due to multiple challenges, one source said. A senior healthcare professional giving advice to a patient in a clinic. New CEO Steve Hemsley told shareholders last week that he is focused on regaining their confidence following a disappointing earnings report and a Wall Street Journal story about a criminal probe into alleged Medicare fraud. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH) maintains it has not been notified by the Department of Justice and stands by its business integrity. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH) has received four non-binding bids for Banmedica, which operates in Colombia and Chile, totaling around $1 billion, according to sources who requested anonymity due to the confidential nature of the negotiations. While we acknowledge the potential of UNH 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 best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and Disclosure. None. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies
Jun. 11—Nine months after Monroe County Hospital in rural South Alabama closed its labor and delivery department in October 2023, Grove Hill Memorial Hospital in neighboring Clarke County also stopped delivering babies. Both hospitals are located in an agricultural swath of the state that's home to most of its poorest counties. Many residents of the region don't even have a nearby emergency department. Stacey Gilchrist is a nurse and administrator who's spent her 40-year career in Thomasville, a small town about 20 minutes north of Grove Hill. Thomasville's hospital shut down entirely last September over financial difficulties. Thomasville Regional hadn't had a labor and delivery unit for years, but women in labor still showed up at its ER when they knew they wouldn't make it to the nearest delivering hospital. "We had several close calls where people could not make it even to Grove Hill when they were delivering there," Gilchrist told Stateline shortly after the Thomasville hospital closed. She recalled how Thomasville nurses worked to save the lives of a mother and baby who'd delivered early in their ER, as staff waited for neonatal specialists to arrive by ambulance from a distant delivering hospital. "It would give you chills to see what all they had to do. They had to get inventive," she said, but the mother and baby survived. Now many families must drive more than an hour to reach the nearest birthing hospital. Nationwide, most rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services. Since the end of 2020, more than 100 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, according to a new report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform, a national policy center focused on solving health care issues through overhauling insurance payments. Fewer than 1,000 rural hospitals nationwide still have labor and delivery services. Across the nation, two rural labor and delivery departments shut their doors every month on average, said Harold Miller, the center's president and CEO. "It's the perfect storm," Miller told Stateline. "The number of births are going down, everything is more expensive in rural areas, health insurance plans don't cover the cost of births, and hospitals don't have the resources to offset those losses because they're losing money on other services, too." Staffing shortages, low Medicaid reimbursement payments and declining birth rates have contributed to the closures. Some states have responded by changing how Medicaid funds are spent, by allowing the opening of freestanding birth centers, or by encouraging urban-based obstetricians to open satellite clinics in rural areas. Yet the losses continue. Thirty-six states have lost at least one rural labor and delivery unit since the end of 2020, according to the report. Sixteen have lost three or more. Indiana has lost 12, accounting for a third of its rural hospital labor and delivery units. In rural counties the loss of hospital-based obstetric care is associated with increases in births in hospital emergency rooms, studies have found. The share of women without adequate prenatal care also increases in rural counties that lose hospital obstetric services. And researchers have seen an increase in preterm births — when a baby is born three or more weeks early — following rural labor and delivery closures. Babies born too early have higher rates of death and disability. Births are expensive The decline in hospital-based maternity care has been decades in the making. Traditionally, hospitals lose money on obstetrics. It costs more to maintain a labor and delivery department than a hospital gets paid by insurance to deliver a baby. This is especially true for rural hospitals, which see fewer births and therefore less revenue than urban areas. "It is expensive and complicated for any hospital to have labor and delivery because it's a 24/7 service," said Miller. A labor and delivery unit must always have certain staff available or on call, including a physician who can perform cesarean sections, nurses with obstetric training, and an anesthetist for C-sections and labor pain management. You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services. — Harold Miller, president and CEO of the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform "There's a minimum fixed cost you incur [as a hospital] to have all of that, regardless of how many births there are," Miller said. In most cases, insurers don't pay hospitals to maintain that standby capacity; they're paid per birth. Hospitals cover their losses on obstetrics with revenue they get from more lucrative services. For a larger urban hospital with thousands of births a year, the fixed costs might be manageable. For smaller rural hospitals, they're much harder to justify. Some have had to jettison their obstetric services just to keep the doors open. "You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services," Miller said. And staffing is a persistent problem. Harrison County Hospital in Corydon, Indiana, a small town on the border with Kentucky, ended its obstetric services in March after hospital leaders said they were unable to recruit an obstetric provider. It was the only delivering hospital in the county, averaging about 400 births a year. And most providers don't want to remain on call 24/7, a particular problem in rural regions that might have just one or two physicians trained in obstetrics. In many rural areas, family physicians with obstetrical training fill the role of both obstetricians and general practitioners. Ripple effects Even before Harrison County Hospital suspended its obstetrical services, some patients were already driving more than 30 minutes for care, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported. The closure means the drive could be 50 minutes to reach a hospital with a labor and delivery department, or to see providers for prenatal visits. Longer drive times can be risky, resulting in more scheduled inductions and C-sections because families are scared to risk going into labor naturally and then facing a harrowing hourlong drive to the hospital. Having fewer labor and delivery units could further burden ambulance services already stretched thin in rural areas. And hospitals often serve as a hub for other maternity-related services that help keep mothers and babies healthy. "Other things we've seen in rural counties that have hospital-based OB care is that you're more likely to have other