OPINION: Concern About Prescription Drug Access

Prescription drug access is a major concern for patients like me. As someone who lives with diabetes, I take prescriptions daily to help manage my symptoms, and the harmful policies that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) use to cut costs and boost profits have me gravely concerned about my ability to stay on top of the prescription drug regimen my doctors have put me on.

It isn’t right that PBMs can interfere in doctors’ decisions by enforcing overly restrictive policies. Both policies reduce or limit patients’ access, leading to delays or interruptions in care that can undermine healthcare outcomes.

PBMs are also denying patients the critical manufacturer rebates and discounts that could help lower our out-of-pocket costs. Instead, these rebates, which PBMs get during their negotiations with drug manufacturers, are being used to inflate PBMs’ already massive profits.

Patients need our lawmakers in Washington to take the threat PBMs pose more seriously. Congress must pass PBM reform that limits PBMs’ control over patients and helps ensure that more of us can benefit from the rebates and savings currently being used to boost PBM profits. Hopefully, Senator Cassidy, Senator Kennedy, and Leader Scalise can help ensure that happens this year.

Caleb Seals 

OPINION: Biden’s Cancer Moonshot is Laudable

President Joe Biden’s recent visit to New Orleans highlighted his Cancer Moonshot initiative which aims to cut cancer death rates in half by 2047.  

The President’s goal is laudable, but meeting it will require greater leadership from this Administration and the next one in embracing new strategies to further reduce cigarette smoking, which is still responsible for nine out of 10 of all lung cancer deaths. 

First, the Administration must act to clear the current backlog of millions of reduced-risk, smoke-free products awaiting authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  

Second, the Administration’s health experts must do a better job of communicating with the public and medical professionals about the misperceptions surrounding these products, which have been scientifically shown to be a significantly better option than combustible cigarettes.

The good news is that youth smoking is at an all-time low and cigarette smoking among adults has declined substantially over the past twenty years. One reason for this decline is the availability of tobacco harm reduction products, such as pouches and other smoke-free alternatives. The government should be making it easier, not more difficult, for smokers to access these products. 

If President Biden and his successor are serious about their cancer moonshot, these small steps would represent a giant leap in the right direction. 

Lu Jones, RN

BAYHAM: Paying for the Consequences But Not The Cause

Written by State Representative Mike Bayham - District 103

Louisiana has one of the highest rates of obesity in the U.S., affecting every age group, including people over age sixty-five.  But in Medicare, where seniors and disabled people in Louisiana get their healthcare, people don’t have coverage for weight loss medications. Medicare is prohibited from offering medicine for weight loss for people with obesity, a contributing cause of the costliest and most debilitating conditions in the U.S., but freely spends on the consequences of those diseases, including expensive hospitalizations and surgeries. But some of these costs and consequences fall back on the state of Louisiana. 

Obesity elevates the risk and cost of having diabetes, heart disease, bone and joint issues, and cancer.  The federal government, by choosing not to cover medicines that could help people with obesity lose weight, puts the consequences of the condition untreated on the taxpayers. These consequences included earlier entry into nursing homes for people with obesity, which falls back on states in Medicaid. Not providing coverage for safe and effective treatment for obesity in Medicare not only shortchanges seniors and disabled people who use Medicare, but it is also unfair to the states who bear consequences of untreated obesity. Future generations have a chance at setting the health system on a more solvent path, if the federal policymakers would make the right decision to help seniors lose weight in Medicare. 

The prohibition on coverage for obesity treatment in Medicare was established twenty years ago when there were limited treatment options. There are now six FDA-approved medicines to help people lose weight.  The exclusion of weight loss in Medicare is outdated. However, removing that exclusion depends largely on the perception and estimates of the cost to the federal government. But, the costs of untreated obesity are not counted by federal policymakers, such as nursing home costs, which fall back on the state of Louisiana as people with obesity are far more likely not to enter a nursing home. Nor does the federal government bear the cost of informal caregivers, like the families in Louisiana who help take care of their older relatives with obesity and its impact on health.  

