(The Center Square) – As the old saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” and in my decades of experience in healthcare that absolutely rings true. Thanks to some promising new medical advances, we have a real opportunity to bring prevention and harm reduction to the fight against obesity at scale.

There is currently a proposed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) draft rule that would provide for coverage for Anti-Obesity Medications (AOMs) to beneficiaries. These medications, known as GLP-1s and commonly known by brand names such as Mounjaro and Wegovy, have been shown to dramatically reduce obesity in patients who have access to them. Unfortunately, access is often limited by authorization and cost, and not everyone who needs these medications is able to obtain them.

In the U.S. more than 40% of adults are dealing with obesity, which means that there are more than 100 million adults who are obese, and more than 22 million who meet the definition of “severe obesity.” Worse yet, the phenomenon has been increasing dramatically in recent years. In 2000, the adult obesity rate was only 30%. Even more alarmingly, the rate of adults with severe obesity has nearly doubled in that time, going from 4.7% to 9.2%. 

Fortunately, Pennsylvania is doing somewhat better than the national figures, with only 33% of adult Pennsylvanians meeting the definition of obesity, but that still means that millions of Pennsylvanians are susceptible to the negative health outcomes of obesity, and adopting this rule for Medicare and Medicaid would bring vital new treatment options to the nearly 6 million Pennsylvanians who are enrolled in one of the programs, and since Medicaid is partially funded by state tax dollars, this move would also benefit all Pennsylvania taxpayers.

Many adults with obesity are also dealing with one or more related chronic ailments. In the U.S. 58% of adults with obesity also have high blood pressure, and 23% have diabetes. Not only does obesity lead to worse health outcomes for those affected, the obesity epidemic harms society at large by causing health care spending to skyrocket. 

The average annual medical costs in 2019 was nearly $2,000 higher for adults with obesity, and more than $3,000 higher for adults with severe obesity, leading to an additional $173 billion in medical expenditures that could have been directed elsewhere. According to CMS, health care spending in the U.S. reached nearly $5 trillion in 2023, which accounts for 17.6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

These numbers paint a troubling picture of the present, and predict an even more dire future, but the good news is that we have a historic opportunity to reverse course. If the Trump administration moves to finalize this rule, the benefits would be dramatic. 

There is even new research from Penn State indicating that these drugs could help combat the opioid epidemic. Researchers like Dr. Patricia Grigson and Dr. Scott Bunce recently found that these medications reduced addiction-like behavior for heroin and fentanyl in rodent trials, as well as in preclinical human trials. The mere fact that these medications could one day not only treat obesity, but opioid addiction is revolutionary—and this research is taking place right here in Pennsylvania. 

As the Trump administration looks to “Make America Healthy Again,” our members of Congress like Reps. Fitzpatrick, Joyce, and Kelly are being presented with a prime opportunity to do just that. They can demonstrate their leadership and willingness to eliminate access barriers for Medicare beneficiaries by supporting the extension of the draft CMS rule. Together, they can help make good on President Trump’s promise to forge a healthier path for Pennsylvanians and our nation. 

Dr. Stuart Shapiro, formerly Philadelphia Health Commissioner and Staff Leader of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Health, has enjoyed a successful and diversified career as a businessman, entrepreneur, high-ranking government official and a physician. He has been an advocate for compassionate, quality, and affordable care throughout his distinguished career.

(The Center Square) – A controversial gun control bill has cleared the Colorado General Assembly and now heads to the governor’s desk to be signed into law.

Senate Bill 25-003, when introduced, initially outright banned the sale or purchase of most semi-automatic rifles or shotguns that take detachable magazines and exempted firearms with “permanently fixed” magazines.

The bill was later amended to allow purchases if an individual secures a “firearms safety course eligibility card” from their local sheriff department and then completes a qualifying firearm education course.

SB 25-003 passed a concurrent vote of 19-15-1 in the upper chamber on Friday after the House passed it with amendments earlier this week.

