Medicare & Health Coverage

Wegovy, Zepbound, and Foundayo drop to $50 a month under Medicare’s GLP-1 Bridge starting July 1 — but the copay won’t count toward the new $2,100 Part D out-of-pocket cap

Starting July 1, 2026, Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for the new GLP-1 Bridge demonstration will pay a flat $50 per month for Wegovy, Zepbound, or Foundayo. The program runs through December 31, 2027, and requires no registration or opt-in. But the $50 copay sits entirely outside the Part D benefit structure, which means it will not reduce what beneficiaries owe toward the $2,100 annual out-of-pocket cap that also takes effect in 2026. That disconnect creates a real financial tension for patients managing multiple prescriptions alongside a GLP-1 medication.

The Bridge covers four products at a fixed $50 copay

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services built the GLP-1 Bridge as a time-limited demonstration, not a permanent Part D benefit expansion. Four specific products qualify: Foundayo (orforglipron), Wegovy injection, Wegovy tablets, and Zepbound KwikPen. CMS updated the eligible product list on April 6, 2026, after the FDA approved Foundayo on April 1 under the National Priority Voucher Program. The agency confirmed the program is available nationwide to Part D enrollees who meet clinical criteria, with prior authorization routed through a central processor rather than through individual plan workflows.

Plan sponsors received additional operational detail through CMS’s guidance for Part D plans, which clarifies that Bridge claims are carved out from the normal benefit design. That means plans must recognize the eligible products, honor the fixed $50 copay, and coordinate with the central processor, but they do not adjudicate these prescriptions under their standard formularies or tier structures.

Novo Nordisk confirmed in a company statement that Wegovy access expanded for Medicare beneficiaries living with obesity through the Bridge. The $50 monthly figure applies uniformly across all four products, regardless of dosage form. Beneficiaries do not need to switch plans or complete a separate enrollment step. Instead, once a prescriber secures prior authorization, the pharmacy processes the prescription through the Bridge mechanism, and the beneficiary pays the set amount at the counter.

The $50 copay bypasses the Part D deductible and the $2,100 cap

a man showing a man something on the tablet — 📷 Nappy/Unsplash

Here is the catch that matters most for household budgeting: Bridge claims are processed entirely outside the Part D benefit flow. That means the standard Part D deductible does not apply to Bridge prescriptions, which saves money up front. But the same structural separation also means the $50 monthly copay does not count toward true out-of-pocket costs, known in Medicare terminology as TrOOP. The CMS Bridge FAQ states this explicitly.

The practical result is straightforward. A beneficiary paying $50 a month for Wegovy or Zepbound will spend $600 per year on that medication alone between July 2026 and December 2027. None of that $600 will count toward reaching the $2,100 threshold where catastrophic coverage kicks in for other Part D drugs. For someone also taking expensive medications for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, the Bridge copay is essentially invisible to the Part D cost-sharing math. The $2,100 cap, confirmed by Medicare’s drug cost page, applies only to covered Part D drugs processed through the standard benefit.

That design creates a trade-off. For beneficiaries who would otherwise face list prices of more than $1,000 per month for a GLP-1, a guaranteed $50 copay is a substantial discount even if it does not accelerate progress toward the cap. But for those already on multiple high-cost therapies, the Bridge could feel like an extra layer of spending on top of what they must still pay before hitting the $2,100 ceiling for their other medications.

What the clinical criteria and approval process look like

CMS has published provider-facing guidance explaining that prescribers must submit prior authorization through a centralized processor, not through the beneficiary’s Part D plan. The agency has not disclosed specific denial rates or detailed the exact clinical criteria beyond confirming that access depends on meeting Bridge-specific requirements. Beneficiary-facing materials confirm that no separate registration is needed and that the program applies to qualifying Part D enrollees across all plan types.

Clinicians must document that a patient meets the obesity- or overweight-related criteria tied to the GLP-1 indication and that they are enrolled in Medicare with Part D coverage. Once the prior authorization is approved, pharmacies can dispense the medication under the demonstration with the fixed copay. However, the limited detail on clinical thresholds means some patients and physicians may face uncertainty about who exactly qualifies until they submit a prior authorization and receive a determination.

