Search Results

April 18, 2025 (Washington, D.C.)  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease released the following statement on behalf of PFCD policy adviser and former Representative Larry Bucshon, MD, in response to the Trump Administration’s executive order: “With one signature, President Donald Trump potentially did more for U.S. health care than any another person in the Oval Office might in a year. The executive order he signed this week showed great pulse and clear direction on several issues influencing the quality and accessibility of patient care, many of which directly impact my older friends on Medicare. “As a cardiothoracic surgeon, I appreciate medicine’s power to improve health outcomes. I also recognize the many environmental and lifestyle factors that exist outside a medical facility. How closely patients adhere to their drug prescriptions at home is among those external factors. Small-molecule drugs— the pills, tablets, and capsules that occupy medicine cabinets— provide convenience and accessibility for patients and caregivers managing one or more chronic conditions, which is a significant part of our population. It is vital to protect these innovation pipelines. “Ending the pill penalty by aligning small molecules with biologics’ 13-year track until price control eligibility, as the President has suggested, would reinvigorate small molecule research and development. The President also rightly affirmed the importance of intellectual property rights to America’s health care ecosystem. “I also commend the President’s call for greater transparency. By confronting these challenges head-on, the President has charted a path that, in no uncertain terms, puts patients first.” ###

Successfully addressing the true cost drivers in health care requires policies that recognize the promise of small molecules and stop the perils of PBMs April 16, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) released the following statement in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order that, in part, called for fairness in the treatment of both small molecule medicines and biologics in the context of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: “PFCD emphasizes the significance of the Trump Administration’s most recent executive action, laying down a marker of support to address a critical imbalance created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and calling for congressional action to fix it.  As the President acknowledged, the so-called “pill penalty” serves as a significant deterrent for the development of the pills, tablets, patches, and other small molecule medicines on which almost anyone living with a chronic disease relies to improve their health. Amending the IRA to equalize the eligibility timeline for price-setting both small molecule and biologic medicines at 13 years is a critical step in improving overall health outcomes and quality of life for the millions of Americans living with one or more chronic conditions, while at the same time ensuring America remains at the forefront of medical innovation. PFCD remains committed to working with Congress and the Administration on these critical health care issues and calling for passage of the Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act, which would fix the pill penalty. “PFCD also commends the Trump Administration for its recognition of the role Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) play in raising the costs of prescription drugs for consumers, employers, and insurers, including Medicare. PBMs impede patient access to the medicines their health care providers recommend and put significant risk on medication adherence which is imperative for people living with chronic conditions. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Members of Congress to adopt PBM reforms that facilitate patient access, pharmacy choice, and lower costs for all stakeholders.” ###

PFCD Chair Ken Thorpe & the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) invites you to join us for this hybrid event focused on an array of issues related to prevention and treatment of costly chronic conditions. RSVP HERE Questions? Jennifer.Burke@fightchronicdisease.org

Their coexistence is not coincidental. New data application from a recent study further illuminates the relationship between the two major issues, revealing if every American living with obesity hypothetically reduced their body mass index (BMI) by 5%, the cumulative effect would save $68.1 billion in private health insurance spending annually and $21.7 billion in Medicare.   A 10% BMI reduction (i.e. a drop from 30 to 27 BMI; from 40 to 36 BMI, etc.) from every American with obesity, defined as having a 30 BMI or higher, would save $128.3 billion in private insurance and $41.6 billion in Medicare. A 25% BMI reduction annually saves $270 billion and $92.9 billion, respectively. Dr. Ken Thorpe, professor at Emory University and chairman of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, based these findings on figures from his December research study, Estimated Reduction in Health Care Spending Associated With Weight Loss Among Adults . VIDEO: Obe$ity in America: Making Cost Reduction a Reality That study, which used dollars from 2023, explored how lower health care spending is associated with a 5-25% BMI reduction. While BMI is considered an imperfect obesity marker, not accounting for such composition factors as muscle mass, the macro picture paints a clear image of how obesity and health care costs are intertwined. Obesity, itself categorized as a disease, is associated with various chronic diseases. “When reducing body weight and mass, you often reduce blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels,” Thorpe said. “You alleviate physical stress that can lead to severe complications, including a stroke or heart attack. If we had a different BMI distribution in adults, we would spend less on health care than we do today.” The findings inform a financial lens through which to view personal health. From gym and class memberships, athletic equipment to non-processed groceries, positively associated habits like exercise and nutrition carry a clear, initial financial cost. The same applies for FDA-approved GLP-1 drugs, as the weekly injections have been shown in randomized trials to reduce body mass and lower the likelihood for Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease, among other benefits. Such dollar signs stare at Americans in plain sight, influencing their daily decision-making. But there is a financial cost, too, for not preventing or mitigating obesity. As Thorpe’s research shows, it’s significant.