Heart Disease, Stroke, cancer, and diabetes are the top four costliest conditions to treat in the U.S., all four have obesity as a risk factor. Obesity follows those four as the fifth costliest condition to treat in the U.S. Obesity affects 48% of people in Louisiana. The costs for seniors with obesity fall not just to the federal government in the Medicare program. For example, healthcare workers who care for people with obesity have higher rates of injury, those injuries take people out of their important work in hospitals and doctors’ offices.  Denying an opportunity for seniors and disabled people to be treated for obesity with medicine for weight loss sets up an untenable financial situation where Medicare costs are continuing to grow, and the people paying for Medicare are seeing a growing share of their tax dollars contributing to the cost of preventable diseases and states like Louisiana bear many of the cost and consequences.  

The federal government accountants and actuaries who forecast view these medicines as a cost, not an investment in health that pays off with better health and less burden on state Medicaid. They consistently over-forecast the costs in Medicare relative to what actually happens in the market, particularly for medicines. Moreover, the federal government actuaries do not fully consider the costs back to the states as Medicaid takes on the cost of nursing home care, not Medicare. So, the assumption is treatment for obesity will be costly to the federal government, even if it may pay off for the country, and taxpayers continue to pay for the consequences of obesity on health, with is particularly serious with high rates of obesity in Louisiana.  However, providing treatment for weight loss for people with obesity, is a path to a more solvent and sustainable health system for the federal government and for Louisiana.   

People with obesity are more likely to describe their health status as poor, and as the rate of obesity increases, so does the likelihood that a person reports poor health status. If the trajectory of obesity growth is reversed, this could have a significant positive impact on cost of healthcare and well-being in Louisiana. Helping seniors lose weight is an opportunity to improve their health, and that means they live not just longer but also better;  that is good for the federal government as well as the states. 

Richard Burr: Insurance coverage for obesity allows patients to benefit from science

We are living in a time of tremendous health care innovation - from the use of generative AI to precision medicine. Treatments are being developed that meaningfully change the trajectory of life-altering or threatening diseases, including curative gene therapies.

But science only goes so far. Policymakers, governments and health insurance companies should keep pace with scientific advancement so Americans can afford these innovative treatments as they become available.
Read more: Richard Burr: Insurance coverage for obesity allows patients to benefit from science

OPINION: Congress Should Work with FDA on Smoke-Free Alternatives

Though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating tobacco products, the agency is floundering when it comes to building a larger market of smoke-free alternatives. As a former smoker, I believe it’s time for Congress to step in and ensure the FDA is fulfilling its mission to support the “development of innovative tobacco products that may be less dangerous than cigarettes.”

Despite a federal law that mandates the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) to review and decide on pre-market tobacco product applications (PMTAs) within 180 days, this process can take years. Since 2009, the CTP has authorized fewer than 50 applications out of the 26 million it has received. In the meantime, thousands of lives are being lost as innovative, smoke-free products continue to get stuck in this regulatory quagmire.

The FDA and CTP both need to establish a more predictable and transparent regulatory process to support the advancement of less harmful tobacco alternatives. Many companies are investing millions of dollars into their products and the FDA’s regulatory process, only to be left in the dark about if or when any of these innovative products will get authorized. All this does is hamper innovation and slow the introduction of smoke-free alternatives that promote public health.

Congress should work with the FDA to update the agency’s internal processes to expedite the introduction of new, smoke-free alternatives—and Senator Cassidy and Rep. Letlow should help lead the charge.

Don Willard
Concordia Parish

HEALTH FREEDOM LOUISIANA: Now That Louisiana Has Acted Decisively Against the World Health Organization, Our Congressional Delegates Must Act!

Finally! 

What began over a year ago, finally came to fruition on Wednesday, May 15, 2024, when the Louisiana House of Representatives voted 69-22 to restrict the authority of the World Health Organization, along with the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, within the state including all state agencies.  More importantly, the legislation prohibits the state from enforcing or implementing any of these international organizations’ rules, regulations, fees, taxes, policies, or mandates. While not the first state to recognize the threat to sovereignty international organizations may hold, Louisiana is the first to restrict the state from acting on their mandates, thus acknowledging the imminent threat these international organizations, which are heavily influenced by dark money and foreign interests, pose to the safety, security, and economic stability of the state and its residents.

