Tag Archives for Inflation Reduction Act

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 Oz, MD, 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.

Expanding Medicare on political agendas: In-home Health Care critically important

Published in RINewsToday on October 14, 2024

This week Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled a “Medicare at Home” proposal on ABC’s The View that would expands Medicare to assist older Americans to age in place at home by covering some of the cost of in-home care. The proposal targets adults who are part of the ‘sandwich generation,’ estimated to be 105 million Americans who are raising children along with taking care of their elderly parents.

The Medicare benefit to assist caregivers would propose to have cost-saving benefits for the federal government by allowing seniors to stay at home rather than being sent to costly nursing homes. It would also reduce hospitalizations, too.

Harris told about her personal experience as a caregiver, providing care to her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a biomedical scientist, who died of cancer in 2009 at the age of 70. Caring for a parent can translate into “trying to cook what they want to eat, what they can eat,” she said. “It’s even trying to think of something funny to make them laugh or smile,” she added.

“We’re talking about declining skills” of older people, “but their dignity, their pride, has not declined,” Harris added.

“There are so many people in our country who are right in the middle. They’re taking care of their kids and they’re taking care of their aging parents, and it’s just almost impossible to do it all, especially if they work,” Harris said.  “…we’re finding that so many are having to leave their job, which means losing a source of income, not to mention the emotional stress,” she said, explaining why there is a need to expand Medicare to cover more in-home care services.

Harris’ Issues on her website – Protect and Strengthen Social Security and Medicare

“Vice President Harris will protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies. She will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. She will always fight to ensure that Americans can count on getting the benefits they earned”.

The Costs

The Brookings Institution recently estimated that a “very conservatively designed” program would cost $40 billion a year. They noted that “controlling demand in such a program is nearly impossible – for reference, Medicaid, which covers far fewer adults than Medicare, actually spent $207 billion on long-term services and supports in 2021”.

In addition, “Home health is such a hotbed of fraud,” said Theo Merkel, a health policy expert at the Paragon Health Institute and the Manhattan Institute. “If the proposal is adopted, taxpayers could end up paying for everyone who stays at home with their Medicare-eligible family member as a government paid Service Employees International Union member.”

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., charges that Harris’ new Medicare home care benefit is “uncompassionate, fiscally reckless, and a corrupt attempt to buy the votes of Medicare enrollees and their middle-aged children in an election year.”

Examining the Differences…

According to Matthew E. Shepard, Communications Director for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the new Harris proposal is quite different from the existing home care benefits that Medicare’s 65.5 million enrollees receive. ”The new proposal focuses on Long Term Services and Supports, something of a term of art in the health care world. While details are scarce, it would provide, we believe, ongoing affordable home care aide service without a need for skilled care or that strict definition of homebound,” said Shepard.  The proposal’s funding would come from increased savings in Medicare Part D as the list of negotiable drugs grows  [a historic provision of the Inflation Reduction Act which is lowering the cost of senior’s medication]  savings currently estimated at $6 billion in 2026, and which will only grow as more drugs are added, he noted.

“We are going to save Medicare that money, because we’re not going to be paying these high prices [for drugs] and that those resources are then put to use in a way that helps a family,” Harris said.

The Trump proposal

The Trump/Vance campaign quickly issued a statement taking credit for already making a commitment to America’s seniors receiving at-home care, saying that Harris’ Medicare expansion policy was just following his lead. Former President Trump released his home care platform last summer, according to an Oct. 8th statement. “Specifically, President Trump will prioritize home care benefits by shifting resources back to at-home senior care, overturning disincentives that lead to care worker shortages, and supporting paid family caregivers through tax credits and reduced red tape,” noted the statement.

One of Trump’s 20 point platforms is “Fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age”. In the accompanying 16-page document, which, supports Medicare it says, “President Trump has made absolutely clear that he will not cut one penny from Medicare or Social Security. American citizens work hard their whole lives, contributing to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are promises to our Seniors, ensuring they can live their golden years with dignity. Republicans will protect these vital programs and ensure Economic Stability. We will work with our great Seniors, in order to allow them to be active and healthy. We commit to safeguarding the future for our Seniors and all American families. We will strengthen Medicare. Republicans will protect Medicare’s finances from being financially crushed by the Democrat plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the rolls of Medicare. We vow to strengthen Medicare for future generations.”

 Dementia caregiving already set to quadruple in 2025

AARP notes on their website that one expansion of caregiver coverage, “a program for dementia patients and their caregivers that launched this year will quadruple in 2025, serving more of the country. The program, called Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE), provides a 24/7 support line, a care navigator to find medical services and community-based assistance, caregiver training and up to $2,500 a year for at-home, overnight or adult day care respite services. Patients and their caregivers typically won’t have copayments”.