January 17, 2025 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) Today, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) released the following statement in response to the Biden Administration’s announcement of 15 new drugs selected for Medicare price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act:  "Tens of millions of Americans living with chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer, and high blood pressure rely on prescription drugs to manage their conditions and avert costly and life-threatening health emergencies. Improving access to medications to treat these conditions is critical, but government pricing has the opposite effect. We encourage the incoming Administration and new Congress to revisit the flawed program and pursue reforms that preserve access and promote innovation for people living with chronic disease.   “Each of the drugs CMS selected for pricing are small molecule medicines that are not only essential to the treatment of many chronic diseases but also are favored by seniors for their ease of use and accessibility. IRA provisions disadvantage these medicines in favor of medicines that require administration by a healthcare provider, which greatly hinders access in rural and other underserved areas. Patient advocates have repeatedly called for reforms like the bipartisan EPIC Act  to preserve access to small molecule medicines. CMS’s latest list makes the EPIC Act and other reforms even more urgent.  “CMS also continues to stretch its overly broad definition of “qualifying single source drug” to treat distinct products with different medical uses and subject to individual FDA approvals as a single selected drug. This action ignores clinical realities, the research and development efforts involved, and severely undermines the development of new products that address unmet medical needs.  “Despite concerns raised by patients and providers, CMS has refused to require protections for patient access including increased prior authorization requirements that risk patient health and burden providers. Along with significant premium increases and loss of Part D plan options, these flaws provide ample justification for the incoming Administration to delay implementation and allow time to revisit and reform the program.  "Moreover, government price setting policies are not addressing the true cost drivers in our health care system. Just this week, the Federal Trade Commission found that PBMs pocketed more than 7 billion dollars by inflating drug prices from 2017-2022 alone. Ignoring the role that insurers and pharmacy benefit managers play in increasing costs at the pharmacy counter isn’t going to deliver any savings to the people who need it.  "Currently, more than half of Medicare beneficiaries are managing three or more chronic conditions, and as Medicare enrollment continues to rise, so do the associated costs. Rather than attempting to curb these expenses with price controls, policymakers must work to better address the rise in chronic disease by elevating prevention and eliminating increasing barriers to care and treatment.  "There is great urgency to reform IRA policies that ignore the real needs of Medicare beneficiaries. Unresolved concerns over the significant harm to patient access and clear evidence of R&D funding shifting away from small molecule medicines highlight the immediate need to revisit and reform the IRA’s drug pricing program before allowing it to continue. PFCD stands ready to advance policies that realistically account for the true burden of chronic disease in our country and genuinely support effective chronic disease management aimed at better overall health outcomes in the U.S."

Modest weight loss among adults with obesity cuts health care spending by 15%, reduces costs across comorbidities December 5, 2024 (Washington, D.C.)  Obesity is quickly rising to the top of the list of chronic conditions in the U.S. with more than 40 percent of adults having obesity, with the highest prevalence seen among adults aged 40-59 years – prime working years. [1] Obesity also increases the risk of developing a host of other chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many cancers. Addressing obesity by promoting weight loss, accordingly, should reduce costs not only related to obesity but also these comorbid conditions. Recent research by Emory University Professor and Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD)  Chair Ken Thorpe published today in JAMA Network Open  – Estimated Reduction in Health Care Spending Associated With Weight Loss Among Adults – highlights the potential savings resulting from modest to moderate weight loss by adults with obesity, including savings by comorbid condition, represented by reduced health care spending among U.S. adults with employer-sponsored insurance or Medicare. Key findings from the research include: Economic Burden of Obesity : In 2023, obesity cost employers and employees $400 billion, with health care costs accounting for less than half that total. Obesity-related higher medical costs alone added $1,514 per person. [2] This new research shows that modest to moderate weight loss would significantly reduce those costs: For individuals with employer-sponsored insurance: A 5% weight loss reduced health care spending by $670 or 8% per person annually. A 25% weight loss reduced spending by $2,849 annually or 34%. For weight loss of 5-20%, individuals with the following comorbidities would realize the greatest reductions in annual health care spending: Obesity and diabetes - $1,840-$5,821 Obesity and arthritis - $1,917-$6,143 Obesity and chronic back problems - $1,422-$4,729 Medicare stands to save even more: A 5% weight loss reduced spending by $1,262 (7%) per person annually. A 25% weight loss reduced spending by $5,442 (31%) per person annually. Lifestyle Intervention Implications : Lifestyle programs that promote healthy eating and exercise coupled with evidence-based treatment interventions (e.g., bariatric surgery or novel weight-loss medications/GLP-1 agonists) are effective tools but may face coverage restrictions that limit access. Expanding access to evidence-based treatments for obesity could yield substantial health care savings. These findings highlight the significant potential for achievable weight loss among adults with obesity to reduce health care costs and the economic burden of disease, particularly for those living with multiple chronic conditions or high BMI levels. This is especially promising relative to last week’s proposal by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover anti-obesity medicines under Medicare Part D and Medicaid when used to treat obesity. If finalized, this broad new coverage would have a profound impact on the ability of Americans to access these novel medications that could significantly reduce obesity-related health care spending and improve overall health. “We must address obesity as the disease it is by focusing on prevention and treatment that empowers people to lose weight and maintain a healthy weight while improving their health. Reducing obesity lowers costs across several chronic conditions and should be a priority focus for employers, Medicare and other payors moving forward,” urged Thorpe.  For the full research and more information on efforts to address obesity: www.fightchronicdisease.org/obesity . https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241205473135/en/New-Analysis-Shows-Weight-Loss-Saves-Employers-and-Medicare-Health-Care-Costs [1]   https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db508.htm [2]   https://ehdinsurance.com/report-obesity-cost-employers-and-employees-ove...$1%2C514%20in%20higher%20medical%20costs,$2%2C427%20in%20higher%20presenteeism%20costs

