Men's Health Briefing: November 9, 2026 | Men's Health Atlas

Weekly Briefing

Men's Health Briefing: November 9, 2026

Covers November 3 – 9, 2026

The short version

This week

TelehealthNovember 4, 2026 (Federal Register, November 9)

Medicare finalizes its 2027 physician payment rule, with lower base rates and new remote-monitoring requirements

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released its final 2027 Physician Fee Schedule on November 4, and it was published in the Federal Register on November 9. It applies to services on or after January 1, 2027. The basic payment rate falls 2.31% for most clinicians, from $33.40 to $32.63, and 1.83% for those in qualifying alternative payment models, from $33.57 to $32.95. CMS says the decrease reflects the end of a one-year 2.50% increase from 2026 legislation.

For remote care, CMS finalized a requirement that clinicians billing for remote monitoring, such as home blood pressure programs, hold a separately reportable visit when the monitoring starts, and it limited remote therapeutic monitoring to established patients. CMS's fact sheet also says rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers can keep billing for non-behavioral telehealth visits through December 31, 2027. We relied on CMS's press release and fact sheet and on the American Hospital Association's summary; we did not read the full rule or the updated list of covered telehealth services.

What it means for youIf you have Medicare, you can keep using telehealth as you do now: the expanded coverage runs through December 31, 2027 under current law. If your doctor is starting you on a home monitoring program in 2027, expect a visit first; an industry summary says it can be in person or by telehealth, and that people already enrolled before January 1 are exempt. This rule sets what Medicare pays clinicians. It does not set the price if you pay cash to an online clinic; see our TRT cost guide for what ongoing treatment costs.

Sources: CMS press release · CMS fact sheet · Federal Register (Nov 9) · American Hospital Association · Health Recovery Solutions (industry summary) · Related: Blood pressure guide · TRT cost per year

ConferenceNovember 7, 2026

A drug cut Lp(a) by 78%, but heart attacks and strokes did not fall in a large trial

Results of the Lp(a) HORIZON trial were presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions in Chicago and published the same day in the New England Journal of Medicine. The double-blind trial enrolled 8,323 people with established cardiovascular disease and Lp(a) of 70 mg/dL or higher, at 797 sites in 42 countries; 27% were women and the average age was 60. Monthly injections of pelacarsen lowered Lp(a) by an average of 78%, but there was no difference from placebo in time to a first heart attack, stroke, urgent artery-opening procedure, or cardiovascular death.

Serious adverse events were similar (37.3% on pelacarsen, 41.1% on placebo), but about 21% of people on pelacarsen stopped because of side effects, compared with more than 7% on placebo, and 19 people on pelacarsen had anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, compared with none on placebo. The trial was funded by Novartis. It ran from 2019 to 2026, partly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 78% of participants were white. We read the American Heart Association's release, not the full journal article.

What it means for youPelacarsen is an experimental drug, and there is still no approved medicine that specifically lowers Lp(a). This trial tested one drug in people who already had heart disease, so it doesn't settle whether other Lp(a)-lowering drugs will help. Lp(a) remains a known risk marker. Our cholesterol guide explains what the test tells you, and your doctor can help you weigh a result alongside your other risk factors.

Sources: American Heart Association release · Related: Lp(a): the genetic wildcard

ConferenceNovember 7, 2026

Aiming for lower blood pressure in people with diabetes did not significantly reduce heart events in a Brazilian trial

The OPTIMAL-DIABETES trial, presented at the American Heart Association meeting and published the same day in the New England Journal of Medicine, randomly assigned 9,476 adults aged 50 and older with type 2 diabetes and elevated systolic blood pressure to a target below 120 or below 140 mm Hg, at 33 sites in Brazil. The average age was 65 and 62% were women. Over a median of four years, systolic pressure averaged 122 versus 135 mm Hg. Major cardiovascular events occurred in 6.0% of the lower-target group and 6.7% of the standard group, a difference that was not statistically significant. Kidney-related events, mostly declines in kidney function, were more common with the lower target (5.7% versus 3.7%), while kidney failure was similar.

Participants and investigators knew which treatment was assigned, and the results may not apply outside Brazil. We read the American Heart Association's release, not the full journal article.