Because the Bridge is centralized, appeals and reconsiderations may also follow a different path than standard Part D denials. CMS has not yet laid out a comprehensive appeals roadmap in public-facing materials, leaving open questions about how quickly disputes will be resolved and whether timelines will mirror existing Part D protections.

Unresolved questions about the Bridge’s future

Close up showing woman self administering glp 1 receptor agonist injection into abdomen addressing weight management and diabetes treatment — 📷 audit2006ek/Freepik

Several significant gaps remain in the public record. CMS has not published projected enrollment figures or total federal spending estimates for the demonstration. The agency also has not explained how Bridge claims will be tracked or reconciled with Part D systems after the program’s scheduled end on December 31, 2027. If the demonstration expires without extension, beneficiaries currently paying $50 per month could face a sharp cost increase, reverting to whatever their Part D plan charges for these medications, assuming the plan covers them at all.

The interaction between the Bridge and state Medicaid programs is also unclear. CMS Bridge materials reference Medicaid resources, but no primary documentation spells out coordination rules for dual-eligible beneficiaries who hold both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Whether those individuals face different cost-sharing terms or administrative steps has not been addressed in published guidance. Until more detail emerges, case managers and state agencies will likely need to interpret the demonstration’s rules on a beneficiary-by-beneficiary basis.

Another open question is how the Bridge might influence future coverage decisions. The demonstration could generate data on utilization, adherence, and weight-loss outcomes among older adults, but CMS has not committed to using those findings as a basis for permanent policy. Stakeholders watching GLP-1 coverage in Medicare will be looking for any signal that the agency views the Bridge as a stepping stone toward broader, long-term access.

How to separate hard evidence from open questions

The strongest evidence comes directly from CMS. The agency’s main press release and its detailed FAQ confirm the $50 copay, the four eligible products, the July 1 start date, and the December 31, 2027 end date. The plan-level instructions clarify that Bridge claims bypass normal Part D cost-sharing and do not count toward TrOOP, even as they rely on Part D enrollment as a basic eligibility requirement.

Beyond those core facts, much of the conversation around the GLP-1 Bridge involves inference and reasonable concern rather than settled policy. Analysts can model how a $50 copay might affect adherence, or how excluding those payments from TrOOP might shift who reaches the $2,100 cap, but CMS has not yet released projections to validate or challenge those scenarios. Likewise, advocates can argue that the demonstration should be extended or made permanent, but the agency has not committed to any path beyond 2027.

For now, beneficiaries and clinicians face a mixed picture. On one hand, the Bridge offers predictable, dramatically lower prices for a small set of high-demand GLP-1 therapies, with no need to navigate plan-by-plan coverage differences. On the other, its separation from the Part D benefit design, the opacity of clinical criteria, and the uncertainty about what happens after 2027 all complicate long-term planning. As more operational details emerge, careful attention to primary CMS documents will remain essential for distinguishing what is firmly decided from what is still very much in flux.

Fees, Scams & Rip-Offs

12,400 Americans 60 and older lost more than $100,000 each to online scammers last year — the FBI says any caller demanding gift cards, crypto, or a wire transfer is the scam

Last year, at least 12,400 Americans age 60 and older each lost more than $100,000 to online scammers, according to the FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Complaint Center report. Total losses tied to elder fraud topped $7.7 billion across more than 201,000 complaints. The payment methods scammers demand, including gift cards, cryptocurrency, and wire transfers, have become the clearest warning sign that a caller or message is fraudulent.

Billions stolen through three payment channels

The scale of financial damage to older adults has reached a level that federal agencies now treat as a distinct enforcement priority. The FBI’s IC3 recorded more than 201,000 complaints and $7.7 billion in losses from scams targeting people 60 and older. Within that group, at least 12,400 victims reported individual losses of $100,000 or more, a figure that represents retirement savings, home equity, and years of accumulated wealth disappearing in days or weeks.

Scammers funnel stolen money through channels that are fast, hard to trace, and nearly impossible to reverse. Victims are often directed to pay using cash, wire transfers, or gift cards. In tech-support schemes, criminals also instruct targets to wire or transfer funds to cryptocurrency exchanges or move crypto between wallets, according to a warning from the FBI’s Boston field office. Once a gift-card PIN is read aloud over the phone or funds hit a crypto wallet controlled by the scammer, the money is effectively gone.

