DV Journal

The conversation surrounding healthcare reform has intensified in recent years, revealing deep divides in how we view personal responsibility, government intervention and public health. One of the more recent high-profile debates involves the role of medications used to treat obesity. Within the Trump administration, advisers and Cabinet nominees — who will shape the availability and use of such treatments — have expressed differing views.

With more than 100 million adults in the United States living with obesity, many health advocates are stressing the actual health benefits of weight loss beyond cosmetic concerns. Obesity treatments include GLP-1s, a new class of highly effective, albeit expensive, medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro. Access to these treatments is increasingly seen as essential to empowering patients to take control of their health, improving long-term outcomes, and reducing the burden of preventable and devastating diseases.

With changes in the federal government and relevant policy underway, the administration can score a win for millions by finalizing a proposed rule for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand coverage of anti-obesity medicines. Currently, Medicare has been prohibited from covering weight loss drugs unless they are used to treat conditions such as diabetes or to manage an increased risk of heart disease. States can cover obesity drugs under Medicaid, but most do not.

Addressing the obesity epidemic head-on by expanding access to treatments is the right thing to do, not only morally but also economically.

While obesity affects all demographics at staggering rates, recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlight that underserved communities are most at risk and suffer disproportionately from the consequences. For example, nearly 50 percent of Hispanic adults are classified as obese, contributing to a range of serious health issues, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Some argue that obesity results from individual choices. As such, exercising and a better diet should be the principal fix. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has argued that we should embrace “natural” fixes.

Obesity medications are not a one-size-fits-all solution. They are best used to complement to lifestyle changes rather than replace them. However, studies show that when used appropriately, these medications can lead to significant weight loss, thereby reducing the risk of obesity-related diseases and saving lives and dollars.

According to the CDC, obesity costs the U.S. healthcare system almost $173 billion annually through the treatment of chronic diseases associated with it.  By providing greater access to obesity medications, we can prevent or delay the onset of significant health problems, ultimately reducing hospitalization expenditures and long-term care services. This aligns with CMS’s goals of advancing preventive care and improving health outcomes for all Americans.

This investment pays off in improved patient health outcomes and significant savings for taxpayers. According to a 2023 Joint Economic Committee report, “Obesity will cause $5,155 in average excess medical costs per person suffering from the condition.” These costs correspond to $520 billion in additional healthcare costs in 2023. Because of the immense strain obesity puts on the healthcare system, reducing it would deliver massive savings to taxpayers.

This is responsible governance — a commitment to making choices that ultimately promote fiscal sustainability and public health.

Some skeptics raise valid concerns about the potential for over-prescribing obesity medications and misuse. These points are substantive; they are not reasons to hinder progress. We can implement strong guidelines and training for healthcare providers to ensure these medications are prescribed based on medical necessity and used responsibly, as we currently do with opioids, anti-depressants, diabetes medications and others. Empowering providers with the correct tools helps patients make informed health decisions.

Expanding healthcare coverage for obesity medications should be part of a proper policy focus prioritizing proactive health management. Medicare and Medicaid coverage for obesity drugs would allow the administration to showcase a commonsense and effective healthcare strategy that resonates across the political spectrum.

Preventing costly chronic diseases is a proactive and concrete way to build stronger communities, save taxpayer money long-term, and empower more Americans to improve their health and well-being.

Ivy League credentialed, six-figure experts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that parenthood is stressful.

Stop the presses! As The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman is wont to say, “What would we do without experts?”

The NIH could have saved taxpayers gobs of their hard-earned dollars by asking the parents of any 2-year-old if parenting is stressful.

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among progressives’ efforts to address putative societal problems.

First, these “solutions” pander to the basest instincts of humankind: selfish, self-centered, self-seeking, undisciplined, tribal. Parenthood stressful? Don’t have children.

Second, the sum total of these proposals either harms the purported beneficiaries or make matters worse, which in turn precipitates cries for additional misguided fixes. Concepts like self-discipline, character building, self sacrifice, accountability, perseverance, hard work are rarely mentioned.

President Joe Biden, employing the cover of compassion to forgive billions of student debt in return for the votes of the grateful tens of thousands who squandered their college years pursuing worthless degrees, is but one example of liberals’ pandering to the all-too-human wish to get something for nothing.

Student loan forgiveness is one blatant example. There are other less obvious ploys.

Many in the woke community now proclaim obesity as beautiful. Check-out the many television commercials featuring rotund spokespersons for this product or that. Cheerleader squads now include a requisite DEI quota.

Abandoning science for fashion, the American Medical Association has classified Body Mass Index (BMI), a measure for diagnosing obesity, as racist.

For members of the fat acceptance movement “Fat Pride” is the preferred nomenclature.

Those losing the battle of the bulge no longer overindulge. As Flip Wilson used to say, the devil —- in the guise of the environment, too few recreational facilities, fast food, manipulative marketing by food conglomerates, and increased portion sizes —- makes them do it.

Archaic concepts like self-discipline and free will are passé. If obesity isn’t my fault, I may as well enjoy it. Actress Kate Winslet is proud of her belly rolls.  Good for Kate. Unfortunately, her exuberance doesn’t change the inconvenient fact that obesity kills.

The drive to legalize marijuana barely needs mentioning. Ask any drug addict how they wound up on the streets and the majority will pinpoint marijuana as their gateway drug.  Legalization removes the criminal guardrails and social stigma associated with drug use.

Consequently, drugs become more available and more attractive. A steppingstone toward full legalization are medical marijuana cards with their disability diagnoses and attendant benefits.

Abortion, of course, is the elephant in the room. Hillary Clinton, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court’s discovery of a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution, rode the bromide “safe, legal, and rare” to legalization.

Rare? Safe?

According to the Pew Research Center, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported a yearly national total of 625,978 abortions in the District of Columbia and 46 states in 2021, up from 597,355 in those states and D.C. in 2020. The corresponding figure for 2019 was 607,720.

Readers can ask themselves whether these statistics harmed the fabric of America and its people or made them better.

The common thread in progressives’ agendas is the license to do as we wish, consequences be damned. But the irrefutable fact is that all actions have consequences. The only question is, who pays?

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

.