What it means for youOne trial doesn't change what's right for any individual, and blood pressure goals depend on your overall risk. If you have diabetes, ask your doctor what target makes sense for you and how your kidney function is being tracked. Talk to your prescriber before changing any blood pressure medication. Our blood pressure guide covers the basics.

Sources: American Heart Association release · Related: Blood pressure guide · Blood sugar and metabolic health

We also checked FDA and FTC announcements and the Federal Register for November 3–9. We found no new FDA action on testosterone, GLP-1s, erectile dysfunction, or hair-loss drugs, no new FTC action on telehealth or health claims, and no DEA telemedicine rule (see below).

Health topics

GLP-1 & obesity drugsNovember 2, 2026

GLP-1 drugs linked to fewer obesity-related cancers than insulin or sulfonylureas in adults with diabetes, but not compared with other newer drugs

Researchers used electronic health records from UT Southwestern Medical Center, covering January 2010 to July 2025 and a source population of 359,595 adults with type 2 diabetes and no prior obesity-related cancer. They compared people starting a GLP-1 drug (5,835 to 18,007 people per comparison) with people starting one of five other diabetes medicines (1,290 to 20,445 per comparison). At five years, GLP-1 starters had a lower rate of obesity-related cancer than people starting insulin (hazard ratio 0.61, about 39% lower) or sulfonylureas (0.75, about 25% lower). There was no clear difference compared with metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, or DPP-4 inhibitors. The study was published November 2, 2026 in JAMA Network Open.

The limits matter. This is an observational study from one health system, so people given different drugs may have differed in ways the analysis could not remove, and it cannot show the drugs prevented cancer. Results split by diabetes severity were exploratory. Many people started GLP-1s recently, so the five-year results rest mainly on earlier users. The article does not report what share of participants were men. Funding came from government and nonprofit sources, which had no role in the study; one author reported fees from drug companies, including makers of GLP-1 drugs. The authors say the findings do not support choosing a diabetes drug for cancer prevention.

What it means for youThis adds to research on GLP-1 drugs and cancer but doesn't settle the question, and it applies to adults with type 2 diabetes. A diabetes medicine is chosen for its effects on blood sugar, heart, and kidneys, and for how you tolerate it, so talk with your prescriber before making any change. Our GLP-1 guide covers what these drugs do and the cautions around them.

Sources: JAMA Network Open (DOI) · PubMed record · Related: GLP-1 medications · Cancer screening

Prostate & urologic healthOnline September 28, 2026 (November issue)

Older veterans had fewer PSA tests and biopsies under VA primary care than under Medicare

Researchers used linked VA and Medicare records from fiscal years 2004 to 2023 for 1.41 million male veterans aged 65 and older (average age 71.3) enrolled in both systems, adding up to 8.67 million person-years. From 2018 to 2023, men aged 80 and older whose primary care was mainly through the VA had 187.9 PSA tests per 1,000 person-years, compared with 267.9 for those mainly in traditional Medicare, about 30% fewer. Biopsies were also about a third lower (3.38 versus 5.05 per 1,000 person-years). PSA testing was 16% lower in the VA for men expected to live less than five years, and 10% higher for men aged 65 to 69. The authors conclude that VA care better matched testing to the men most likely to benefit. The study appeared online September 28, 2026 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The limits matter. This is an observational study of testing rates; the results we read do not report whether the differences changed cancer deaths or other health outcomes. It covers veterans enrolled in both systems and excludes men only in Medicare Advantage, so it may not apply to all older men. It was funded by the VA, and the authors reported no conflicts of interest. We read the abstract only.

What it means for youWhether to have a PSA test depends on your age, health, and preferences, and it is a decision to make with your doctor. For older men especially, it's reasonable to ask what a result would change and what follow-up it could lead to. Our cancer screening guide covers who should consider PSA testing and the trade-offs, and our prostate health guide explains what a PSA number means.

Sources: JAMA Internal Medicine (DOI) · PubMed record · Related: PSA testing · Prostate cancer screening

What we're watching

All briefings →

This briefing summarizes publicly reported news and government actions for general education. It is not medical or legal advice. Legal allegations described here have not been proven unless stated. Always confirm details with the original sources and talk to a licensed physician before changing any treatment.