The FBI has stated the rule plainly. “Neither the FBI nor any legitimate law-enforcement agency will ever demand cash or gift cards or ask you to move money ‘for safekeeping,'” the FBI Albuquerque field office said in a public alert about government impersonation scams. The Federal Trade Commission has echoed that guidance: when someone demands to be paid with a gift card, it is a scam. Legitimate businesses and government agencies do not demand immediate payment through any of these three channels.

What remains uncertain about the full toll

Portrait of senior woman using credit card to buy online — 📷 nicuervo/Freepik

The 201,000-plus complaint figure almost certainly understates the true scope. Many fraud victims never file a report, whether out of embarrassment, confusion about where to report, or a belief that recovery is impossible. The IC3 data captures only complaints submitted to that specific portal, not cases reported to local police, state attorneys general, or the FTC separately.

Several gaps in the public data limit how precisely analysts can measure the problem. The 2025 IC3 report does not break out elder-fraud losses by state and payment method simultaneously, so it is difficult to determine whether crypto-based scams concentrate in certain regions or whether gift-card schemes hit rural areas harder than urban ones. No published FBI or FTC dataset isolates how many of the $100,000-plus losses involved remote-desktop access tools, which tech-support scammers use to take direct control of a victim’s computer and banking sessions. The FBI’s Boston office has described this tactic in detail, but aggregate numbers linking remote-desktop intrusions to six-figure losses have not been released.

The FTC has published national-level data on which gift-card brands scammers most frequently demand, but complaint-level detail on how those brands correlate with victim age or loss size is summarized only at a high level. Without granular breakdowns, it is hard to tell whether specific retail chains could do more to intercept suspicious purchases at the point of sale. That leaves policymakers and consumer advocates relying on broad patterns rather than precise targeting when they design interventions.

How to separate hard evidence from red-flag guidance

Two types of information anchor this story, and readers should weigh them differently. The first is statistical: the 201,000-plus complaints, $7.7 billion in losses, and 12,400 victims losing $100,000 or more all come from the FBI’s own annual crime report, drawn from direct victim submissions to IC3. These are counts of self-reported incidents, not projections or estimates. They carry the authority of a federal law-enforcement database but also its limitations, since unreported fraud does not appear.

The second type is guidance-based. Statements from the FBI and FTC about payment-method red flags, such as the rule that no legitimate entity will demand gift cards, crypto, or wire transfers, are official advisories rather than data points. They reflect patterns investigators have observed across thousands of cases, and both agencies have issued them repeatedly through field offices and consumer alerts. These warnings are well-supported by complaint trends, but they function as behavioral signals rather than statistical findings.

Readers who receive an unexpected call, email, or pop-up message demanding urgent payment should treat the payment method itself as the diagnostic test. If the caller insists on a gift card, a wire transfer, or a cryptocurrency transaction, that demand alone identifies the interaction as a scam, regardless of what agency or company the caller claims to represent. The FBI and FTC have framed this as a bright-line rule precisely because it is simple enough to remember under pressure, when a scammer is trying to provoke panic.

Practical steps older adults and families can take

Senior grandfather man typing credit cards information on laptop making internet online shopping — 📷 SkelDry/Freepik

While the aggregate numbers are daunting, individual households can reduce their risk with a few concrete practices. Families can start by having explicit conversations about money requests. Agree in advance that no one will send large payments, buy gift cards, or move funds to a new account based solely on a phone call or pop-up message. Instead, they will hang up, independently look up the organization’s official number, and call back.

Older adults who use computers or smartphones should be encouraged to treat unsolicited tech-support alerts as suspicious by default. Pop-up windows claiming that a device is infected and providing a phone number to call are a common entry point for scammers. Users should close the browser, restart the device if needed, and contact a trusted local repair shop or the device manufacturer using contact information from their own records, not from the pop-up.

Families can also set up simple verification routines. For example, if someone receives a message from a relative asking for urgent money, they should call that person on a known number or arrange a quick video chat before sending anything. Scammers increasingly spoof caller ID and mimic voices, so relying on a familiar number or face-to-face confirmation is more reliable than trusting what appears on the screen.

When in doubt, slowing down is one of the most powerful defenses. Nearly all of the schemes described in official alerts hinge on urgency: a supposed grandchild in jail, a threatened arrest by “federal agents,” or a claim that a bank account will be frozen within minutes. Simply pausing to consult a family member, financial advisor, or local law-enforcement non-emergency line can interrupt that pressure and expose the fraud.

