16

Page 16 THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FriDAy, FEbrUAry 9, 2024 Sy Senior ay Dear Savvy Senior, Does Medicare cover any weight-loss treatments for overweight retirees? I just turned 65 and need to lose about 100 pounds and would like to know if Medicare can help. Overweight Owen Dear Owen, Yes, traditional Medicare does indeed cover some weight-loss treatments like counseling and certain types of surgery for overweight benefi ciaries, but unfortunately it doesn’t cover weight-loss programs or medications. Here’s what you should know. Who’s Eligible For benefi ciaries to receive available Medicare-covered weight-loss treatments your body mass index (BMI), which is an estimate of your body fat based on your height and weight, must be 30 or higher. BMI of 30 or above is considered obese and increases your risk for many health conditions, such as some cancers, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and sleep apnea. To fi nd out your BMI, the National Institutes of Health has a free calculator that you can access online at nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm. What’s Covered If you fi nd that your BMI is 30 or higher, Medicare Part B will cover up to 12 months of weight-loss counseling conducted by a medical professional in a primary care setting (like a doctor’s offi ce). Most counseling sessions entail an initial obesity screening, a dietary assessment and behavioral therapy designed to help you lose weight by focusing on diet and exercise. Medicare also covers certain types of bariatric and metabolic surgery for morbidly obese benefi ciaries who have a BMI of 35 or above and have at least one underlying obesity-related health condition, such as diabetes or heart disease. You must also show that you’ve tried to lose weight in the past through dieting or exercise and have been unsuccessful. These procedures make changes to your digestive system to help you lose weight and improve the health of your metabolism. Some common bariatric surgical procedures covered include Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, which reduces the stomach to a small pouch that makes you feel full even following small meals. And lapy Senin r ior or by Jim Miller Does Medicare Cover WeightLoss Treatments? aroscopic adjustable gastric banding, which inserts an infl atable band that creates a gastric pouch encircling the top of the stomach. hat’s Not Covered Unfortunately, original Medicare does not cover weight-loss programs such as fitness or gym memberships, meal delivery services, or popular weightloss programs such as Jenny Craig, Noom and WW (formerly Weight Watchers). Medicare also does not cover any weight-loss drugs, but it does cover FDA approved diabetes drugs that have unintentionally become very popular for weight loss. Medicare Part D plans cover Ozempic and Mounjaro for diabetes only, not for weight loss! So, your doctor will need to prescribe these medications for diabetes in order to get them covered. Medicare also does not cover Wegovy or Zepbound because they’re approved only for weight loss. The reason behind the weight-loss drug omission is the Medicare Modernization Act, which specifi cally excluded them back when the law was written 20 years ago. They also excluded drugs used for cosmetic purposes, fertility, hair growth and erectile dysfunction. ithout insurance, weight-loss medications are expensive, often costing $1,000 to $1,300 a month. To help curb costs, try websites like GoodRX.com or SingleCare.com to fi nd the best retail prices in your area. Or, if your income is limited, try patient assistance programs through Eli Lilly (LillyCares.com) which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, or Novo Nordisk (NovoCare.com) the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy. Medicare Advantage If you happen to be enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan, you may have coverage for gym memberships and some weight loss and healthy food delivery programs. These are considered expanded supplemental benefits and have gradually been added to some plans to provide coverage for nutrition, health and wellness. Contact your plan to see what it provides. Send your senior questions to: Savvy Senior, P.O. Box 5443, Norman, OK 73070, or visit SavvySenior.org. Jim Miller is a contributor to the NBC Today show and author of “The Savvy Senior” book. Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562. Beacon Hill Roll Call Volume 49 - Report No. 5 January 29-Februay 2, 2024 Copyright © 2024 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved. By Bob Katzen GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: https://lp.constantcontactpages. com/su/aPTLucK THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of January 29-February 2. There were no roll call in the House last week. APPROVE FIREARMS BILL (S 2572) Senate 37-3, approved a bill that would change some of the state’s gun laws. The House has already approved a different version of the measure and a House-Senate conference committee will try to hammer out a compromise version. Provisions in the Senate bill include cracking down on the spread of ghost guns -- unserialized and untraceable firearms; codifying the state’s existing prohibition on assault weapons; making it illegal to possess devices that convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic machine guns; giving fi rearm licensing authorities access to some of a gun permit applicant’s