Medicare Enrolled will see Lower Costs on Select Drugs in 2026

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on December 2, 2025

With Medicare Open Enrollment ending next week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that last year’s Medicare negotiations produced a net savings of 44%—about $12 billion—on 15 widely used prescription drugs that treat cancer and other serious chronic conditions.

The new Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs) for these 15 drugs will take effect on January 1, 2027. Combined with the 10 drugs already negotiated—whose MFPs take effect January 1, 2026—a total of 25 drugs will have negotiated lower prices. These medications, used to treat conditions such as cancer, diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular and neurological disorders, represent some of the highest Medicare Part D spending.

The Beginning of Drug Price Negotiations

Three years ago, after President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, CMS began developing the process for Medicare’s first-ever drug price negotiations. On March 15, 2023, the federal agency issued its initial program guidance and received more than 7,500 public comments from consumer groups, patient advocates, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies. Revised guidance followed on June 30, 2023.

On August 29, 2023, CMS released the first list of 10 high-cost drugs selected for negotiation—marking the first time in Medicare’s history that it could negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceutical industry groups and several companies attempted to block the law in court. In response, 70 organizations and 150,000 petition signers urged Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma US, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to drop their lawsuits. Multiple organizations also filed amicus briefs supporting the law.

Three years in process, and with courts ultimately allowing the program to proceed, that first round of 10 drugs with negotiated prices will take effect in 2026.

CMS Drug Negotiations Added 15 Drugs

On January 17th, CMS announced it had selected 15 additional drugs for the second cycle of negotiations under Medicare Part D and on November 25th, it was announced that agreements had been reached on all of them. These medications are among the most costly and most commonly used by Medicare beneficiaries, treating conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and asthma. The new round of negotiations is expected to save Medicare billions and strengthen the program’s long-term sustainability.

“This year’s results stand in stark contrast to last year’s,” said CMS Administrator Mehmet OzMD, in announcing the second cycle of negotiations.  “Using the same process with a bolder direction, we have achieved substantially better outcomes for taxpayers and seniors in the Medicare Part D program — not the modest or even counterproductive ‘deals’ we saw before.”

“Whether through the Inflation Reduction Act or President Trump’s Most Favored Nation policy, this is what serious, fair, and disciplined negotiation looks like,” adds CMS Deputy Administrator and Medicare Director Chris Klomp. “I’m deeply proud of our team, who execute exceptionally well to bring affordability to the country in everything we do.”

Between January 1 and December 31, 2024, approximately 5.3 million Medicare Part D enrollees used one or more of these 15 drugs. Total gross Part D spending for them was $42.5 billion, representing about 15% of all Part D drug costs.

Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, praised the newly released negotiated prices, stating that they show what is possible when “policymakers put patients before corporate profits.” Wright emphasized that these reductions build on the work of establishing the Drug Price Negotiation Program, which aims to provide financial relief to older adults and people with disabilities.

Wright noted that the first and second rounds of negotiated drugs together account for about one-third of Medicare Part D spending, with price reductions ranging from 38% to 85%. In 2027, beneficiaries using these drugs are projected to save $685 million in out-of-pocket costs. He added that the savings support both individual beneficiaries and the long-term sustainability of the Medicare program.

Despite pharmaceutical companies’ continued attempts to limit the program—through lawsuits and legislative provisions such as those in H.R. 1—Wright said the negotiation program remains “the most effective tool currently available to lower drug prices.”

“The Medicare Negotiation Program changed the trajectory of drug pricing in the United States, helping to reduce Big Pharma’s monopoly pricing power, which dictated prices to Americans on Medicare for two decades,” said Merith Basey, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs in a statement. “This second round of negotiations — now under President Trump — marks another major milestone, delivering continued savings for patients and taxpayers,” he said.

“The lower negotiated prices are more than numbers on a page. For patients who’ve been forced to work multiple jobs, cut pills in half, or choose between filling a prescription and buying groceries, these lower prices will bring long-overdue relief, flexibility, and stability,” added Basey.

“The requirement that Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs continues to pay dividends for older Americans and taxpayers,” adds Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “The announcement of lower drug prices for 15 high-priced drugs is a win for more than 5 million seniors who take these drugs to treat asthma, diabetes, lung disease and other serious conditions, and will soon pay less for their medications,” he says.

“The 4.4 million members of the Alliance are pleased that the Trump Administration has followed the law, negotiated these prices, and defended this law in court,” Fiesta says, calling on Congress to increase the number of drugs subject to price negotiations.

