Featured Blogs

While the men’s and women’s Final Four brackets are set, the Congressional budget is not at all locked up. Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) is preparing to vote this week on a budget they’ve been negotiating with the House, while Speaker Johnson (R-LA) is hoping to add two members to his razor-thin majority by winning special elections in Florida. Will March Madness yield a “beautiful” budget in April?? Let’s see! Welcome to the Week Ahead!
The Administration
We are eagerly awaiting the final Medicare Advantage (MA) and Part D technical changes and rate announcement rules, as well as the proposed rules for the fiscal year payment systems. CMS Administrator-nominee Oz is waiting for his Senate floor vote, and he was not especially warm on MA during his confirmation hearing. We know the final MA rule will look different than the proposed rule released during the previous administration, but how much different? Will the rule come out on time – around April 7?
And how will the continued DOGE-ing complicate rule-making and public input? In case you were under a rock, you might have missed that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced plans to reduce its full-time workforce by 10,000 employees and consolidate the number of divisions from 28 to 15. The Department says this decision is about improving efficiency, saving taxpayer dollars, and better implementing the Trump administration’s focus on addressing chronic disease rates.
The Senate
The Senate aims to vote on the budget resolution this week they’ve been negotiating for the past few weeks with the House. While an agreement has yet to be shared publicly, rumors are the budget would set up a reconciliation bill that would require smaller cuts from Senate Committees (at least $3B) than from those in the House (at least $1.5T). Notably, the resolution may call for at least $1 billion in cuts from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over many HHS agencies.
Wait, what? How can they do that? Doesn’t the Senate and the House have to vote on the SAME budget?
Yes, they do, but the House and Senate do not have mirrored committees, so the Senate is really only voting on policies within the Senate’s committee structure, and the House is only voting on policies in the House’s structure.
The move here is essentially a way for Senators to delay making the tough decisions on policies like Medicaid, Medicare, and taxes later on in the process of budget reconciliation. Senators can vote for the budget this week and still vote against the final reconciliation bill if it doesn’t pass muster (ala the Sen. John McCain-style moment in 2017).
Senate Hearings This Week
- April 3: Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on April 3 on bills increasing transparency and promoting competition within the prescription drug industry
The House
The votes are tight – for everything in the House including the budget. Even with Democratic vacancies following the deaths of Reps. Sylvester Turner (D-TX) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), President Trump still felt the need to withdraw Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-NY) nomination to be UN Ambassador to boost his chances for a budget win. All eyes now turn to Florida, where Republicans hope to pick up two seats in special elections to replace former GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz and Michael Waltz on April 1.
These should be easy pickups for the GOP, but special elections should never be taken for granted. Republicans are growing anxious that Josh Weil, the Democratic candidate in the race to replace Rep. Waltz in Florida’s 6th congressional district, could pull off an upset against Republican Randy Fine. These races could either give Republicans more breathing room on forthcoming budget votes or make their lives even more difficult. Even if Republicans win both seats, they can still afford only 3 defections to reach the required 217 votes to pass a budget resolution and ultimately reconciliation.
House Hearings This Week
- April 1: House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing on the regulation of over-the-counter monograph drugs
- April 1: House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee hearing on cybersecurity vulnerabilities in legacy medical devices
- April 1: House Veterans’ Affairs Committee oversight hearing on modernizing VA health care
- April 2: House Veterans’ Affairs Oversight Subcommittee hearing on the VA’s mental health policies
- April 2: House Education and Workforce Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee hearing on employer-based health insurance
There You Have It
Speaking of March Madness, how are everyone’s brackets looking? Is your team still in it? Mixing hoops and vote-a-rama is a great way to watch the Senate floor. Let’s make it a great week!

After the confirmation process of former Congressman Dr. Dave Weldon to head the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abruptly halted on March, various names were floated to be the new nominee, including former Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess. The White House announced their new nominee on March 24 is Susan Monarez, PhD. Who is she?