American voters are willing to pay more to ensure access and want Congress to step in if Medicare continues restricting access to Alzheimer's treatments. WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESSWIRE / October 10, 2024 / More than four in five voters (82%) favor requiring Medicare and other insurance companies to cover early Alzheimer's treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- including 65% who strongly favor this policy even if it increases health insurance premiums -- according to a new poll conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies. Nearly three-fourths of voters (73%) would be willing to pay $5 more each month to make it happen. "Voters agree that Medicare beneficiaries should have access to these medicines," said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners. "At their core, Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike believe that people with Alzheimer's shouldn't be treated any differently from those with other diseases. Few other issues show these levels of consensus and urgency amongst voters." "The public also believes that it's wrong for Medicare to require that beneficiaries participate in clinical research as a condition of coverage for receiving these new Alzheimer's medicines," said Neil Newhouse, partner and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies. "It's remarkable that they're willing to pay more for insurance coverage if it helps expand access to novel therapies for people with Alzheimer's." The poll was commissioned by the  Alliance for Aging Research ,  UsAgainstAlzheimer's , and the  Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) .  Since April 2022, the Medicare program has required "coverage with evidence development" (CED) for all FDA-approved early Alzheimer's therapies. Under a CED, Medicare indiscriminately mandates that beneficiaries enroll in clinical studies for coverage of selected treatments, or else coverage will be denied. The program also imposes strict eligibility criteria on the health professionals and hospitals that can qualify to collect data and run the studies. The net effect is  only a small fraction of Medicare beneficiaries   have gotten access to the two current early Alzheimer's treatments available, Leqembi and Kisunla. No other FDA-approved drugs for on-label use in other diseases have been subject to CED. Other public and private payers have followed Medicare's lead, including TRICARE and Cigna. Several other private payers use complex guidelines to deter utilization.   The polling data shows voters - both Democrat and Republican - disagree with the CMS's restrictive policies: 92% of voters agree that Medicare should provide all beneficiaries access to FDA-approved Alzheimer's drugs, just as they do to FDA-approved drugs for all other diseases. 78% of voters strongly agree. 89% of voters agree that Medicare should immediately cover the costs of these FDA-approved Alzheimer's drugs. 77% strongly agree. 78% of voters agree that the government should not require patients to participate in medical research studies on any FDA-approved drug in order to get access to that drug. 65% strongly agree. 90% of voters agree that Medicare should cover all FDA-approved drugs and therapies for Alzheimer's disease and allow patients and their doctors to make decisions based on risks, benefits, and individual health needs. 77% strongly agree. 78% of voters agree that if Medicare does not act, Congress should step in to require that Medicare cover FDA-approved drugs and therapies that can slow the progression of early Alzheimer's disease. 65% strongly agree with congressional intervention. 58% of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for elected office if that candidate supported requiring Medicare to cover FDA-approved drugs and therapies that can slow the progression of early Alzheimer's disease. Just 3% of voters would be less likely to vote for them. "The American people get that Medicare is a payer, and it's their job to cover and pay for FDA-approved medications, not to dictate clinical care. Voters know that doctors and families with Alzheimer's are more than capable of making treatment decisions based on risks, benefits, and individual health needs-and they'll vote for candidates who promise to make sure that happens,"said Sue Peschin, president and CEO of the Alliance for Aging Research. "They don't like what Medicare has done to restrict access to Alzheimer's treatments, and they want Congress and the President to step in if the agency doesn't change its ways."  "More than half of all Americans know someone who is living with Alzheimer's or another form of dementia. This is a deeply personal issue for all Americans," said George Vradenburg, chairman and co-founder of UsAgainstAlzheimer's. "That's why people of all political persuasions are dismayed with Medicare's approach to Alzheimer's. This is the first time in history patients have had to jump through these tremendous hoops to gain Medicare access to FDA-approved drugs they need to live longer healthier lives. The American people clearly want Medicare to cover Alzheimer's medicines approved by FDA the same way cancer and other FDA-approved medicines are covered." "People stand for fairness in Medicare coverage and reject Medicare's policies that erect barriers to treatment," said Ken Thorpe, Chair of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. "The American people recognize the importance of quality time for patients and families navigating Alzheimer's and support policymakers who act to ensure access." ### For more information or to schedule an interview with a representative from any of the organizations named above, please contact John O'Connor at  john@keybridge.biz  or (202) 981-5042. About the Survey Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies designed and administered a phone survey of likely 2024 voters that was conducted August 26 to September 3, 2024, using professional telephone interviewers. A portion was also completed online, after part of the sample received a text to their cell phone with a link to complete the survey online. The survey reached a total of 1,400 likely 2024 voters nationwide which includes a base sample of 1,000 likely 2024 voters and oversamples of 100 Black voters, 100 Latino/a voters, and 200 voters across the following battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The oversamples were weighted down into the base sample to their proper proportions of the universe for a total sample size of 1,000. The margin of error is +/- 2.6%. About the Alliance for Aging Research The Alliance for Aging Research is the leading nonprofit organization in the U.S. dedicated to changing the narrative to achieve healthy aging and equitable access to care. The Alliance strives for a culture that embraces healthy aging as a greater good and values science and investments to advance dignity, independence, and equity. The Alliance believes advances in research help people live longer, happier, more productive lives and reduce healthcare costs over the long term. For more information, visit  agingresearch.org . About the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) is an internationally-recognized organization of patients, providers, community organizations, business and labor groups, and health policy experts committed to raising awareness of the number one cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs: chronic disease. For more information, visit  www.fightchronicdisease.org . About UsAgainstAlzheimer's UsAgainstAlzheimer's is engaged in a relentless pursuit to end Alzheimer's, the sixth leading killer in America. Our work centers on prevention, early detection and diagnosis, and access to treatments -- all regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. To achieve our mission, we give voice to patients and caregivers while partnering with government, scientists, the private sector, and allied organizations -- the people who put the "Us" in UsAgainstAlzheimer's. For more information, visit  UsAgainstAlzheimers.org .

September 13, 2024 (Washington, DC)  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD)  released the following statement upon delivery of a sign on letter to Congress  from more than 30 patient and consumer advocacy groups calling for support of the bipartisan Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act, HR 7174 : “The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has begun to impact medicine costs for beneficiaries, notably capping insulin costs at $35 per month for Medicare enrollees and setting a $2,000 annual limit on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs starting in 2025. While these measures provide significant savings, the IRA has unintended consequences, particularly in steering research funding away from certain types of drugs.   “In particular, the IRA enables Medicare to set prices for certain prescription drugs but sets different timelines for doing so: 13 years for biologics and only 9 years for small molecule drugs. This discrepancy discourages investment in small molecule medicines, which often come in pill form and are therefore more accessible and convenient for managing chronic conditions compared to biologics, which often require a physician to administer them. “The IRA's implementation is already affecting R&D decisions and investments to favor biologics over small molecules for many chronic diseases. This shift could harm patients who rely on the convenience of being able to take medicines at home. Small molecule medicines are also adept at crossing the blood-brain barrier, which allows them to be used in the treatment of neurological conditions such as epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, depression and other mental health conditions. “To correct this imbalance and improve the lives of the millions of individuals and families managing chronic conditions across the US, a bipartisan bill called the EPIC Act proposes equalizing the timeline for Medicare drug pricing at 13 years for both small molecules and biologics. This would encourage continued investment in small molecule drugs to address unmet medical needs and preserve access to the next generation of innovative medicines for patients.” For the full letter to Congress and more information on the value of small molecule medicines for millions of people living with chronic disease across the US: https://www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/EPIC-Act .

