The Biden administration’s attempt to further strain seniors’ healthcare budget was firmly rebuffed when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) stopped a proposal to broaden Medicare coverage of certain weight-loss pharmaceuticals. The involved drugs-Zepbound from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy- aren’t just any regular medications, but are part of a high-cost class identified as GLP-1, or glucagon-like peptide-1, receptor agonists.
The federal healthcare program, Medicare, catering to the elderly who are 65 and above, has a clear stipulation that prevents the coverage of obesity treatment drugs for the aged populace who aren’t diagnosed with diabetes or cardiovascular diseases. Reflecting on the unfit proposal projected by the Biden office last November would have made 3.4 million Americans, funded by Medicare, qualified to obtain these expensive drugs by 2026.
The GLP-1 or glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs originated as diabetes medication but later became a tool for obesity treatment with the advent of newcomer drugs such as Wegovy and Zepbound. Leveraging the taxpayers, the Biden administration seemed unwavering in their obstinacy to push through coverage for obesity-specific aid, irrespective of the glaring financial drain it would inflict.
Notably, the weight-loss drugs in question bear a hefty price tag, more than $1,000 per month. This stealth attempt by the Biden administration to unfairly burden the budget illustrates their lack of understanding about prioritizing essential healthcare services for older Americans.
At present, Medicare supports GLP-1 drug coverage for established brands like Lilly’s Mounjaro and Novo’s Ozempic, but strictly as diabetes medication. However, Biden’s administration managed to propose the inclusion of these drugs under Medicare for weight loss treatment despite their unsuitability for broad distribution among the aging population without specific ailments.
In response, CMS rightly excluded the questionable expansion of weight-loss drug coverage from the Medicare plans rule, they finalized last Friday. This judicious action by CMS underscored the importance of astute, financially responsible proposals that truly serve the healthcare needs of our seniors rather than impose a financial liability on them.
Interestingly, estimates last November from CMS officials pegged the cost impact of these anti-obesity drugs on Medicare and Medicaid at a staggering $40 billion over ten years. This tremendous sum is just one reflection of the recklessness pushed forward by the Biden administration.
This unwise push for expansion showcases a pattern in the Biden administration’s approach to healthcare: a willingness to burden the taxpayer with unnecessary costs. Such proposals not only drain resources but also fail to address core healthcare needs of the population.
The financial drain that would have resulted from the Biden administration’s myopic proposal hits especially hard for those reliant on Medicare. It subtly undermined the principle that healthcare policies should be beneficial for all, not just a fortunate few.
What’s more, the fact that such medications were initially introduced for the treatment of diabetes and later extended to combat obesity exposes their opportunistic approach. This begs the question: was the move pushed by pharmaceutical agendas and not by genuine concern for the people’s health?
The CMS’s principled rejection of this proposal has shielded millions from unnecessary financial burdens. It stands as a sobering admonition against attempts to misuse taxpayer funds under the guise of providing healthcare.
The CMS decision pushes back against short-sighted and unjust drug coverage propositions by reminding us that healthcare policies should not be determined by the money that can be made from them, but by the true health needs of the people they serve.
In sum, the Biden administration’s approach to healthcare reform, as exemplified by this misguided proposal, exemplifies their pattern of prioritizing financial gain over people’s health. It reinforces the vital need for principles, fiscal prudence, and a people-first approach in forming healthcare policies.