The bill’s Democratic sponsors argue the legislation is necessary to enforce the state’s 2013 ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. Opponents argue that the legislation amounts to a firearm owner identification card and question its constitutionality.

“We passed legislation – in this building, in this General Assembly in 2013 – that limited the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines over 15 [rounds],” said bill sponsor Sen. Tom Sullivan, whose son was killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.

“In the 10-12 years since, it has been woefully inadequate [and] they were not enforcing it. We knew they were not enforcing it,” said Sullivan, D-Centennial.

Sullivan noted the Boulder King Soopers shooting in 2021 and the Club Q shooting in 2022 as examples where the gunmen used illegal high-capacity magazines.

“If we allow the government to redefine rights as privileges, which I argue this bill does, then we place our freedoms at the mercy of those in power,” Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen said Friday leading up to the vote.

“Rights, once treated as privileges, can be restricted, taxed, licensed and ultimately, if they can do all of that to them, they can take those rights away,” the Republican legislator said.

Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign SB 25-003 into law.

Other gun bills have advanced through the legislature recently, such as a bill to raise the age for ammunition purchases from 18 to 21 and a bill to require gun show operators to have liability insurance.

Democrats failed to pass outright bans on so-called assault weapons during the last two legislative sessions

(The Center Square) – The United States Department of Education announced it is investigating the California Department of Education for alleged violation of federal law due to its state law banning the disclosure children’s’ gender identities to their parents.

When entrepreneur and Trump administration member Elon Musk announced he was relocating the headquarters of SpaceX and X from California, he shared the ban in question — Assembly Bill 1955 — as a motivating factor.

“Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas,” said Musk at the time. “I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children.” 

DOE says it is investigating California for violating the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, which it says “gives parents the right to access their children’s educational data.” 

“The California Department of Education has allegedly abdicated the responsibilities FERPA imposes due to a new California state law that prohibits school personnel from disclosing a child’s ‘gender identity’ to that child’s parent,” wrote the DOE in its announcement.

“[DOE] has reason to believe that numerous local educational agencies (LEAs) in California may be violating FERPA to socially transition children at school while hiding minors’ ‘gender identity’ from parents,” said DOE. “Given the number of LEAs that appear to be involved, [DOE] is concerned that CDE played a role, either directly or indirectly, in the widespread adoption of these practices, which appear to be required by the recently enacted California Assembly Bill 1955.”

DOE cited the supremacy of federal over state laws, and warned that “educational entities receiving federal funding are subject to FERPA and its implementing regulations,” and that “Violation of FERPA can result in termination of an educational entity’s federal funding.” 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said AB 1955, which took effect on Jan. 1 this year, does not limit parents’ access to their children’s educational records, and framed the bill as measure to prevent the outing of LGBTQ+ children to their parents. 

“Under California law, minors cannot legally change their name or gender without parental consent and parents are guaranteed the right to access their students’ educational records,” said Newsom’s press office. “AB 1955 does allow teachers and school districts to hide information from parents, it ensures teachers are focused on teaching and staff are not forced to forcibly out a student’s LGBTQ+ identity absent a request for records and without the student’s consent.”

Lawyer Julie Hamill of the California Justice Center, who sent a letter to the DOE requesting the investigation, responded by suggesting schools are creating non-educational records that may not be accessible to parents.

“Beyond the face of AB 1955, districts are advised to create separate files and conceal information in those files from parents,” said Hamill. “Confidential gender support plans are kept in these separate files. School districts are withholding student work from parents if the student work reveals the alternate identity a child is using at school.” 

According to the California Budget and Policy Center, California is expected to receive $7.9 billion from the federal government for K-12 education in the governor’s proposed 2025-2026 budget, which includes $322 billion in state spending and $171 billion in federal spending. 

Should the federal government withhold K-12 funding, and an additional $7.3 billion for higher education funding, the state could find itself in difficult financial straits, as the proposed budget includes a $7 billion withdrawal from reserves.