Monday, January 2, 2012

Medicare Revises Obesity Coverage Policy

Medicare Revises Obesity Coverage Policy

Policy opens door to coverage of anti-obesity interventions

http://exploreplasticsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/abdominal-pannus-removal-indianapolis-dr-barry-eppley.jpg
Surgeons preparing freshly removed pannus for the grill!
A simple revision to a government policy manual may at last make it possible for seniors and disabled      http://plasticsurgery4u.com/images/abd/morbid_ob_pre_3.jpg 
Americans to have treatments for  diseases related to obesity covered under Medicare.
The revised policy announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) removes language in the Medicare Coverage Issues Manual stating that obesity is not an illness. This step allows members of the public to request that Medicare review medical evidence to determine whether specific treatments related to obesity would be covered by Medicare.
http://exploreplasticsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/abdominal-pannus-removal-dr-barry-eppley-indianapolis.jpg
Another perfectly healthy pannus is removed and soaked in marinade and readied for the BBQ pit. YUM!
"Obesity is a critical public health problem in our country that causes millions of Americans to suffer unnecessary health problems and to die prematurely. Treating obesity-related illnesses and complications adds billions of dollars to the nation's health care costs," said HHS Secretary Thompson during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. "With this new policy, Medicare will be able to review scientific evidence in order to determine which interventions improve health outcomes for seniors and disabled Americans who are obese and its many associated medical conditions."
http://www.prplastic.com/images/Chicago%20tummy%20tuck%20surgery%20panniculcetomy%20photo%202a.jpg
Also called a meat skirt, will greedy surgeons be lopping these extra body parts off and serving them at dinner as meat skirt steaks?
By law, Medicare covers specified medically necessary services for illness and injury. The prior manual language, because it stated that obesity was not an illness, could prevent Medicare from covering treatments for diseases related to obesity.
http://www.meijer.com/assets/product_images/styles/xlarge/1001029_013409000045_A_400.jpg
"From the standpoint of Medicare coverage and the health of our beneficiaries, the question isn't whether obesity is a disease or a risk factor. What matters is whether there's scientific evidence that an obesity-related medical treatment improves health," said CMS Administrator Mark McClellan, M.D., Ph.D. "This change in Medicare's coverage policy puts the focus on public health. The medical science will now determine whether we provide coverage for the treatments that reduce complications and improve quality of life for the millions of Medicare beneficiaries who are obese."
The new policy is not expected to have an immediate impact on Medicare coverage. It does not affect the existing Medicare coverage of treatments of diseases resulting in or made worse by obesity, in particular currently covered surgical treatments for morbidly obese individuals.
However, as requests for coverage of obesity treatments are made by the public, Medicare will implement timely review of the scientific evidence, using the coverage determination procedures established in 1999 and modified by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Detailed information on this process can be found on the Medicare coverage Web sitewww.cms.gov/coverage. Essential to this process is the submission of published, clinical trial data that demonstrate that obesity-related treatments improve the health of Medicare beneficiaries.
"We encourage and we're expecting requests to review scientific evidence evaluating the benefits of a range of treatments for obesity in the Medicare population," said CMS Chief Medical Officer Sean Tunis, M.D. "As a first step, we expect to convene our Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee in the fall to evaluate the evidence on obesity-related surgical procedures that may reduce the risk of heart disease and other illnesses."
More information about this major Medicare policy revision can be found athttp://www.cms.hhs.gov/ncdr/searchdisplay.asp?id=57


  • Dietetic Association Hails New Medicare Obesity Policy



  • I Fat Bastard am stumped on this one. As our millions of readers know Bigger Fatter Politics is weight loss diet neutral but this smacks of weight loss surgery and we are four square meals plus a few snacks against it. I would encourage our readers to provide their opinions and insight on this. I will also be contacting Coach Gains, Dr Gerald "Teddy" Bear, Former Dean of Feederism Proud FA, The Chef, and our investigative reporter Belly Boy to get to the bottom of this and let us know that it means for fatlings everywhere.

