Editor’s Note: This perspective was originally published in InsideSources.com on July 10, 2026.
New Yorkers have heard harrowing and inspiring news from Bill Ritter of ABC News for the better part of 30 years. On June 12, he announced that he was stepping aside due to a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. With the disease still in its early stages, Ritter may benefit from very recent advances in treatment.
For the last five years, the prevailing sentiment among many health plans, policymakers and physicians has been that a new class of drugs for Alzheimer’s disease doesn’t really work.
That view has led the administration to preserve policies restricting Medicare coverage for these drugs, which has caused many clinicians to avoid prescribing them and several private health plans to deny coverage for them.
This is an unacceptable disservice to the families suffering the terrible consequences of this disease. We must be guided by science and the clinical trial data. It’s now time for a second look at the data and the policies built on them.
First, the science. A major driver of progression of Alzheimer’s is accumulation of a toxic material called amyloid in the brain. We know this because every genetic cause of Alzheimer’s directly increases the generation of amyloid, and amyloid drives the cognitive decline of the disease. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers confirm this.
Next, the clinical trial data. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the definitive source of knowledge on the efficacy and safety of therapies. Two drugs, donanemab and lecanemab, have been proven in multiple RCTs to be effective in slowing Alzheimer’s disease in its early symptomatic stage by about 30 percent. Follow-up studies indicate that the benefits persist even after stopping treatment.
These drugs can cause side effects. Treatment requires careful monitoring, and they are not appropriate for some individuals. However, those who do take the drugs have meaningful benefits. Treatment for 18 months delays the subsequent loss of function by five to six months. If individuals are treated for longer periods, longer delays in loss of function are expected. Continuing studies of earlier treatment (before symptoms start) and combination therapies may increase the benefits.
Research at the University of Southern California predicted that a drug given before symptoms would slow the disease by 50 percent, extend each patient’s life by a year on average, and reduce healthcare spending by $48,000 over their remaining lives. Such savings would provide critical relief to federal and state health programs that are straining to pay for aging Baby Boomers while also funding education and infrastructure that are critical to the nation.
Anti-amyloid drugs aren’t for everyone, but we believe the U.S. healthcare system shouldn’t — as it is currently doing — hinder people who could benefit from choosing them. If health plans, policymakers and physicians would take another look at the evidence for these drugs, they would find delayed disease progression over a timeline of multiple years. This reduction means greater independence for patients, leading to an improved quality of life and the retention of their hobbies and community engagement. This positive health effect also extends to families and caregivers, reducing what can be an enormous burden.
Based on this evidence, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should consider the costs to patients of maintaining the Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) program instituted in 2022, which requires seniors to enroll in a Medicare-approved registry to receive coverage for these drugs. That’s been a significant barrier for many patients, particularly in rural areas, who don’t have access to a clinician who participates in these studies. CED also continues to signal to private payers and providers that these drugs are unproven. Instead of subjecting anti-amyloid therapies to CED, Medicare should continue to monitor phase IV data in formal study publications — real-world safety and efficacy information collected from patients — to address remaining medical-necessity questions.
Meanwhile, health practitioners and health systems should prioritize the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s as early in the disease as possible, ramping up use of new diagnostic tools such as AI-powered digital cognitive assessments and Alzheimer’s disease blood tests. Medicare can’t independently cover screenings, but the ASAP Act would authorize such coverage. Congress should pass this bill without delay.
In testimony this year, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called it “regulatory malpractice” that screening for Alzheimer’s was not covered by Medicare.
Restricting coverage for a class of treatments that has proven efficacy is an even more egregious example. It is certain that removing amyloid plaque is now a foundational strategy for how we battle Alzheimer’s disease. Our approach to these drugs should be to build on them, not to block them.