Case studies highlight peril to treatment advances across several disease states August 14, 2024 (WASHINGTON, DC) The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) today announced the release of a new data set that highlights critical risks posed to the development and delivery of new treatments and cures for patients living with lung and rare cancers, autoimmune and mental health conditions, stroke, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The analysis, conducted by Lumanity , explores the treatment advances that likely would have been lost had the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) been in place 10 years ago. By using real life examples of innovation losses, the extent of the unintended consequences of the IRA to some of our country’s most vulnerable patients is evident. “Advances in medicine help us manage our health, but poor policy choices lessen our ability to address unmet medical needs of people living with chronic disease. These case studies demonstrate in real terms the advances that stand to be lost without reforms to the IRA that disincentivize specific types of innovation,” stated PFCD Chair Ken Thorpe. “PFCD and our partners have long worked to support access and affordability for prescription medicines and to address rising costs by improving transparency, fixing flawed systems, and removing administrative obstacles.” The overarching takeaways from these case studies in innovation lost are the significance of post-approval research and how the IRA’s timeline for Medicare pricing disincentivizes research into areas of the greatest unmet medical needs for patients. The repercussions are especially acute for people living with autoimmune and rare diseases, mental illnesses, cardiovascular conditions and many cancers. Key findings include: One in five people treated for depression would have stopped taking their medicines because of side effects but for the development of second-generation anti-depressants. Of 80,000 people receiving a drug with indications for multiple rare cancers: 51,300 were treated for the cancer type with the largest indication and the remaining 28,000 had some other cancer. The IRA puts these individuals and treatments resulting from post-approval research at risk. Post-FDA approval research on diabetes proved a medication class’s positive effects that reduced the damage of diabetes on the heart and kidneys. Without that research, in a ten-year period the healthcare system would have incurred an addition of $7 billion for hemodialysis, and $1.3 billion for post-stroke treatment and rehabilitation. In addition, 14,000 deaths would be prevented. Without new medicines for early lung cancers, only half as many people with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) would be cancer free and alive five years after treatment. The full collection of fact sheets can be found at: www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/new-data-illustrate-human-impacts-fewer-treatments-IRA . For more information on the unintended consequences of the IRA and the resulting challenges posed to chronic disease patients, please visit: https://www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/ira

By Hannah Pfeiffer and Candace DeMatteis June 5, 2024 Boulder Daily Camera   A group of unelected state officials is pondering a decision with enormous consequences for thousands of Colorado patients battling chronic diseases. In 2021, Colorado established a Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) with the power to determine whether certain medications are affordable. If the PDAB deems a drug unaffordable, it can establish an upper payment limit — or price cap — limiting how much insurers can reimburse clinics and pharmacies for a particular medicine. This is already happening for medications that treat Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, arthritis and many other conditions. This might sound like a positive development for patients who struggle to afford necessary prescriptions. But a mounting body of evidence shows that the PDAB is unlikely to generate significant savings at the pharmacy counter, and could actually jeopardize Colorado patients’ access to cutting-edge therapies. A new report analyzing insurers’ perspectives on PDABs found that payment limits could make it harder for patients to access the medicines they need. For instance, if one drug in a therapeutic class is assigned a payment limit, health plans could direct patients toward that drug, even if they prefer to take a different drug in the class. The same report found that limiting how much insurers and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) reimburse pharmacies and clinics could have unintended consequences on patient access. There’s a risk this exact scenario could play out here in Colorado. Earlier this year, Colorado’s PDAB determined that one treatment for autoimmune diseases — including several types of arthritis and psoriasis — was unaffordable. Now, the board will determine whether, and at what level, to set the upper payment limit. If the board proceeds, it’ll be the first state-level drug payment cap in American history. The predictably devastating, and now insurer-validated, consequences the decision could have on patients’ health should concern us all. Lowering patient costs is an important goal. But medications must also still be available. With the distortions PDAB’s upper payment limit could introduce, access could suffer. Many pharmacies, clinics and hospitals might no longer be able to stock certain drugs because the PDAB cap on reimbursement will shrink their margins to almost nothing. They could even lose money on some drugs. Consider drugs that must be administered under the supervision of a physician, or ones that must be delivered through a specialty pharmacy. The providers purchase the drugs directly and are reimbursed for them by insurers. If the PDAB sets the state’s upper payment limit far below the cost of acquisition, those providers may stop providing those medicines to patients altogether. While well-resourced clinics and specialty pharmacies in affluent areas may be able to absorb some loss, rural clinics and facilities in underserved communities may not. Many of them are barely able to keep their doors open right now. The impact on Black and Latino populations could be severe. A Health Affairs study noted that there were far more “pharmacy deserts” in Black or Latino neighborhoods than in White or mixed-race communities. In fact, Black patients spend an average of ten minutes longer traveling for health care needs than their white counterparts. The impacts of upper payment limit implementation will only exacerbate existing access challenges, while doing little to save patients money or improve health outcomes. Payment limits could even affect patients who don’t currently take the medicine in question. That’s because insurers and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) will inevitably try to steer patients toward the medicines with the largest profit margins. For instance, insurers and PBMs may require doctors and patients to obtain “prior authorization” before agreeing to pay for a medicine — but erect no such barriers for a competing drug with an upper payment limit. Similarly, if one drug in a therapeutic class is assigned an upper payment limit, health plans could force patients to try that drug first, even if a patient’s doctor recommends a different treatment in the same class. These policies aren’t just a headache. They have real-world consequences on health. It’s well documented that switching stable patients from one drug to another can harm patients’ health since different drugs affect people differently. This is especially true for people managing multiple chronic conditions who have to avoid interactions between different medications. In essence, doctors’ clinical judgment will take a back seat to health plans’ financial considerations. Colorado’s PDAB is playing with fire — but it’s Colorado patients living with serious chronic illnesses who will get burned. Hannah Pfeiffer is a cystic fibrosis patient and advocate living in Parker, Colorado. Candace DeMatteis, JD, MPH is the Policy Director for the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease.