Why payment-method rules matter more than the story

Scammers constantly change their scripts, cycling through tech-support ruses, fake investment opportunities, romance scams, and government-impersonation calls. What changes far less often is how they demand to be paid. That is why federal agencies emphasize payment channels as the most reliable warning sign. A caller may sound convincing, know personal details, or spoof an official number, but if they insist on gift cards, crypto, or a wire transfer, they have revealed their true intent.

For older adults who may feel overwhelmed by evolving online threats, this focus on payment methods offers a practical takeaway. They do not need to memorize every new scam variation. Instead, they can remember a short rule: if someone you do not know well asks you to move money in a way that cannot be easily reversed, stop and verify before acting. Families and caregivers who reinforce that message can help ensure that the billions currently flowing through these three payment channels do not grow unchecked in the years ahead.

401(k) & IRA Strategies

Workers aged 60 to 63 can stash $11,250 in 401(k) catch-up contributions for 2026 — a one-time super catch-up that ends the year they turn 64

Americans turning 60, 61, 62, or 63 this year have a narrow opening to push an extra $11,250 into their 401(k) plans as catch-up contributions for 2026. The temporary boost, created by the SECURE 2.0 Act and confirmed in IRS Notice 2025-67, applies only during the calendar years a worker hits those specific ages and disappears the year that same worker turns 64. For anyone already maxing out the standard $7,500 age-50 catch-up, the higher limit represents a one-time chance to accelerate retirement savings before the window closes.

The $11,250 super catch-up and who qualifies

The higher catch-up figure comes directly from Section 414(v)(2)(E)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under that provision, participants who attain ages 60 through 63 during a given taxable year may defer up to $11,250 on top of the regular elective deferral limit, which rises to $24,500 for 2026. That means an eligible worker could stash as much as $35,750 in pre-tax or Roth 401(k) deferrals in a single year. The Internal Revenue Bulletin spells out the limit and specifies it covers applicable employer plans other than SIMPLE 401(k) and SIMPLE IRA arrangements, which carry separate thresholds.

The eligible plan types extend beyond traditional 401(k) accounts. Workers in 403(b) plans, governmental 457 plans, and the federal Thrift Savings Plan also qualify for the same $11,250 ceiling, according to the IRS catch-up guidance. The age check is straightforward: a participant must turn 60, 61, 62, or 63 at any point during the 2026 calendar year. Once a participant turns 64, the super catch-up vanishes and the standard $7,500 limit kicks back in.

What is verified so far

Happy old senior businessman looking at laptop screen and smiling on reading email sitting at home office Elderly man working online with calculator on table in front of book shelf at workplace — 📷 danielcamandona03/Freepik

Three layers of federal documentation lock in the key facts. First, the statutory text under 26 U.S.C. Section 414(v) establishes the catch-up contribution framework and limits the higher amount to participants attaining ages 60 through 63 in the taxable year. Second, the Treasury Department and IRS issued final regulations covering both the increased catch-up limits and the new Roth catch-up rule that SECURE 2.0 introduced; those rules, summarized in an IRS news release, confirm the government’s intent to enforce the age-based structure starting with the 2025 plan year and continuing into 2026. Third, IRS Notice 2025-67, distributed as an official PDF through the agency’s document drop system, sets the 2026 dollar amounts after applying cost-of-living adjustments.

The $11,250 figure is not new for 2026; it matches the amount that first applied for 2025. Because inflation-based rounding did not trigger an increase, the super catch-up limit stayed flat year over year. The regular age-50 catch-up also held steady at $7,500. Both numbers are indexed to inflation, so they can rise in future years, but for the 2026 plan year they remain unchanged from the prior cycle.

The age-based design means different birth-year cohorts cycle in and out of eligibility. A worker born in 1963, for instance, turns 63 in 2026 and qualifies. That same worker turns 64 in 2027 and drops back to the $7,500 limit. A worker born in 1966 turns 60 in 2026, qualifies for the first time, and remains eligible through the year they turn 63 in 2029. The temporary nature of the benefit creates a rolling four-year window for each individual, but the window is fixed by birth year and cannot be extended.