While the White House along with aging groups praise the impact of IRA’s Medicare drug negotiation provisions, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) issued a statement calling it “flawed.”

“Whether it is the IRA or MFN, government price setting for medicines is the wrong policy for America. Price setting does nothing to rein in PBMs who decide which medicines are covered and what patients pay. In fact, many patients are facing additional coverage barriers and paying more out-of-pocket for medicines because of the IRA, warns Alex Schriver, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs.

“These flawed policies also threaten future medical innovation by siphoning $300 billion from biopharmaceutical research, undermining the American economy and our ability to compete globally,” states Schriver, noting that PhRMA members are stepping up to make medicines more affordable by enabling direct purchase at lower prices and investing in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure.

Lower Drug Cost Legislation Introduced

Congressman John B. Larson (D-CT), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, praised the latest CMS announcement, estimating that both negotiation rounds will save older Americans more than $2 billion per year in out-of-pocket costs. Larson noted that families and seniors continue to struggle with rising prices, especially for prescription drugs.  The lawmaker pushed to enable Medicare to negotiate drug prices to lower drug costs by the enactment of IRA.

Last week, House Democrats introduced the Lower Drug Costs for American Families Act, aimed at closing loopholes in H.R. 1 and further reducing prescription drug prices. The bill (H.R. 6166), introduced November 20 by Ranking Members Frank Pallone Jr. (Energy and Commerce), Richard Neal (Ways and Means), and Bobby Scott (Education and Workforce), has been referred to all three committees.

Key provisions of the bill would:

  • Extend Medicare’s price negotiation authority to all Americans with private insurance—covering more than 164 million people with employer-sponsored plans and over 24 million enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans
  • Apply inflation-based rebate protections to private insurance markets, potentially saving $40 billion over 10 years
  • Increase the number of negotiated drugs from 20 to 50 per year
  • Extend the $2,000 annual out-of-pocket prescription drug cap to privately insured patients
  • Cap insulin costs at $35 per month for those with private insurance
  • Close the orphan-drug loophole that allows companies to avoid negotiation
  • Require consideration of international drug prices to ensure Americans do not pay three to five times more than patients in other countries

Continue the Momentum

According to CMS, the agency will announce the specifics on 15 drugs for the third round of Medicare price negotiations by February 1, 2026. This new round will include drugs paid under Medicare Part B for the first time and will begin with negotiated prices effective January 1, 2028. CMS has already released final guidance for the program and will also use this process to select drugs for renegotiation in previous cycles. IRA also establishes an ongoing process where more drugs will be selected for negotiation in subsequent years.

A Dec. 2024 AARP survey found that almost 3 in 5 adults age 50 and older expressed concern about their ability to afford prescriptions over the near future.  Respondents included both Medicare beneficiaries and younger persons. About 96 percent of the respondents call on the government to do more to lower pharmaceutical prices.

AARP noted that this survey was taken right before a new $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket drug expenses took effect in 2025.

With the announcement of lower drug costs that result from Medicare’s round 2 drug negotiations, there is an  opportunity to build on this momentum for real change. Lawmakers can legislate to put the public’s health above profit by giving consumers more power to negotiate, making competition stronger, and keeping patients from having to pay too much out of pocket.

It is now time for Congress to act.

Social Security must be key issue in 2024 Presidential Election

Published in RINewsToday on July 17, 2023

Last Wednesday, 178 House Democrats, (90% of the House Democratic caucus) led by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) introduced  H.R. 4583, the “Social Security 2100 Act of 2023.” The 108-page bill would expand Social Security’s benefits, with no cuts, and keep the system fiscally strong for decades to come. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) has introduced the companion measure in the upper Chamber.

In May, to drum up support, enthusiasm, and attention for H.R. 4583, Larson, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member, was joined by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-,New York), Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D- Massachusetts) and other House leaders to announce the upcoming introduction of Social Security 2100.

“10,000 Baby Boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, making the point of acting now even more urgent, says Larson. “I am proud to be joined again by a majority of my Democratic colleagues to introduce Social Security 2100, and again, ask my Republican colleagues, whose legislation we’ve included, to join us in helping uplift the 65 million Americans who rely on it. Including lifting 5 million Americans out of poverty, providing 23 million a tax cut, and making sure that Americans are able to get the essential benefits that allow them to pay rent, buy groceries, and fill their prescriptions,” he says.