April 2, 2024 (Washington, DC)  Today the  Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD)  released a new white paper, “ Health Plans Predict: Implementing Upper Payment Limits May Alter Formularies and Benefit Design But Won’t Reduce Patient Costs ,” which details feedback from executives of six different health plans insuring nearly seven million lives with direct prescription drug affordability board (PDAB) implementation experience. The findings in the paper resulted from in-depth interviews conducted by Avalere. Two of the six health plans have direct experience in Colorado.   Along with several stakeholders across patient communities, PFCD is working to elevate concerns about the potential negative impact PDABs will have on people living with chronic diseases and their access to medications. While proponents of PDABs claim they will lower costs and improve access to medicines for patients, this research demonstrates that even insurers are dubious about those claims. The Colorado PDAB is tasked with setting an upper payment limit (UPL) for drugs it deems “unaffordable” in the state. A UPL affects insurers and PBMs directly, not patients.  Insurers, PBMs and other payers, in turn, will continue to make the decisions about what patients pay out-of-pocket and any conditions patients must meet for coverage like requiring step therapy or prior authorization. The white paper presents payer reactions to UPLs and anticipated shifts in plan benefit design, and importantly, how these changes will impact patient access and costs. The paper also notes insurer perspectives on how providers who purchase medicines, including physicians who buy and administer drugs, will be affected given the financial risks of spending more on a medicine than a UPL will allow them to be reimbursed. Insurers confirm what patient advocates fear: UPLs will not lower patient costs and will increase barriers to access. The white paper includes insurer feedback related to the impact on plan benefit design, patient cost sharing, provider reimbursement, and contracting and reimbursement changes due to a UPL. The paper also includes several recommendations for ways to lower costs for people living with chronic illness and assuring greater transparency and patient advocate participation in the PDAB consideration processes. “Having health plans confirm that patients are likely to experience greater barriers to access across classes of medicines and will not see lower premiums or other out-of-pocket costs is a clear red flag related to PDAB efforts,” stated PFCD Chair Ken Thorpe. “While many share the goal of lowering patient costs for drugs, accomplishing it must focus directly on costs to the patient, not the payer. Comprehensive and sustainable solutions that facilitate patient access to recommended care would improve health outcomes and lower the burden of illness for patients and the system overall.” For more information please visit, www.fightchronicdisease.org .

February 1, 2024 (Washington, D.C.)  Today the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) applauded Representatives Greg Murphy (R-NC), Don Davis (D-NC), and Brett Guthrie (R-KY) for their leadership in support of millions of Americans living with chronic disease and the introduction of the Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act ( H.R. 7174 ). Unintended consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) arise from the discrepancy in price-setting timelines between small molecule drugs and biologics. Recently, twenty healthcare groups signed onto a  letter voicing their support for responsive legislation, like the EPIC Act, to reverse this disincentive and implement the same 13 years post-FDA approval timeline for biologics and small molecule medicines alike under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. The bipartisan introduction of legislation to address the small molecule penalty is a critical step forward in protecting access to prescribed medicines for older adults and people with disabilities. Among U.S. adults aged 65 and older, 87.5 percent take at least one prescription medicine a month.  Almost 40 percent of these adults take more than five. [1] Small molecule drugs often come in simple to use forms, like pills, tables, and patches. These medicines allow greater independence and quality of life, two important benefits that extend beyond the patient and onto caregivers as well. “Access to small molecule drugs is crucial for underserved populations, including those in rural areas, and supports health equity. The IRA's shortened timeline for small molecule drug pricing will not only result in serious consequences for Medicare beneficiaries in the present and future but will also exacerbate access barriers to new treatments and further health disparities,” said PFCD Chair Ken Thorpe. “We stand ready to support Reps. Murphy, Davis and Guthrie in raising awareness of this important healthcare issue, rallying their colleagues and advancing the EPIC Act into law.” ###