Now that the Louisiana Legislature has acted so decisively with the passage of SB133 by Senator Pressly, and as the votes on the WHO pandemic treaty and IHR amendments are only days away, join us in requesting that all members of the Louisiana Congressional Delegation sign on to Congressman Andy Biggs’ H.R. 79, the WHO Withdrawal Act.  This federal legislation directs the President to withdraw the United States from the WHO and removes all funding from the organization. 

Currently, the only members of the Louisiana Congressional Delegation to have signed on to this legislation are Speaker Mike Johnson and Congressman Clay Higgins which leaves U.S. Representatives Troy Carter, Garret Graves, Julia Letlow, and Steve Scalise who have not addressed this imposing threat. 

Contact your member of Congress and urge them to sign on to H.R. 79, the WHO Withdrawal Act, and ask them to stand with all Louisianans and against the World Health Organization.

OPINION: Support the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act

Photo source: IDEA Health and Fitness Association

As a resident of a rural community in Louisiana, I urge our lawmakers to support the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) to address the alarming health disparities between rural and urban areas highlighted in the recent study you cited. The findings revealed a 43 percent higher natural-cause mortality (NCM) rate among prime working-age individuals in rural areas compared to urban regions, thus demanding immediate action on all healthcare fronts.

For too long, rural communities have faced limited access to healthcare services and resources, exacerbating health issues like obesity. TROA presents a crucial opportunity to tackle this epidemic by expanding access to evidence-based obesity treatment options, including medical nutrition therapy and prescription drugs.

The widening gap in NCM rates underscores the urgency of addressing underlying health conditions prevalent in rural areas, including obesity-related illnesses like heart disease and diabetes. By supporting TROA, our legislators can help bridge this gap for the nearly 30% of Louisiana residents who live in rural areas.

It's time to prioritize the health and well-being of all Americans, regardless of their population density. Louisiana citizens need to urge Senator Cassidy and Senator Kennedy to support the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act! 

Sincerely,

Lu Jones, RN
Ouachita Parish, LA

Medicare coverage of weight loss drugs could save the U.S. billions of dollars

Photo source: Stat

The latest weight loss drugs are good. Really good. They can save lives and could literally remake American health. But rather than celebrate, we’re having a political conversation that is all about price controls. Oscar Wilde’s warning is timely: Beware the fool who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

We and several of our colleagues have studied the new weight loss drugs, known as GLP-1s, like Wegovy (semaglutide) and Zepbound (tirzepatide), and modeled their impact. They represent huge value in treating obesity. More than 40% of adults in the U.S. have obesity; another one-third are overweight. An estimated 300,000 Americans die from obesity-related conditions each year.

Read more: Medicare coverage of weight loss drugs could save the U.S. billions of dollars

LTE: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Needed

Dear Editor,

Living with high blood pressure is no picnic, especially when insurance companies and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) seem to make it their jobs to make it harder for patients to access and afford the doctor-prescribed medications we need to stay healthy. It’s disappointing that Congress can’t seem to get it together to reform PBM practices that seem to only exist to boost profits while chipping away at access and driving up out-of-pocket prescription costs. 

The fact that Congress couldn’t pass much-needed, bipartisan PBM reform legislation like the Delinking Revenue from Unfair Gouging (DRUG) Act last year despite growing calls from both parties to address this issue just makes the situation all the more frustrating. PBM policies like prior authorization, step therapy, and pharmacy steering all create unnecessary obstacles that can delay or deny access to life-saving drugs and treatments for patients. 

These policies only serve to maximize PBM profits, regardless of how they might hurt patients. That is not how our healthcare system should work, and PBM policies should not put profits over patients. As a patient whose health and well-being rely on prescription drug access, I hope Senators Kennedy and Cassidy will push their colleagues—Democrat and Republican alike—to make PBM reform the priority it deserves to be in Congress. 