“It’s important that the Social Security benefits that working Rhode Islanders have earned keep up with the cost of living, and that’s exactly what H.R.4583 – Social Security 2100 Act will accomplish. Unfortunately, extreme Republicans in the House are trying to cut Social Security instead of strengthening it. But I am determined to fight for Rhode Island’s seniors in Congress to ensure they receive the benefits they’ve earned,” says Congressman Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), a sponsor of the legislative proposal. 

H.R. 4583: The Nuts and Bolts

On July 12, 2023, H.R. 4583 was introduced and referred to the House Ways and Means, Education and Labor, and Energy and Commerce Committees, being introduced in the lower chamber that day.

According to a legislative fact sheet, H.R. 4583, the legislative proposal would increase and expand essential benefits to Social Security beneficiaries. Larson’s legislation would:

•   Increase benefits 2% across the board for all Social Security beneficiaries for the first time in 52 years.  

• Improve the Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), so it reflects the inflation actually experienced by seniors.

• Increase benefits to boost lower income seniors.

• Improve benefits for middle-income widows and widowers from two-income households.

• Restore student benefits up to age 26, for the dependent children of disabled, deceased, or retired workers.

• Increase access to benefits for children living with grandparents or other relatives.

• Repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) that currently penalize many public servants.

• End the 5-month waiting period to receive disability benefits.

• Increases benefits by an additional 5% for the most elderly and those who have been receiving disability benefits the longest, those beneficiaries who have been receiving benefits for 15 years or more.

 • Provide caregiver credits to ensure that people (mostly women) are not penalized in retirement for taking time out of the workforce to care for children or other dependents.

• End the disability benefit cliff, replacing it with a gradual offset for earnings.

• Cut taxes for 23 million middle-income beneficiaries.

• Correct an unintended flaw in how Social Security benefits are wage-indexed, to prevent benefits from dropping (a “notch”) if the wage index decreases.

• Ensure that these benefits do not result in reduced Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or a loss of eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP.

• Combine the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds into one fund to ensure seamless benefit payments.

• Provide the Social Security Administration with resources to improve customer service.

Social Security 2100 Pays for These Benefits by:

• Ensuring millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share by applying FICA to earnings above $400,000.

H.R. 4583 would pay for strengthening the Social Security Trust Fund and pay for the enhanced benefits by having millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share by applying FICA to earnings above $400,000, with those extra earnings counted toward benefits at a reduced rate. The bill closes the loophole of avoiding FICA taxes and receiving a lower rate on investment income by adding an additional 12.4% net investment income tax (NIIT) only for taxpayers making over $400,000.

Social Security advocates call for passage

“By re-introducing his revised Social Security 2100 Act, Congressman John Larson once again defies the media narrative that ‘no one in Washington has the courage’ to address the program’s future,” says Max Richtman, President and CEO, of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, noting that the legislation extends the solvency of the Social Security trust fund for decades while also providing American seniors with an expansion of benefits.  Larson tackles the funding of the expansion of benefits by asking high earners to begin paying their fair share into the program, says Richtman. 

“At a time when House Republicans have proposed cutting benefits by raising the retirement age and other means — Congressman Larson offers a commonsense, fair, and forward-looking plan.

Not only is the Social Security 2100 Act wise policy, but it’s also overwhelmingly popular with voters across the political spectrum,” says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works and Chair of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition.

As the debate over Social Security heats up before the 2024 Presidential election, Altman charges that the nation’s media  refuses to “take Democratic plans to protect and expand Social Security seriously, and fails to call out Republicans for their unwillingness to state what they are for, not just what they are against.”

“Reporters are implicitly dismissing these bills because they cannot pass the House and Senate without Republican support. Instead of pressuring Congressional Republicans to introduce their own legislation, the mainstream media provides the Republicans with the cover they seek by claiming that both parties are avoiding action on Social Security” says Altman.

According to Altman, earlier this year President Joe Biden used the presidential bully pulpit at the State of the Union address to call out Republicans for their plans to cut Social Security and Medicare, forcing them to take these program cuts off the table during the debt ceiling negotiations. “If Biden champions a plan that expands benefits with no cuts, while requiring those earning over $400,000 to pay more, the mainstream media will be unable to ignore it,” predicts Altman. 