Findings Published in Health Affairs Forefront Precedent-setting policies to restrict access to accelerated approval drugs do not reduce health care spending but rather harm America’s most vulnerable patients   June 3, 2022 (WASHINGTON, D.C.)  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD)  today released, “ Quantifying Impact of Accelerated Approval Drugs on Medicaid Spending: An Update through 2020 and State-Level Analysis ,” an updated and enhanced economic analysis examining the impact of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) accelerated approval pathway on Medicaid spending. The findings were simultaneously published in a Health Affairs Forefront  commentary titled " Accelerated Approval Drugs are Not Driving Medicaid Spending .” Authored by Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, Chair of PFCD and of the Department of Health Policy & Management for the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, the analysis found that drugs approved through the accelerated approval pathway accounted for less than one percent of annual Medicaid spending year-over-year between 2007 and 2020, on both the national and state level. The key findings of the report include:  From 2007 to 2020, accelerated approval medicines accounted for well under one percent  of total Medicaid spending, not including drug rebates. At the national level, spending on accelerated approval drugs also accounted for just 0.5% of overall growth in national Medicaid spending between 2007 and 2020. Hospital spending (30%) and physician and clinical services (15.4%) were the primary drivers of growth.  After accounting for drug rebates, retail prescription drugs accounted for 5.0% of growth. Accelerated approval drugs accounted for less than 1% of the growth in Medicaid spending in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Only Alabama (1.3%) and South Dakota (2.1%) were slightly higher. In states requesting Medicaid waivers due to cost concerns, 2020 spending data shows accelerated approval drug spend is miniscule - Massachusetts (0.1%), Tennessee (0.4%) and Oregon (0.1%).  The Health Affairs Forefront commentary , coauthored by Thorpe and Thomas Johnson, Principal, Johnson Health Ventures, and former CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, explores the findings through the lens of the ongoing debate about the pathway and its potential health equity implications. “The accelerated approval pathway delivers breakthrough treatments to millions of patients and families who are facing serious diseases with no options. In addition, the pathway has spurred invaluable research and development efforts in many fatal cancers and rare diseases, like sickle cell disease,” stated Thomas Johnson. “To compromise access to these treatments for Americans with Medicaid health coverage is bordering on unethical.” Misunderstanding and misperceptions about accelerated approval have contributed to several recent and concerning proposals to alter the pathway itself and restrict coverage of accelerated approval drugs in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For example, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) recommended to Congress that manufacturer rebates be increased for certain drugs approved through the pathway. Similarly, several states, including Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee, requested the ability to waive their federal requirement to cover accelerated approval medicines for patients reliant on Medicaid, often citing cost concerns. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) recent National Coverage Determination for a new class of Alzheimer’s treatments, singles out those relying on the accelerated approval pathway for differential, restrictive coverage treatment .  “The accelerated approval pathway has become a red herring in the debate over drug prices. Given the tremendous impact of accelerated approval drugs on patients’ lives and the minimal impact found on Medicaid budgets, efforts to deny patients access to these therapies should be considered baseless, discriminatory, and counter-productive,” said Kenneth Thorpe. “Chronically ill patients with life-threatening diseases have no time to waste. That’s precisely why the FDA originally established the accelerated approval pathway, and it has worked as intended for 30 years, giving patients and their families faster access to safe and effective treatments where none previously existed.” The report  released today and the Health Affairs Forefront commentary build on the original analysis by Thorpe and the data-driven commentary co-authored by Thorpe and American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin published in the American Journal of Managed Care in March 2021. Today’s update incorporates the latest available national spending data and adds a state-by-state analysis. For the full analysis and related resources, please visit: https://www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/accelerated-approval About the Accelerated Approval Pathway   Since 1992, the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway has delivered more than 270 treatments to patients with life-threatening diseases who previously had limited or no treatment options.  The pathway was created to address unmet medical needs of people living with HIV/AIDS and over time extended it to include cancer treatments. In 2012, Congress modernized and enhanced the pathway to expand its use for rare diseases. The pathway employs the same rigorous standard for evaluating safety and efficacy as FDA’s traditional approval. Under accelerated approval drugs are approved based on a surrogate endpoint — a metric for which the evidence demonstrates is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit – with a post-marketing confirmatory study requirement to verify the predicted clinical benefit. Accelerated approval is one of several FDA expedited approval programs. To learn more about the pathway and the patients who have been helped by accelerated approval treatments, please visit: https://www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/accelerated-approval   ### https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220603005266/en/New-Analysis-Fi ...

CMS decision harms current and future treatment options for Alzheimer's and other chronic disease populations April 8, 2022 (Washington, D.C.) The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) released the following statement from Chair Ken Thorpe regarding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Coverage Determination requiring Coverage with Evidence Development (NCD) for monoclonal antibodies (mABs) targeting amyloid for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.  “We have serious concerns about how the NCD severely limits access to an entire category of new treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and will exacerbate health disparities. The unparalleled precedent this week’s decision makes has compounded those concerns across the chronic disease community. CMS’s decision not only sets back access and hope for the well more than six million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease, their families, and caregivers, it sets a dangerous precedent for others living with serious or life-threatening illnesses with limited to no treatment options. By singling out drugs approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, the decision sends shockwaves far beyond the Alzheimer’s community, impacting millions more living with serious chronic conditions including cancers and rare diseases. “This decision threatens access for all Alzheimer’s treatments within the class identified as well as any new therapies for which Medicare deems FDA approval and associated clinical data provide insufficient evidence of clinical benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. The clinical trial criteria outlined will exacerbate known health disparities by raising barriers to access. These barriers disproportionately affect people living in rural areas and people of color already underrepresented in clinical research. “Further, it puts at risk future innovations seeking the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway which has been delivering breakthrough treatments for three decades now and transforming the lives of some of our nation’s most vulnerable patients. “People living with chronic diseases, in consultation with their care partners and treating physicians, should have the option to use FDA-approved therapies and CMS should not undercut those treatment options by compromising access and coverage. By setting an unprecedented new standard for coverage of FDA-approved therapies and significantly undermining FDA’s authority on the safety and effectiveness of therapeutics, this decision will have a devastating effect. “We have waited decades for disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. A thousand people a day progress from mild Alzheimer’s disease to moderate disease and, accordingly, become ineligible for these treatments. CMS’s decision affects an entire promising class of new, disease-modifying treatments by making what is in essence a non-coverage decision with limited exceptions. This decision will set back innovation for Alzheimer’s disease significantly.”