George Pipher
Gretna, LA

OPINION: Protect Funding of Medicare Advantage

Dear Editor, 

Enrolling in a Medicare Advantage plan empowered me to take charge of my life and prioritize my health and well-being. With this program, I can finally afford the health services that enable me to feel healthy and embrace a fulfilled lifestyle. So, when I heard there could be cuts to the program, I was left speechless.   

When I initially retired, I enrolled in a fee-for-service Medicare plan. Unfortunately, I soon realized I couldn't afford my essential prescription drugs and doctor's appointments through this health plan. That's when I decided to try Medicare Advantage, and now I always feel confident that my health care costs will remain within my budget. Under this health plan, I get comprehensive prescription coverage, ensuring I can access all my necessary medications. With this coverage, I know I can always afford the care that supports my daily life, which is extremely comforting. Medicare Advantage also caps my out-of-pocket costs, offering reassurance that no matter what happens down the line, my financial situation won't stand in the way of my access to essential care.   

Despite being a lifeline for many, there could be cuts to the program that might affect our access to care. I urge Louisiana's leaders to protect the funding of Medicare Advantage so that people like me can continue to receive the quality care we deserve. 

Best, 
Melanie Evans
New Orleans, Louisiana

Redlining America’s girth: New medicines help battle obesity

Believe it or not, and despite what you’re hearing, when it comes to addressing the American epidemic of obesity, there is no magic pill. The good news, however, is that for the first time, there are new medicines that seem to be magic — because they work.

The new group of medicines called GLP-1 receptor agonists are headline news. Why? Because they are more effective than any previous class of drugs in getting patients to lose weight and, equally important (and in combination with diet and exercise), keep it off. Initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration for patients with diabetes, they have become so popular among people who want to lose weight that the companies that manufacture them can’t keep up with demand.

And many insurance providers (most notably Uncle Sam) are worried that helping America successfully combat obesity will break the national health care piggy bank. Nothing could be more incorrect and shortsighted. Let’s make one thing crystal clear — helping America slim down must be a national priority lest we allow obesity and the diseases that often come with it (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and some cancers, to name a few) to bury us both financially and literally.

Read more: Redlining America’s girth: New medicines help battle obesity

OPINION: Oversight and Accountability over Pharmacy Benefit Managers

Photo source: AlphaSense

As a pharmacist, I have extensive experience working with the healthcare insurance industry. Sadly, I’m also aware of the often-negative impact that policies insurers and their Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) enforce can have on patients who are simply trying to fill prescriptions at their local pharmacy. In my opinion, Congress needs to step in and do something to ensure PBM practices do not threaten access or innovation that can help improve the lives of patients.

Unfortunately, PBMs use their immense power over the prescription drug marketplace to benefit themselves. Through access-restricting policies like prior authorization and pharmacy steering, these groups are able to dictate precisely when and where patients can access their vital prescription medications, therapies, and treatments. PBMs also withhold valuable prescription drug discounts and rebates to boost their bottom line rather than passing those savings down to patients to help reduce their out-of-pocket cost burdens.

This kind of behavior is quite frankly unconscionable and has no place in our healthcare system. Representative Letlow and the rest of our state’s congressional delegation should push for sensible PBM reform that protects patients and ensures they have access to the most state-of-the-art care available. They can do that by passing the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act.

This bipartisan legislation would help introduce some much-needed oversight and accountability over PBM practices, improving access and reducing out-of-pocket expenses that make it harder to afford the prescriptions millions of Americans need. Congress needs to pass this legislation immediately.

Kathy Willard

Can Ozempic be the Solution to Fighting Obesity and Reducing National Debt?

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Could helping fight obesity make a difference in reducing the national deficit?

One GOP congressman, Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona, says it could — so he wants to see drugs that help people lose weight become more accessible.

Ozempic, Wegovy and other “GLP-1 receptor agonists,” as they are called, have exploded in popularity in the United States. While Ozempic, perhaps the most popular, was created to help those with Type 2 diabetes lower their blood sugar, some doctors have prescribed it off-label to assist in weight loss. Medical experts, though, have warned against using these drugs for what they’re prescribed for.