Congressional strategies regarding Social Security

On the same day that Larson introduced his legislation, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, held a hearing, “Protecting Social Security for All: Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share,”  on his legislation, S. 1174, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act.  A companion measure was introduced in the House by Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (D-Pennsylvania), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee.

At the July 12th Senate Budget Committee hearing, Whitehouse explained that his legislation would bring enough revenue from the wealthiest to ensure that Social Security benefits will be paid and on time for the next 75 years and beyond.

“Right now, the cap on Social Security contributions means a tech exec making $1 million effectively stops paying into the program at the end of February, while a schoolteacher making far less contributes through every single paycheck all year,” says Whitehouse at the hearing. “That’s not fair, and my Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act would fix that by requiring contributions to Social Security on wages above $400,000,” said the Rhode Island Senator.  

Whitehouse stressed the importance of Social Security to his Rhode Island constituents, by mentioning their comments and thoughts. 

 “I rely on my Social Security as my only source of income.  I would find it impossible to continue to live independently if Social Security were changed, reduced or eliminated.  Social Security benefits were a contract between the federal government and its citizens,” said Robert of Pawtucket.

Another Rhode Islander, Antonella of North Providence, said: “I would be very sad and depressed if there were any cuts to Social Security.  I just get by as it is.” And Laurel of Pawtucket said that without Social Security, she “would have to go back to work and probably have to work until I die.” 

Earlier this Congress, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced their own bill, S. 393, the Social Security Expansion Act (Whitehouse is an original cosponsor).   The Sanders-Warren bill would expand benefits by $ 2,400 each year while fully funding the program for the next three-quarters of a century and beyond.

As to the GOP position on Social Security, the House Republican Study Committee released a plan to cut Social Security by $718 billion over 10 years.  This plan, endorsed by three-fourths of the  House GOP Caucus), would also raise the retirement age to 69 (for everyone who is currently 59 and younger), which would effectively cut benefits by an estimated 13 percent every year and especially harm low-income workers.  It would also reduce benefits for future beneficiaries who earned a “higher salary” before retirement. Also, only “modest adjustments” to the Social Security program as it operates would be made but it doesn’t clarify the changes.

It is important to note that three fourths of the House GOP caucus endorse the RSC budget, making cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

According to SSW’s Altman, while Democratic proposals (Larson, Whitehouse and the Sanders- Warren proposals) to expand Social Security and Medicare are popular with Democratic, Republican and independent voters, Republican politicians have chosen to not co-sponsor any of these bills.

My final thoughts…

Polls show that Social Security and Medicare, two of the nation’s largest social safety net programs, are extremely popular. According to a poll released in March 2023 by the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs research, 79% of Americans are opposed to reducing the benefits that Social Security beneficiaries receive.  As to raising Social Security’s eligibility age from 67 to 70, 75% of American’s were against it.

Another poll released last March found that nearly 9 in 10 Americans say they oppose reducing spending on Social Security or Medicare, according to polling from Axios.  

The Congressional debate on financially shoring up Social Security and expanding benefits is of   extreme interest to 66 million older and disabled people (175,840 beneficiaries in Rhode Island), who rely on monthly payments from the program.  But the Social Security debate must include America’s younger generations, too. 

With 477 days left before the 2024 presidential elections, expanding Social Security and making the program fiscally sound and to ultimately be available to Gen Exers (1965 to 1979), Millennials (1980 to 1994), Gen Z (1995-2012) and Gen Alpha (2013 to 2025) must become a key election issue. Social Security beneficiaries and America’s younger generations must call on Congress to expand Social Security benefits and ensure its fiscal viability for every generation.  “Keep Your Hands Off Social Security” must be the powerful message they send to all presidential and congressional candidates before the upcoming 2024 presidential election.     

To review the text of Larson’s H.R. 4583, “Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust Act,” go to https://larson.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/larson.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/final-2023.07.11-text-of-social-security-2100-act.pdf.

To watch a video of Larson’s May press conference announcing the upcoming introduction of H.R. 4583, the Social Security 2100, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO8QYRRQ-UQ.

Here is a copy of RSC’s FY 2024 Budget, Protecting America’s Economic Security https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/202306141135_fy24_rsc_budget_print_final_c.pdf.