    3 comments:

    1. BELLY BOY (WILL NOT BE SILENCED)January 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM

      In these days of government cutbacks, it seems irresponsible to add newfangled procedures that are not necessarily in everyone's best interests. First off, these are old people who are on Medicare, generally. If you're old and fat, congratulations, you won! You beat out the early heart disease deaths, and if you have diabetes you've overcome that too.

      What we do not need to do as a society is engage in cannibalistic behavior such as pannus removals. What about the belly buttons? They have to be replaced with surgical creations, which are inferior. What about the inevitable weight regain? It will stretch out the skin even thinner than before, causing more injuries. You can't just carve off hunks of flesh and expect that to destroy the gluttonous instincts of the person cocooned inside that meatiest of barriers. Instead of focusing on things that would turn gluttons into normalings - which would be the only thing that could work in the long term - they are instead going for procedures that will make more money for doctors and bankrupt Medicare.

      People will think they can just gain 100 lbs and have it hacked off for free, and then do it again and again. Well, I think that if you want to enjoy the chocolate dipped fruits of gluttony, then you also have a duty to embrace the sensuality of it all by being large and in charge. If you want to lose weight then don't ask the government for help. If the government is going to get into the business of weight loss, maybe it should stop providing 1,500 calorie lunches in school cafeterias first. But of course that will never happen because we demand flavor. Therefore, let us just eat our Reese's Pieces in peace.

      We are the 75%, and our voices will not be silenced.

      By the way, I am working on the Pizza Party platform, and I have a few things settled on for now:

      ReplyDelete
    2. BELLY BOY (WILL NOT BE SILENCED)January 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM

      1) All US aircraft must be retrofitted to bariatric proportions, with at least 4 foot wide aisles and 2 foot wide seats. I recommend switching to a more convenient "around the edges" style of seating. Instead of just rows, you put the seats up against the windows to provide extra room. Then we'll just build more planes to compensate for the lower number of seats, which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
      2) Remove all federal funding for every school in the country, UNLESS, they institute Competitive Eating as a sport, and make it something that is taught in physical education. It is the sport of the future and it helps kids eat more, which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
      3) Widen the federal highway system to add extra lanes on each side. This will allow more cars to go on each side, which allows for faster transportation. This will counteract the effect of our weight increase on our fuel efficiency (fatter people get slightly worse gas mileage) which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
      4) Promote peace in the Middle East through the promotion of obesity. Free food programs will fatten up the bad guys, making them too jowly not to be jolly, and ensuring that the groups will get along.
      5) No more toothbrushes.
      6) Create the Obesity Rights Act Law (ORAL) that would make it a serious criminal offense to discriminate against fat people in the workplace.
      7) Affatative Action: For every 300 pounds of skinny employees who weigh less than 150 lbs each that are hired, the company MUST hire at least one employee weighing 300 or more pounds. This will get us fat folks back into the fold, which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
      8) Work Optional for 500+ Pounders: We will all get a free pass regarding work. As we are the elite of the elite, we will not have to provide for society and instead society must provide for us. We will have the right to demand the sexual services of any unmarried woman aged 20 to 40, once per week. Each woman may only be chosen once in any two week period, unless she pays a special tax. This one will probably require some sort of constitutional amendment, which will stimulate the economy and create jobs.
      9) The Work Optional rule will only apply to the fattest 5% of the population. Just like there's an inflation index, there will be an obesity index, which changes what is considered Massive Status, which gets you the gold royalty treatment I described.
      10) All male news anchors will be required to weigh at least 300 lbs.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Belly Boy, you need to throw your hat in the ring and waddle for president
      You have heard of the 99% well fuck them. WE are the 75%.

      One more plank I would add to your robust platform would be. people weighing less than 200 pounds get 1 vote and people weight 200 to 299 get 2 votes. People weigh 300 - 399 get 3 vote and so on. A person weighing 1000 pounds gets 12 votes and a person weighing a ton gets 30 votes.

      I also think that Dr Gerald Teddy Bear should be surgeon general.

      The Chef should be head of the Food and drug administration.

      Coach Gains aka the Godfather of Feederism should head the president's counsel of physical fattness.

      I would push for a fat right amendment.

      ReplyDelete

    After you leave a comment EAT!