The argument Schweikert has been making is that the Joint Economic Committee expects the U.S. to spend trillions of dollars on treating obesity-related illnesses such as heart attack, stroke, diabetes and even certain forms of cancer.

By curbing obesity, he says, the U.S. could use this money to make meaningful cuts to its debt and deficit over the next 10 years.

In addition, helping people shed the pounds can help put money back into the economy, Schweikert argues. Business Insider, for example, reports that airlines are saying they could save money on fuel with lighter passengers.

However, Schweikert told NewsNation’s Joe Khalil in an interview that it has been hard to attempt to tackle this issue because there’s such a stigma around obesity. While Schweiker acknowledges that what he’s saying could offend those who struggle with the condition, he insists we have to get past that.

“Once you actually start to see the potential positives here, the hell with the theater of people’s feelings,” Schweikert said. “In some ways, it’s ‘We love, we care, and we’re gonna try to make people’s lives better.'”

Source: Fighting obesity with Ozempic could cut national debt: GOP Rep.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Thanks to Sen. Cassidy for Supporting the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act

Dear Editor,

I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to Senator Cassidy for his dedicated efforts to improve healthcare in our nation. The introduction of the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) is a commendable step forward in addressing the issue of obesity in our country.

If the TROA becomes law, it could lead to positive changes in our healthcare policy. By passing this bill, Congress would update old rules that currently prevent Medicare from covering specific treatments for obesity. Additionally, it would make it easier for individuals to access therapy aimed at helping with obesity. This bill has the potential to contribute significantly to our fight against obesity, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for many Americans. Moreover, it has the capacity to improve the overall functioning of our healthcare system.

Senator Cassidy's support for the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act is huge for this effort. As a doctor and the top republican on the Senate HELP committee, he has a chance to bring this bill to the forefront of Congressional attention. 

TROA has the potential to make a substantial difference in the lives of countless Americans who are grappling with obesity. By not only improving access to healthcare but also potentially preventing avoidable deaths and promoting better well-being, this legislation represents a positive step forward.

Thank you again to Senator Cassidy for his commitment to addressing this crucial issue. Should the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act come to fruition, it holds the promise of positively impacting families and individuals on a wide scale. Senator Cassidy's leadership in championing the revival of this law is poised to leave a lasting legacy of enhanced health and well-being for numerous Americans.

Thanks to Dr. Cassidy for his dedication to a healthier future!

Sincerely,

Shayne Benedetto

Kennedy in the Washington Examiner: Insulin price caps will save taxpayer dollars

MADISONVILLE, La. – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) wrote this op-ed in the Washington Examiner urging his colleagues in Washington to join his effort to reduce federal spending on health care by capping the price of insulin. Kennedy explains how making insulin affordable will improve the overall health of Americans with diabetes. This care helps them avoid the costly hospital visits and health complications that often fall to the taxpayer to cover.

Earlier this year, Sen. Kennedy joined Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) in introducing the Affordable Insulin Now Act of 2023, a bill which would ensure that all Americans, including those without insurance, have access to insulin that costs $35 per month or less.

Key excerpts of the op-ed are below:

“More than one in 10 Americans live with diabetes, and many of them cannot afford the insulin they need to stay out of the emergency room.

“For years now, Congress has nibbled around the edges of insulin affordability rather than addressing the issue directly. This failure to act results in needless suffering and financial stress for families living with diabetes, and it saddles the American taxpayer with billions of dollars in related healthcare spending.”

. . .

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that Americans spend $327 billion annually to cover healthcare expenses and lost wages related to diabetic care. Louisiana alone spends an estimated $5.7 billion on care related to diabetes each year.”

. . .

“This bill would ensure that all Americans, including those without insurance, have access to a 30-day supply of insulin that costs no more than $35.

“This plan isn’t one of Washington’s out-of-control spending policies. Any costs associated with capping insulin prices will be fully offset by cutting spending elsewhere in our $6 trillion annual federal budget. More importantly, improving access to affordable insulin can lower federal healthcare spending overall. That means we’re taking a big burden off both diabetics and taxpayers.”

. . .