“Gray voting block” watching Congress

Published in Rhode Island News Today on September 14, 2021

With recess ending, budget reconciliation begins in the House and Senate as lawmakers come back to Capitol Hill to begin crafting a budget. Last month a $ 3.5 trillion budget resolution bill was passed which gave instructions in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 budget resolution to allow up to $1.75 trillion of the package to come from new borrowing. It also gave instructions to both the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means to reduce deficits by at least $1 billion each. With lawmakers promising that the package be fully paid for, both Committees must come up with offsets for the full $1.74 trillion of borrowing in addition to any new spending and tax breaks proposed. 

The 11 Senate authorizing committees and 12 House authorizing committees are currently in the process of writing text for their respective portions of the reconciliation bill with a nonbinding completion deadline of Sept. 15. The reconciliation process allows for each chamber’s Budget Committee to combine each part into one reconciliation bill, to be given a floor vote in each chamber.   

The House also has on its legislative agenda a scheduled vote on a Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill (H.R. 3684) on Sept. 27. With the 2021 fiscal year up at the end of September, Congressional leaders must vote on a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government running. 

Don’t Forget Support Service for Seniors

As Congress crafts and finalizes its budget, don’t forget to provide adequate support and services to America’s seniors, warns the LeadingAge, representing 5,000 nonprofit providers across the nation. The Washington, DC-based aging advocacy group announced the results of poll in June that shows an overwhelming majority of Democratic and Republican voters call on Congress to support programs and services to seniors – and they believe that this should happen now.

The findings from an online survey finding, gleaned from the responses of 800 U.S. adults ages 18 and over from June 15 to June 20, 2021, also revealed that Americans are very concerned about how seniors are treated and believe that elected officials have failed them.

“American families are in crisis. Millions of us are growing older without access to the affordable care and support we need, and demand is surging for critical services,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge in a statement announcing the release of the polling results. “Americans agree that for too long our country has ignored and underfunded our aging services systems,” she says.

Sloan adds, “Americans will no longer accept that millions of older adults living at home can’t get the care and services they need, from help getting in and out of bed to bathing and eating meals,” Sloan added. 

According to Sloan, a large number of seniors can’t access the needed services to age in place in their homes. They are “stuck on affordable housing waiting lists for years, are living in places they cannot afford, are skipping meals and medicine to pay rent or are experiencing homelessness,” she says.

 “Millions of family members and friends are struggling to balance the demands of caring for loved ones—and are increasingly stressed, stretched and in unsustainable situations. It’s time for our elected officials to listen to Americans from both parties and act now to support older adults,” said Sloan.

Here’s a Sampling of Key Findings

LeadingAge’s poll findings revealed that 85 % of the respondents agree that now is the right time to think about building a better aging services system for seniors. This belief is bipartisan, with 91% of Democrats, 83% of Independents and 80% of Republicans, agreeing that now is the time to begin improving programs and services for seniors. This view is also consistent regardless of where people live, with 85% of urban Americans, 87% of suburban Americans and 82% of rural Americans agreeing.

The poll’s findings also call on Congress to make a greater investment in services for seniors, this view is overwhelmingly bipartisan. Eighty six percent say the government must make a bigger investment in services and care for seniors. This includes 92% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans and 84% Independents.

The poll’s respondent’s overwhelmingly support proposed investments for older adults that are currently being considered by Congress. Eighty-nine percent support public investment in affordable home care services to help older adults with essential needs like bathing and dressing, medication management, transportation, and basic daily chores. Eighty-six percent support public investment in housing and support for low-income older adults to address the shortage and waiting lists that lead to homelessness, instability and skipping meals and medicine to pay rent. Finally, 83% support public investment in broadband internet to ensure equitable access for older adults who need this basic utility for telehealth and other care services, and to fight social isolation.

According to the poll’s findings, Government plays a critical role to ensuring that appropriate care and services are available to seniors. Eighty five percent of respondents agree that every person has a right to receive a basic level of housing,  and essential support regardless of age. Regardless of political party affiliation support is robust: 92% of Democrats, 85% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans agree.

More than half of all respondents say that seniors are not treated well in the United States. Eighty-three percent says that elected officials have failed older adults and the people who care for them by ignoring and underfunding America’s aging services for decades. This belief is consisted across communities, with 85% of Americans in rural settings, 83% in urban settings and 83% in suburban areas agreeing.

It’s just 421 days before the midterm elections. LeadingAge’s poll findings should be a stark warning to lawmakers who underfund and ignore the needs of their older constituents. If things stay the same, the gray voting block may well just send a message of their discontent at the polls.

For poll survey details, go to https://bit.ly/393hBRs