Lack of cures combined with minimal viable treatments compounds increasing health and caregiving costs   May 27, 2021 (WASHINGTON, D.C.)   The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD)  today released a literary review and infographic data on Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), Parkinson’s disease and motor neuron diseases, specifically amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The data review examines specific disease burden, economic burden, individual costs, and caregiver burden for these neurodegenerative diseases. The annual cost for these conditions in the U.S. was $655 billion in 2020, including direct medical and non-medical costs and indirect costs from lost productivity and uncompensated caregiving hours. Neurodegenerative disease arises when nerve cells in the brain or other parts of the nervous system lose function and eventually die. While there are some viable treatments currently available that may relieve some of the associated symptoms, only SMA has disease-modifying treatments available. Collectively, these diseases affected 4.7 to 6.0 million individuals in the U.S. between 2016-2017, were responsible for more than 272,000 deaths and more than 3 million disability adjusted life years in 2016. “The enormous burden of these illnesses is felt not just by the patient but also their families and caregivers,” emphasized Ken Thorpe, PFCD Chairman. “The vulnerability of people living with these conditions, the increasing demands of their illness and the prevalence projections we are seeing all point to a dire need for reforms to support those diagnosed and their caregivers and to encourage and prioritize research and innovation that leads to new treatments and cures.”  The data review notably highlights: Ethnic, demographic and education metrics, Direct and indirect medical costs, Specific health care cost components, Progressive productivity losses, and Unpaid caregiving costs. “The very nature of neurodegenerative disease commands a greater understanding of the growing numbers, the increasing needs and related costs for people living with these types of health conditions as research continues for urgently needed treatments,” said Dr. Allan Levey of the Department of Neurology and Goizueta Alzheimer’s Disease. For the full literature review and infographic overview on related issues, please visit: www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/us-burden-neurodegenerative-disease .   ###  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD ) is an international coalition of patient, provider, community, business and labor groups, and health policy experts, committed to raising awareness of the number one cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs: chronic disease.

Data support preserving access to accelerated approval drugs for the seriously ill   Commentary in the  American Journal of Managed Care  warns that restricting access to accelerated approval therapies has minimal budget implications, but poses significant harm to patients   March 30, 2021 (WASHINGTON, D.C.)  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD)  today released, “ Quantifying Impact of Accelerated Approval Drugs on Medicaid Spending: De Minimus Impact, Maximum Attention ," an economic analysis examining the impact of the Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval pathway on Medicaid spending. A commentary based on the analysis was simultaneously published in the American Journal of Managed Care, " Limiting Access to Accelerated Approval Drugs: Costs and Consequences ." The analysis, authored by PFCD Chairman and Chair of the Department of Health Policy & Management for the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University Kenneth Thorpe and American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin , found that drugs approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway accounted for less than one percent of annual Medicaid spending between 2007 and 2018. “Understandably, states are looking for effective means to manage their health care budgets. This was true before the COVID-19 pandemic and it is even more true today,” said Holtz-Eakin. “Through this analysis of Medicaid spending, we found that policies aimed at restricting access to therapies approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway are not effective levers to address budget shortfalls. Given the unequivocally positive impact of these treatments on people living with diseases where there are no other treatment options, it is unacceptable for state and federal official to continue to pursue these ineffective policies.”  The accelerated approval pathway was initiated in 1992 to address unmet medical needs of oncology and HIV/AIDS patients. The pathway allows drugs for serious conditions to be approved by the FDA based on a surrogate endpoint — a measure that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit– with a post-marketing confirmatory study requirement to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In 2012, Congress modernized and enhanced the pathway to expand its use for rare diseases. The pathway has been credited with significant advances in the treatment of life-threatening diseases where patients have limited or no treatment options.  “The FDA accelerated approval pathway has given hope to countless patients struggling with life-threatening diseases, including cancer, HIV/AIDS and thousands of rare conditions,” said Annie Kennedy, chief of policy and advocacy at the EveryLife Foundation . “The burden of these diseases is so massive – from the individual patient and family burden to the broader societal and economic impact. It’s unthinkable to deprive patient communities the life-saving and life-altering benefits of these therapies that have potential to significantly alleviate those burdens. The findings published today demonstrate that therapies that meet the rigor of FDA approval through the accelerated approval pathway should not be candidates for Medicaid budget cuts.”  Medicines approved via accelerated approval meet the same standards for safety and efficacy as all FDA-approved medicines. Despite this, the accelerated approval pathway has come under scrutiny by public and private payers for its use of surrogate endpoints as the means to determine whether a drug works and because accelerated approval drugs are perceived as drivers of health care costs. Over the years, state Medicaid programs have inappropriately limited access to accelerated approval drugs and proposed excluding them from formularies, despite federal law requiring Medicaid to cover any FDA-approved treatment that meets the definition of a covered outpatient drug as defined in federal statute. For example, Massachusetts and Tennessee have formally requested waivers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that would exempt them from this longstanding federal requirement.  Thorpe and Holtz-Eakin’s analysis yielded the following key findings:   Spending on drugs approved through the accelerated approval pathway accounted for less than one percent of annual Medicaid spending between 2007 and 2018. Spending on accelerated approval drugs remained steady at 0.6% to 0.8% beginning one year after the 2012 passage of the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act, which expanded use of the pathway to rare diseases. Hospital spending consumed the largest share of Medicaid spending year-over-year (34.5%), followed by physician and clinical services (11.7%) and all prescription drugs (8.9%). Contributors to the growth in overall Medicare spending from 2007 to 2018 included hospital spending (29.2%), all prescription drugs (16.7%), and physician and clinical services (16.2%). Accelerated approval drugs accounted for 1.3% of Medicaid spending growth from 2007 to 2018. “These data clearly support preserving access to accelerated approval drugs for seriously ill patients within Medicaid programs,” stated Thorpe. “State schemes to avoid coverage requirements directly undermine Congress’s intent in establishing, and later enhancing, the accelerated approval pathway and raise serious concerns that certain Medicaid patients are not being offered equal access to life-saving medicines.”  For the full analysis of Medicaid spending on accelerated approval treatments and more information and resources on the issue, please visit: www.fightchronicdisease.org/resources/acceleratedapproval . ###  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) is an international coalition of patient, provider, community, business and labor groups, and health policy experts, committed to raising awareness of the number one cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs: chronic disease.   Media Contact: Jennifer Burke Jennifer.Burke@fightchronicdisease.org