“We cap the price of insulin at $35 per month today, and we can save thousands of dollars—if not tens of thousands of dollars—per patient in avoided hospital expenses. You don’t need to work on Wall Street to appreciate this return on investment.

“Without adding a penny to the federal budget, Congress can make it affordable for every American to get the insulin they need to stay healthy, go to work, care for their children, contribute to the economy and their community, and avoid costly emergency room visits that end up costing American taxpayers.”

Read the full op-ed here.

Kennedy: We can lower cost of insulin without adding to federal budget

“We need to be smart enough to figure this out. And the cost? I think it can be done for $250 million a year, and I'm not talking about taking out a reverse mortgage on Alaska and borrowing more money. I'm talking about finding it in our budget.”

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today questioned witnesses in the Senate Appropriations Committee on the bipartisan Affordable Insulin Now Act of 2023, which he and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) introduced this March. Their bill would cap the price of insulin for all patients, including those who are uninsured, at $35 for a 30-day supply.

Key moments from the committee exchange include:

“We need to stop nibbling around the edges. We need to be smart enough to figure this out. And the cost? I think it can be done for $250 million a year, and I'm not talking about taking out a reverse mortgage on Alaska and borrowing more money. I'm talking about finding it in our budget,” said Kennedy.

 “The federal budget is 6,000 billion dollars every year—and we can’t find $250 million to cap the price of insulin? Let's do it right,” Kennedy concluded.

 Background on the Affordable Insulin Now Act:

 More than 14 percent of Louisiana’s adult population has been diagnosed with diabetes, and more than 30 percent of adult Louisianians are pre-diabetic.

 Louisiana alone spends an estimated $5.7 billion a year on direct medical expenses for those who are diagnosed with diabetes. By ensuring that insulin is affordable, the long-term cost of care for patients will decrease over time as more Americans are able to prevent complications including heart disease, kidney disease, strokes and other diagnoses.

 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, medical costs and lost work and wages for people with diagnosed diabetes total $327 billion yearly, and the American Diabetes Association has asserted that diabetics account for $1 of every $4 spent on health care in the U.S.

 A national study projected that improving access to insulin for uninsured patients could help avoid complications of diabetes and deaths related to the disease. As a result, the health care system could save substantial amounts of money on providing care to uninsured diabetes patients.

 The Affordable Insulin Now Act of 2023 would:

•  Require private group or individual plans to cover one of each insulin dosage form (i.e., vial, pen) and insulin type (i.e., rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting) for no more than $35 per month.

•  Require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a program to reimburse qualifying entities for covering any costs that exceed $35 for providing a 30-day supply of insulin to uninsured patients.

• Be fully paid for by an offset and not add to the federal deficit.

Kennedy’s efforts to save taxpayer money by defraying insulin costs include:

• In August 2022, Kennedy introduced an amendment to President Biden’s inflation reduction Act to cap insulin costs.

• In June 2022, Kennedy penned an op-ed outlining the benefits of making insulin affordable for diabetic Louisianians.

• In September 2021, Kennedy introduced the Seniors Saving on Insulin Act and the Vital Medication Affordability Act in an effort to make insulin and epinephrine more affordable.

• In August 2021, Kennedy introduced the Ending Pricey Insulin Act to address skyrocketing insulin prices.   

Support HB 548 (Rep. Blake Miguez with Iberia Medical Center)

In this video, Rep. Blake Miguez describes the importance of protecting 340B funding for rural healthcare access in his community with examples of local services that are made possible at Iberia Medical Center with this funding. “Big PhRMA’s attempt to eliminate these discounts would endanger lifesaving access in our community and potentially increase costs for local and state taxpayers,” said Rep. Miguez. “I support HB 548, which protects Louisiana’s healthcare providers so our friends and neighbors can receive lifesaving care close to home.”

LA Policy Review: Medicare Advantage is the GOOD Policy Our Seniors Deserve

Good policy is a measure that serves the needs of a large group of individuals. Here in Louisiana, nearly 460,000 individuals—over half the state’s Medicare eligible population—join over 30 million people around the country in enjoying Medicare Advantage. With 95% of seniors satisfied with their coverage, Medicare Advantage is the good policy they are looking for to access quality and affordable health care. That is why we at the Louisiana Policy Review are proud supporters of the program.