Since January, Dr. Monarez has been the acting head of the CDC. She was brought over to the CDC from ARPA-H, where she has been the Deputy Director since January 2023. She has a long history in the government, serving under both Democratic and Republican administrations at Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security, the White House (Obama and Trump administrations), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Prior to government service, Monarez was a postdoctoral fellow and graduate student, respectively, at Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of Wisconsin – Madison, where she focused on technology development to prevent, diagnose, and treat infectious diseases particularly impacting people living in low- and middle-income countries.
There are a few interesting facets of her nomination:
First, she will be the first person ever confirmed by the Senate to run the CDC. Prior to 2022, CDC directors were appointed; but Congress passed a law that year saying any future CDC heads would be confirmed by the Senate. Second, if she is confirmed, she will be the first non-medical doctor to run the CDC since 1953. Prior CDC heads were M.D.s – Dr. Monarez is a Ph.D., not an M.D.
A key difference between Dr. Monarez and the previous CDC nominee Dave Weldon is her support for vaccines. In her work at ARPA-H, Dr. Monarez has strongly supported APECx which is an initiative to use artificial intelligence to design antigens that target entire viral families. (She has spoken at public conferences in favor of the program.) ARPA-H argues the studied viruses (like herpesviruses and flaviviruses, such as Zika and dengue fever) pose serious threats to global health, causing pandemics, cancers, and chronic illnesses.
Anti-vax groups are concerned about her support for vaccines, but that support will certainly help her nomination chances in the physician-heavy Senate Finance Committee.
Dr. Monarez is also a strong proponent of the use of AI in health care. In her career, she has focused on understanding challenges within the health ecosystem and identifying opportunities for innovation to address them through AI, technology, and innovation.
Critics argue that her extensive background within the federal health bureaucracy and a heavy focus on technology-driven biosecurity suggests a continuation of the status quo rather than the long-overdue “Make America Health Again” reform.
Thus far, the announcement of her nomination has been well-received, with very little push back. We do expect her to field pointed questions from Senators regarding CDC actions over the past few weeks, including the cancelling of CDC grant funding and the delayed meeting of vaccine advisors (including for formulating strains for the flu vaccine for the 2025-2026 flu season). We will continue to watch what happens as her vetting continues.

Introduction
GLP-1 medications have emerged as powerful tools for managing both diabetes and weight loss. High costs and inconsistent insurance coverage have raised concerns about barriers for patients who could benefit. The central issue now is whether Medicaid and Medicare should expand coverage for GLP-1 drugs used for weight loss?
The High Cost of GLP-1 Drugs
GLP-1 medications, such as Ozempic and Wegovy, come with steep list price tags—often exceeding $1,000 per month. Pharmaceutical industry critics, such as Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) ranking member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have expressed concerns about the cost of these drugs. There have also been concerns about the lack of generic GLP-1 drugs, although the Food and Drug Administration did approve two generic GLP-1 drugs at the end of 2024. As more patients seek these medications for weight loss and diabetes management, the financial burden on both private insurers and government programs is growing. Drug manufacturers argue that these prices reflect years of research and development, and that list prices do not take into account the availability of coupons offered by manufacturers and other organizations. However, many health care professionals and advocates push for regulatory measures to curb costs and promote affordability.
Medicare Dilemma: Coverage for Diabetes but Not Weight Loss
A major challenge in expanding access to GLP-1 medications is Medicare’s restrictive coverage of GLP-1 drugs. Medicare Part D covers GLP-1 drugs when prescribed for diabetes management but does not extend coverage for weight loss treatment. This distinction creates a gap for patients who could benefit from these drugs for obesity-related health issues.
For example, Ozempic and Wegovy contain the same active ingredient, semaglutide, yet they have different coverage statuses under Medicare. Ozempic is covered for diabetes treatment, while Wegovy is covered for patients with life-threatening cardiovascular conditions related to obesity. However, Medicare does not cover these medications solely for weight loss or management. Those who support expanding GLP-1 access argue that this policy limits patient access and raises questions about the fairness of Medicare’s coverage of these drugs. Expanding Medicare coverage for weight loss drugs would come at a high price. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Medicare could spend an additional $70 billion over the next decade if these drugs were covered for obesity treatment. However, some studies suggest that treating obesity early could prevent costly complications such as heart disease and diabetes, potentially saving Medicare up to $175 billion in long-term health care costs.