mental health hospitalization history; prohibiting the carrying of fi rearms in government administrative buildings, with exceptions for law enforcement offi cers and municipalities that choose to opt out; allowing health care professionals to petition courts to remove fi rearms and licenses from patients who pose a risk to themselves or others; and creating a commission to analyze the allocation of state violence prevention funding and recommend changes to reduce gun violence in disproportionately impacted communities. “Concern for public safety, a commitment to equity, respect for the Second Amendment, and a focus on the root causes of gun crime and gun accidents—these principles underlie each of the policies included in the bill the Senate passed today,” said Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton), the chief sponsor of the measure. “I’m proud of the collaborative effort that went into the [the bill] and I look forward to seeing these policies signed into law by the end of [the 2024] session.” “Today the Senate came together and acted on gun violence—rising above the divisiveness of this critical issue in the name of protecting our residents from gun crime, modernizing our laws and supporting communities who have been torn apart by unnecessary violence,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “I’m proud to lead a body that is committed to building on our commonwealth’s record as a national leader on gun safety. “ “Despite not having a public hearing on the gun bill which means the public didn’t have the opportunity to weigh in on it and despite having one of the lowest gun crime rates in the country, the Massachusetts Senate voted in favor of more restrictive laws for gun owners in the commonwealth,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “The bill went too far infringing upon lawful gun owners rights while not going far enough to attack illegal fi rearm traffi cking and unlawful possession … I was disappointed we didn’t do more to penalize career criminals perpetrating the vast majority of gun crime in the commonwealth. We need to spend our time and eff ort on addressing security issues at the border that will prevent guns and substances from entering the country at rates as high as they are now.” “I voted against this bill because I have deep concerns with a number of provisions that I feel lead us into a constitutional gray area and risk opening up our great gun laws to legal challenge in front of the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth). “In a fairly unprecedented move, this bill also did not have a public hearing, which is arguably the most important part of our legislative process.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Brendan CrightonYes SEND BILL BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING (S 2572) Senate 9-31, rejected a motion to send the fi rearms bill to the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security in order to have a public hearing on it. “Sending this bill to the Joint Committee on Public Safety [and Homeland Security] will allow for it to have a public hearing where industry experts and people from all walks of life can weigh in and share their perspectives,” said Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth). “Public hearings are one of our greatest assets as legislators, and forgoing the opportunity to hold one on this bill is a disservice to ourselves as legislators and our constituents.” Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton) said that in November, the Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on 57 fi rearm-related bills, many of which provide the foundation of the current bill under consideration. “Given that the policies in the bill have been vetted both at the public hearing and through months of conversations with senators, gun safety advocates, gun owners’ groups, gun industry groups, police chiefs, district attorneys and health care professionals, the [bill is] ready for consideration on the Senate fl oor.” (A “Yes” vote is for sending the bill back to the committee. A “No” vote is against sending it to committee.) Sen. Brendan CrightonNo SUBSTITUTE NEW VERSION OF BILL (S 2572) Senate 6-33, rejected an amendment to substitute an alternative version of the fi rearms bill in place of the current one. “This amendment was fi led so that I could go on the record in support of commonsense gun control measures,” said sponsor Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth). “The provisions in this amendment maintain focus on gun violence reduction and prevention while respecting the rights afforded in the Second Amendment.” “The proposed amendment would have removed several components of the Senate bill that will make Massachusetts a safer place, including its codifi cation of our existing assault weapons law, its provisions ensuring that firearm licensing authorities are aware of an applicant’s history of involuntary mental health hospitalizations and its provisions empowering Massachusetts residents to hold the gun industry accountable if they are harmed due to reckless industry practices,” saidSen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton). “The Senate bill does more to prevent gun violence, gun crime and gun accidents than the amendment’s proposed alternative.” (A “Yes” vote is for the alternative bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Brendan CrightonNo BEACON HILL ROLL | SEE PAGE 17

17 Publizr Home