Medicare Advantage is a health care option for Americans 65 and older who are looking for more options in their health care. Medicare Advantage offers the same coverage as original Medicare, along with a series of additional benefits that provide enrollees with a more comprehensive experience. For many seniors, that includes expanded prescription drug coverage and a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. Benefits also include coverage for vision, dental, and hearing. This allows enrollees to enjoy a well-rounded approach to their health care.

An important aspect of Medicare Advantage plans is preventative care. Seniors enjoy this focus because it keeps them out of the hospital and at home with their families, living life the way that they want. Whether it is a preventative test or screening, Medicare Advantage plans are designed to keep seniors healthy and happy.

For people who live in rural areas, like certain populations in Louisiana, Medicare Advantage has a significant impact on their ability to receive high quality care. By providing choice in health care, Medicare Advantage supports rural health centers. More than 4 million rural Americans receive their health care coverage through Medicare Advantage and enjoy services such as telehealth.

The impact of Medicare Advantage is undeniable. However, in their recent advance rate notice, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed cutting funds for the program. The Biden Administration must do the right thing and reconsider these changes. The health care of our seniors is too important to risk.

JINDAL: Preserving Access to Rural Cardiac Care

Americans living in small rural communities take great pride in their hometowns. When it comes to their health care, America's 46 million rural residents want access to basic care within their own communities. Inflation, poor fiscal performance, and a lack of political leadership threaten that access. More than 500 U.S. hospitals are now at risk for closure, impeding access to care in many of these towns. The Biden administration's latest effort to save these hospitals forgoes a comprehensive strategy for a superficial solution that will result in less local care and worse outcomes for many communities.

On January 1, a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rule went into effect that allows a critical access hospital to convert to a "rural emergency hospital"—a new designation, defined as a facility which provides emergency and outpatient care, but must forgo inpatient care services and transfer patients within 24 hours to another hospital. This "catch-22" situation risks timely emergency services for rural patients and absolves state and local officials from fighting to preserve access to life-saving medical care.

Saving critical access hospitals that rural Americans depend on for time-sensitive cardiac or stroke care is key to keeping local economies strong and reducing the burden on overflowing metropolitan hospitals. Washington bureaucrats have yet to propose a comprehensive strategy to work with state and local leaders to engage with physicians to solve this problem.

Read more: Preserving Access to Rural Cardiac Care | Opinion

Hollis urges leaders not to allow optometrists at VA to perform surgeries

Eight years ago, I fought against House Bill 1065 in the Louisiana State Legislature - a bill that sought to authorize optometrists to perform eye surgery even though they are neither medical doctors nor trained surgeons. I argued that just as chiropractors do not perform surgery on bones and joints, optometrists should not be allowed to perform eye surgery.

I am disappointed to now learn the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs recently made changes signaling the consideration of new national standards that could allow optometrists in the VA network to perform surgeries on our nation's veterans.

This should not even be a conversation. 

Optometrists are not qualified to perform surgeries. The only medical doctors licensed and trained to perform eye surgeries are ophthalmologists.Ophthalmologists go through years of extensive training with clinical and surgical residencies. Surgical courses available to optometrists are optional and involve no actual procedures on live patients. Simply put, optometrists are neither qualified nor equipped to handle the intricacies of eye surgery.

Today, the Veteran Administration's policies allow only ophthalmologists to perform eye surgeries on veterans. This could change with the release of new national standards. This is completely unacceptable and puts our veterans at risk of receiving low-quality care and incurring the risk of severe complications.

Our veterans have earned the right to the highest quality of care from the VA and its providers. There are no substitutions for trained and qualified professionals, and our nation's warriors deserve the best.

I appreciate Senator Bill Cassidy's leadership on this issue and urge him, as a medical doctor and a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, to call upon the VA to maintain its long-standing policy of allowing only ophthalmologists to perform eye surgery on veterans. We must continue to give our heroes the quality of care they deserve.

Rep. Paul Hollis 

District 104

St. Tammany Parish