supportive things, like maternal mental health support, postpartum groups, lactation support, access to doula care and midwifery services," said Katy Kozhimannil, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, whose research focuses in part on maternal health policy with a focus on rural communities. State action Medicaid, the state-federal public insurance for people with low incomes, pays for nearly half of all births in rural areas nationwide. And women who live in rural communities and small towns are more likely to be covered by Medicaid than women in metro areas. Experts say one way to save rural labor and delivery in many places would be to bump up Medicaid payments. As congressional Republicans debate President Donald Trump's tax and spending plan, they're considering which portions of Medicaid to slash to help pay for the bill's tax cuts. Maternity services aren't on the chopping block. But if Congress reduces federal funding for some portions of Medicaid, states — and hospitals — will have to figure out how to offset that loss. The ripple effects could translate into less money for rural hospitals overall, meaning some may no longer be able to afford labor and delivery services. "Cuts to Medicaid are going to be felt disproportionately in rural areas where Medicaid makes up a higher proportion of labor and delivery and for services in general," Kozhimannil said. "It is a hugely important payer at rural hospitals, and for birth in particular." And though private insurers often pay more than Medicaid for birth services, Miller believes states shouldn't let companies off the hook. "The data shows that in many cases, commercial insurance plans operating in a state are not paying adequately for labor and delivery," Miller said. "Hospitals will tell you it's not just Medicaid; it's also commercial insurance." He'd like to see state insurance regulators pressure private insurance to pay more. More than 40% of births in rural communities are covered by private insurance. Yet there's no one magic bullet that will fix every rural hospital's bottom line, Miller said: "For every hospital I've talked to, it's been a different set of circumstances." Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at [email protected]. YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
Scientific American
37 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Planned NIH Cuts Threaten Americans' Health, Senators Charge in Tense Hearing
U.S. senators grilled National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Jayanta Bhattacharya at a hearing on 10 June about how his professed support for science squares with unprecedented funding delays and research-grant terminations at the agency this year, as well as enormous cuts that have been proposed for its 2026 budget. What would normally be a routine hearing about government spending was anything but: hundreds of scientists and advocates for Alzheimer's disease research packed into a cramped room on Capitol Hill to denounce US President Donald Trump's 2026 budget request, which calls for cutting the NIH's budget by about 40% and collapsing its 27 institutes and centres into 8. Such a cut 'would stop critical Alzheimer's research in its tracks,' Tonya Maurer, an advocate for the Alzheimer's Association, a non-profit group based in Chicago, Illinois, told Nature at the hearing. 'We've worked too damn hard to see this happen.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Bhattacharya defended his leadership at the agency — the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world — noting that there is a 'need for reform at the NIH' and that to restore its reputation, the NIH 'cannot return to business as usual.' (The NIH has been accused by Trump and his Republican allies of funding 'woke' science and research on coronaviruses that they say could have sparked the COVID-19 pandemic.) To help fix the agency, Bhattacharya told the senators that he wants to focus on increasing reproducibility in biomedical research, upholding academic freedom and studying the cause of autism, which US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has pledged to find an answer to by September. Letters of dissent The hearing comes the day after more than 300 NIH staff members sent Bhattacharya a fiery letter decrying the mass termination of jobs at the agency and its cancellation of thousands of research projects on a growing list of topics that the Trump team has said are 'politicized', including those investigating the biology of COVID-19, the health of sexual and gender minorities (LGBT+) and reasons that people might be hesitant to receive a vaccine. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the staff members wrote. They named their letter the 'Bethesda Declaration,' after the Maryland community and Washington DC suburb where most of the NIH is located. The title also alludes to the 'Great Barrington Declaration', an open letter that Bhattacharya co-signed in October 2020 that argued against COVID-19 lockdowns except for the most vulnerable citizens, instead allowing for children and others to be infected so that 'herd immunity' could be reached ― a proposal that numerous scientists and NIH officials called dangerous at the time. At the hearing, Patty Murray, a Democratic senator from Washington, implored Bhattacharya to 'heed their warning,' and said that she expects that 'none of them face retaliation for raising those concerns.' Bhattacharya didn't respond to this comment at the hearing but said in a statement on 9 June that the Bethesda Declaration 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months,' but that 'respectful dissent in science is productive.' Gavin Yamey, a global-health researcher at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who signed the latest declaration, said, 'he can talk about freedom, but his own staff are decrying his censorship. How he's actually acting and what he says are not one in the same.' Taking ownership Several senators, including Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, questioned who was in charge at the NIH, given reports that billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency ordered agency employees to cut hundreds of specific grants. 'The changes in priorities, the move away from politicized science, I've made those decisions,' Bhattacharya responded. The mass terminations of awards at institutions such as Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 'that's joint with the administration', he said. (The Trump administration has alleged that universities such as Harvard have allowed discrimination, including antisemitism, on their campuses, and has cut or frozen research funding as a result.) The drastic 40% cut to the NIH's budget proposed for the fiscal year 2026 is not yet set in stone: the US Congress has the ultimate say over government spending, and during Trump's first presidency, when he proposed a huge cut to the biomedical agency in 2017, it instead approved a slight increase. Nevertheless, the composition of the body has changed significantly since then — far more of its members are now loyal to Trump. Comments made at the hearing by the senators weren't entirely divided down party lines. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who voted to confirm both Bhattacharya and RFK Jr, said she was disturbed by the budget proposal. 'It would undo years of congressional investment in the NIH,' she said.