Some physicians and health care advocates argue that covering these medications could lead to better health outcomes, but some worry that increased costs could raise premiums for all Medicare recipients. This trade-off remains a critical factor in the ongoing policy debate.
Where do GLP-1 Drugs Lie on the Medicare Drug Negotiation List?
In January 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that semaglutide—marketed by Novo Nordisk under Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy—would be included in the second cycle of Medicare drug price negotiations. This decision is part of the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at lowering drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Semaglutide will be treated as a single product, with negotiated prices potentially reducing out-of-pocket costs starting in 2027. Despite this, the re-election of President Trump and a Republican-controlled government could challenge Medicare negotiations, citing concerns about price controls stifling innovation.
On March 14, 2025, CMS confirmed that the manufacturers of 15 drugs, including Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy, had agreed to participate in the negotiations. The process will involve public input, with CMS proposing maximum fair prices by June 2025 and continuing negotiations until November 2025. These new prices will take effect in 2027.
Medicaid’s Dilemma: A State-by-State Battle
Medicaid’s coverage for GLP-1 drugs varies by state, unlike Medicare. While 13 states currently cover these medications for obesity treatment, others do not, mainly due to budget constraints and political considerations. This creates a fragmented system where access to these treatments depends heavily on where a patient lives.
Medicaid enrollees face a significant disadvantage compared to those with private insurance. Obesity rates are often higher in low-income communities, making access to effective weight loss treatments even more critical. Without Medicaid coverage, many patients must rely on lifestyle interventions alone, which may not be sufficient for those with severe obesity.
Logistical Challenges
Logistical challenges surrounding GLP-1 drugs primarily stem from availability issues and potential trade policies. The high demand for these medications has led to persistent supply shortages, with the FDA officially recognizing a shortage in December 2022. While the agency declared the shortage resolved by October 2024, compounding pharmacies have continued producing versions of the drug, awaiting legal clarity. Adding to these supply chain concerns, there have been discussions about potential 25% tariffs on pharmaceutical imports under the Trump administration. However, some experts suggest that pharmaceutical products have historically been exempt from such tariffs, making the actual impact on GLP-1 drug availability uncertain.
Another logistical factor is the administration of GLP-1 drugs, which are primarily injectable. Many formulations are designed for self-administration, requiring patients to learn proper injection techniques. While health care professionals are already licensed to administer injections, ensuring that patients feel comfortable and knowledgeable about self-injection remains a key consideration for effective treatment.
The Road Ahead
Expanding coverage for GLP-1 medications could have significant benefits but also presents financial and logistical challenges. Policymakers must weigh the long-term cost savings against the immediate budget impact. Addressing disparities in access while managing costs will be a balancing act for both federal and state governments.
On March 14, 2025, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to be the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). There was bipartisan agreement about certain topics, such as the need to address the high cost of health care, concerns about rural health, the benefits of telehealth, and the need to address concerns about the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. The biggest partisan difference on display was on the topic of how Republican reconciliation legislation would impact Medicaid funding. Democratic Senators argued that the proposal would lead to losses in coverage for those who needed it, and Republican Senators countered that Medicaid reform was about protecting coverage for those who really needed it.
OPENING STATEMENTS
WITNESS TESTIMONY
MEMBER QUESTIONS
Medicaid
Democratic Senators expressed concerns that the proposed Republican reconciliation legislation, as passed by the House of Representatives, would lead to Medicaid cuts that would hurt families, mothers, children, and providers (especially rural providers). In response to questions as to his thoughts about these potential cuts, he said he had not seen legislation that would cut Medicaid funding but said protecting Medicaid means making sure it is stable over the long term. When asked about his thoughts on work requirements from Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Dr. Oz said he supported them because of his support for the dignity of work but did not think they should be a barrier to coverage. Other Democratic Senators brought up the Medicaid expansion population. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) expressed her concerns that Medicaid budget cuts could lead some states to drop coverage for the expansion population. When asked directly about his thoughts on Medicaid expansion by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Dr. Oz said it works for some states, but other states may try other ways to provide coverage to the uninsured.