What remains uncertain

Several practical questions lack clear answers in the published guidance. The IRS has not released plan-level examples or worksheets showing exactly how employers should verify a participant’s birth year each January and adjust payroll withholding mid-year if needed. Large recordkeepers will likely automate the check, but smaller plan sponsors using manual processes face an administrative gap that the final regulations do not address in step-by-step detail.

No federal data exists yet on projected or actual uptake rates among the eligible age cohorts. The super catch-up primarily benefits workers who are already contributing enough to hit the standard ceiling, a group that skews toward higher earners. Whether rank-and-file participants in their early sixties will change behavior to capture the extra $3,750 above the normal catch-up is an open question. Without enrollment or deferral-rate data from recordkeepers, any estimate of the provision’s reach is speculative.

The interaction between the super catch-up and SIMPLE plan limits also deserves caution. The IRS bulletin explicitly excludes SIMPLE 401(k) and SIMPLE IRA plans from the $11,250 cap, meaning participants in those arrangements remain subject to the lower SIMPLE deferral and catch-up thresholds. Workers who change jobs in their early sixties and move between a SIMPLE plan and a traditional 401(k) could encounter different caps within the same year, and the guidance does not yet spell out how employers should coordinate limits when a participant contributes to multiple plans sponsored by unrelated employers.

Another unresolved issue is how strictly plans must apply the Roth catch-up mandate for higher earners alongside the age-60-to-63 increase. SECURE 2.0 requires certain catch-up contributions for higher-income participants to be made on a Roth basis, but the mechanics of combining that rule with the larger super catch-up amount are not fully illustrated in public examples. Plan sponsors and payroll providers may need additional clarifications on whether the entire $11,250 must follow the same tax treatment as the base catch-up or can be split between pre-tax and Roth within the same year.

How to use the four-year window

A caucasian senior Businessman working in modern office — 📷 tonefotografia/Freepik

For workers who qualify, the planning challenge is less about eligibility and more about cash flow. To capture the full $11,250 super catch-up, a participant typically must front-load higher deferral percentages early in the year, especially if their salary is modest relative to the maximum. Missing even a few pay periods at the start of the year can make it difficult to reach the combined $35,750 limit by December.

One practical approach is to calculate the required deferral rate before the plan year begins. A worker earning $120,000 annually who wants to hit the full $35,750 in 2026 would need to defer just under 30% of pay, assuming contributions are spread evenly across 24 or 26 paychecks. If that rate is unrealistic, the participant can still aim to exceed the standard catch-up, even if they fall short of the full super catch-up ceiling. Because the limit is a cap rather than a threshold, any additional dollars contributed within the allowed range still benefit from tax deferral or Roth treatment.

Coordinating with employer matching formulas is equally important. Some plans match contributions per paycheck rather than on an annual basis. In those designs, aggressive front-loading can accidentally reduce total matching dollars if the participant hits the annual limit before year-end and stops contributing. Workers in their early sixties should review their plan’s matching rules and, if necessary, spread contributions across the full year to avoid leaving employer money on the table while still taking advantage of the higher catch-up space.

Households where both spouses are in the eligible age band have a particularly strong opportunity. Each spouse with access to a qualifying plan has their own $11,250 super catch-up limit, allowing a couple to shelter up to $22,500 in additional retirement contributions beyond the normal age-50 catch-up amounts. That can meaningfully accelerate savings in the final working years, especially for those who started later or experienced career breaks.

Next steps for savers and employers

Workers who will be 60 to 63 in 2026 should confirm their plan type, contribution limits, and payroll settings before the new year. Checking the summary plan description, logging into the recordkeeper’s website, or talking with the HR or benefits office can clarify whether the plan has already integrated the super catch-up rules. Participants should also review their broader retirement income plan to decide how much of the extra capacity they can realistically afford to use without straining day-to-day budgets.

Employers and plan sponsors, meanwhile, may want to update enrollment materials, online calculators, and employee communications to highlight the temporary nature of the higher limit. Clear explanations of who qualifies, how the age test works, and how the Roth catch-up requirement interacts with the super catch-up can reduce confusion and help participants make informed choices. Until the IRS issues more operational detail, careful coordination among benefits staff, payroll providers, and recordkeepers will be essential to ensure that the new limits are applied correctly and that older workers can fully benefit from this short-lived opportunity to boost their retirement savings.