Findings Show Upper Payment Limits (UPLs) Could Increase Costs and Restrict Access to Critical Medicines March 31, 2025 (Washington, D.C.)  The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) today released new research demonstrating that state Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) and associated Upper Payment Limits (UPLs) may have unintended consequences that could negatively impact people living in with chronic diseases.  Interviews and a survey of health insurers confirm concerns many have raised: UPLs will likely increase patient costs and hinder access to prescribed medicines. These findings directly contradict assertions that state PDABs will improve affordability and access. A survey of regional and national health plan payers with PDAB-related experience and covering hundreds of millions of lives revealed significant concerns regarding the implementation of UPLs: 77% of health plan payers  believe UPLs would disrupt patient access to prescription drugs due to coverage changes, tiering adjustments, increased cost-sharing, or supply chain complications, including pharmacies potentially refusing to stock medicines with UPLs. 67% of payers  anticipate that patient cost-sharing for UPL-designated drugs will either increase (50%)  or remain the same (17%), while 70%  expect out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for drugs in the same class to either rise   (53%)  or stay unchanged (17%). 57% of payers  foresee increases in health insurance premiums if a UPL is enforced. 50% of surveyed payers  indicated that utilization management restrictions  on UPL-designated drugs would likely increase . 73% of respondents  expressed concerns that UPLs could lead to shortages  of critical medicines, with 60%  believing pharmacies might be unable to stock these drugs. 57% of payers  agreed that UPLs could result in providers receiving lower reimbursements for administering affected drugs, potentially reducing availability for patients. State lawmakers have introduced PDABs and UPLs in an effort to control health care costs and lower patient spending on prescription drugs. As of March 2025, eight states—Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington—have enacted PDAB legislation, with four (Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington) authorized to establish UPLs for drugs deemed “unaffordable.” However, definitions of “unaffordable” vary by state, and at least one PDAB has struggled to define this concept. While the intention behind PDABs and UPLs is to alleviate financial burdens on patients, the findings suggest that these policies may instead create significant disruptions, leading to higher patient OOP costs, premium increases, restricted pharmacy reimbursement, and reduced medicine availability. “People living with chronic diseases face constant challenges when it comes to managing their health, and prescription drug affordability boards are not a solution. Rather than improving affordability, UPLs could have the opposite effect—leading to increased costs for patients and limiting access to the medications they rely on to manage chronic conditions,” said Ken Thorpe, Chair of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. “Policymakers should carefully consider the unintended consequences of these measures before implementing policies that may do more harm than good for the millions of people across the U.S. living with one or more chronic conditions.”  The full white paper can be viewed HERE .  An Avalere Insights piece can be viewed HERE .   ###

Results Show Interest in the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan Increases as American Seniors Learn More About It April 3, 2025 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) today released new polling data showing a majority of seniors with Medicare prescription drug coverage are unaware of the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, a new program designed to help manage out-of-pocket costs. The findings highlight the need for greater education and outreach to ensure eligible seniors can take advantage of this cost-saving opportunity. The survey, conducted by independent research firms GQR and Public Opinion Strategies, found that just 26% of seniors knew some or a lot about the program, while nearly half (48%) had heard nothing at all. However, once respondents received more information, interest in the program significantly increased. Launched in January 2025, the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan offers seniors with Medicare Part D or Medicare Advantage plans the option to break their out-of-pocket prescription drug expenses into monthly installments to avoid having to make large payments earlier in the year. The new program is a part of a broader series of changes Medicare is making to Part D this year, including an automatic cap on out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 per year. As the survey results demonstrate, greater awareness of the program can lead to increased participation, ensuring more seniors can benefit from this financial flexibility. “These results show that too many seniors are missing out on a program that could help them better manage their prescription drug expenses simply because they don’t know it exists,” said Candace DeMatteis, policy director at the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. “When they learn about the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, they see its value. The low awareness presents the opportunity for policymakers and stakeholders to better communicate how this program can help Americans on Medicare budget for their healthcare expenses more effectively." Additional key findings include: 74% of seniors say they’d heard little to no information about the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan. Seniors say the ability to opt in at any time during the year (76%) and the assurance of no additional costs (75%) are the most convincing reasons to sign up. After receiving information about the program, nearly half (48%) of seniors who report spending more than $1,000 per year on prescription drugs say they would likely use it. 81% of seniors think their Medicare plan or Medicare itself is responsible for making sure they have information about programs like this. “Seniors shouldn’t have to navigate complex healthcare costs without clear information,” GQR senior partner Anna Greenberg said. “By raising awareness and providing accessible information, more Medicare beneficiaries can take advantage of this important cost-saving option.”   “When it comes to their healthcare expenses, seniors want predictability, and the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan can offer exactly that,” Public Opinion Strategies partner Nicole McCleskey said. GQR and Public Opinion Strategies designed and administered this survey of 500 Medicare recipients who have additional prescription drug coverage (either Medicare Part D or Medicare Advantage) from Jan. 27 to Feb. 2, 2025. Most respondents (397) were selected from online opt-in panels, and 103 were contacted by phone to increase coverage of minority and rural respondents.  View the detailed findings here , and visit fightchronicdisease.org  to learn more.

April 4, 2025 (Washington, D.C.)  – The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) released the following statement in response to the announcement of the Contract Year (CY) 2026 MA and Part D final rule that will not include coverage of anti-obesity medications (AOMs). “There are many factors that contribute to America’s obesity epidemic. There are also many pathways to address it. Today’s decision blocks a major avenue for millions of Medicare and Medicaid patients who, without plan coverage, will not be able to access anti-obesity medications. “Patients and doctors deserve to have the latest scientific innovation on the table when making medical decisions. We are hopeful that, given the Trump administration’s mission to combat chronic disease, an alternative path will soon emerge, one that expands access to this important class of medications and eases obesity’s economic toll on our health care system.” For more information, please visit www.fightchronicdisease.org/obesity . ###