In contrast, Republican Senators who spoke about Medicaid funding tended to talk about the need to ensure the program was stable for those whom it was initially intended to help, that is, the poor, mothers, children, and people with disabilities. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said there was a need to distinguish between Medicaid before and after the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Specifically, he argued that Medicaid expansion has been expensive, threatens the program’s ability to provide care for individuals such as people with disabilities, and has allowed certain states to game the system through the use of tools such as provider taxes. Dr. Oz agreed that by expanding the number of people on Medicaid without providing more resources to providers, you do stretch resources in a way that could impact those Medicaid was originally designed to help. Both Sens. Johnson and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) cited concerns about Medicaid coverage for undocumented immigrants and foreign nationals. Dr. Oz said he would ensure that both Medicaid and Medicare eligibility are calculated accurately. He specifically cited an article about California’s effort to use federal dollars to pay for Medicaid coverage for undocumented immigrants. On another Medicaid-related topic, Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) defended the nursing home staffing rule promulgated by the Biden administration. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) countered that the rule may sound good but would lead to widespread closures, especially in rural areas. Dr. Oz said that examining this rule is something he wants to do early on if confirmed.
Medicare Advantage
Today’s hearing demonstrated that Senators on both sides of the aisle have concerns about the MA program. Specifically, Senators expressed concerns about charges that plans are upcoding to make patients appear sicker than they are, that they improperly deny coverage, that they engage in deceptive marketing, and that the program costs the government more than traditional Medicare. Even though Dr. Oz at one point proposed transitioning all Medicare patients to MA, he acknowledged these concerns and pledged to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to address them. Notably, when asked by Ranking Member Wyden about what he saw as the biggest area of abuse in the private insurance market, he responded with MA sales practices. In answer to other Senators’ concerns about improper denials, he said he thinks there are too many procedures that require prior authorization and that standardization is needed when it comes to what does and what does not require prior authorization.
Chronic Health and Nutrition
Several Senators expressed concerns about the rate of chronic disease in America and asked Dr. Oz how CMS might address this concern. In answer to a question about this from Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), Dr. Oz said that incentivizing beneficiaries to make healthy choices was a worthy goal and said he had conversations with Ranking Member Wyden about this. Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) asked what reforms could be made in CMS to promote prevention efforts for chronic diseases. Dr. Oz gave the example of how, in MA, some plans provide a food allowance, but there is no guidance on how to eat healthy. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) argued that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subsidizes unhealthy foods.
Rural Health
Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about rural health. Sens. Blackburn and Tina Smith (D-MN) highlighted their concerns about the closures of rural hospitals. In answer to a question from Sen. Blackburn about the low wage index, Dr. Oz committed to working with Congress. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) brought up his concerns about the placement of graduate medical education (GME) slots in rural areas. Additionally, Senators such as Steve Daines (R-MT) and Cortez Masto (D-NV) expressed their support for telehealth. Dr. Oz also shared his support for telehealth and noted how larger institutions in specific areas can serve their regions.
Prescription Drugs
Senators on both sides of the aisle mentioned concerns about the cost of prescription drugs. Sens. Lankford and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) expressed their support for pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform. Dr. OZ said that while he believes PBMs do play a role, there needs to be reforms to increase transparency. Democratic Senators such as Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Peter Welch (D-VT) asked Dr. Oz about his position on solutions such as Medicare price negotiation and international reference pricing. Dr. Oz says he wanted to use all available tools to lower prescription drug costs.
Other Issues
- Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) expressed his concerns about restrictions on Medicare beneficiaries’ access to innovative medical devices. Dr. Oz said the gap between when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a product and when Medicare and Medicaid patients can access it needs to be shortened.
- Sen. Cantwell asked Dr. Oz if he would support bundling patients at or below 150% of the poverty line to ensure affordable access to care, especially if ACA tax subsidies expire. He said he would commit to looking at it as a solution.