Praise for expanding Medicare benefits

“We have long championed the expansion of federal support for long-term care,“ says Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), noting that Harris’ proposal gives that cause an enormous boost.

“Expanded Medicare coverage for home health care also would provide relief to millions of ‘sandwich generation’ Americans, who are struggling to provide care for their elderly relatives while also raising children.  Those ‘sandwich generation’ members are not Medicare beneficiaries, but would most definitely benefit from Harris’ long-term care plan,” says Richtman in an Oct. 8 statement.

According to Richtman, the plan also would add hearing and vision coverage to traditional Medicare. “Proper hearing and vision care are essential to healthy aging — but too many beneficiaries forgo it due to cost and lack of coverage. It is long past time that those coverages be added,” he added.  

Co-Director David Lipschutz says that the Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) strongly supports the proposed enhancement of Medicare coverage for on-going home care. “Access to services and supports in the home for those who are unable to independently perform activities of daily living would provide immeasurable help to millions of beneficiaries and their families and is an important step forward for the Medicare program,” says CMA’s Lipschutz. To maximize access to care for people who need it, expansion of home care coverage in Medicare should be combined with enforcing the benefit that exists now, he suggests. 

“Recognizing that most older persons and those with disabilities prefer to remain at home when they need help with daily living tasks, the Senior Agenda Coalition has worked for years to increase access to home and community-based care at the state level as these services are one of the biggest gaps in Medicare,” says Maureen Maigret, Policy Advisor for Senior Agenda Coalition of RI.  To include them in Medicare will lift a financial burden on both recipients and family caregivers as home care costing at least $35/hour that  can be out of reach for far too many who need these services to stay at home,” she says.

“We have not seen many details about the plan, but it would be important to make sure that Medicare provider reimbursement levels are sufficient to allow direct care staff to earn livable wages in order to have workforce sufficient to meet the demand,” note Maigret. “This new Medicare home care benefit should also be a boon for states as it can prevent persons from spending down their resources to a level where they become eligible for state Medicaid and need costly nursing home care,” she says.  

In a new paper for O’Neill Institute for Georgetown Law, McCourt Professor Judith Feder and Nicole Jorwic explore how adding a home care benefit can help beneficiaries and family caregivers. “While this new benefit would not reach the full population in need of long-term care, paired with investments in Medicaid, it’s a good strong start-and given our nation’s resources, clearly within our means,” say the authors. 

“A support system that relies on unpaid family members and underpaid workers is simply not sustainable for the future,” warn the authors.

“Our failure to make Medicare “whole” by addressing Long Term Services and Support needs is not about a shortage of resources, it’s about a shortage of political will. It’s time the nation stepped up,” they say.

Pay attention to Caregiver voters

AARP is nonpartisan and does not take a position on campaign proposals, though AARP has previously said financial relief is needed to help individuals age in place at home and support family caregivers, says Sarah Lovenheim, AARP’s vice president, external relations.

According to AARP’s “She’s the Difference” survey released last month, 96% of woman aged 50 and over say they are highly motivated to vote in the upcoming elections, making them one of the most driven and key voting groups.

“Any political candidate would be wise to pay attention to the concerns and needs of caregivers today. Voters over age 50, who disproportionately make up America’s 48 million plus caregivers, could make or break elections up and down the ballots,” says Nancy LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer. “From recent battleground polls, we know that roughly one-third of swing voters over age 50 identify as family caregivers,” she notes.

“Supporting family caregivers is an urgent need – not only for families struggling to get by but for our country’s future,” warns LeaMond.

Regardless of who wins the election, a Medicare at home proposal cannot happen without Congressional support. As the presidential campaign winds down, older voters must make it extremely clear to lawmakers seeking their vote how they feel about expanding Medicare benefits.  

Next November, Let Seniors Vote on Social Security Fixes  

Published in RINewsToday on May 13, 2024

By Herb Weiss

The recently released 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report shows an improved outlook for these programs. This year’s projections show that Social Security can pay its benefits and cover administrative costs now until 2035, one year longer than projected in last year’s report. But, after that, it can only cover 83 percent of benefits, even if Congress fails to take no action to fix the program to ensure its financial viability.  

Medicare’s fiscal health improves even more, says the Medicare Trustees Report. It projects that the program’s Part A (Hospital) fund will be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits until 2036 — a full five years later than estimated by the trustees last year. 

Under the Social Security Act of 1935, the Board of Trustees is required to submit the annual reports on the current and projected financial status of the trust funds to Congress on April 1 each year. 

It’s Time for Congress to Protect Social Security

“This year’s report is a measure of good news,” says Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, in a statement recognizing the impact of “strong economic that have yielded impressive wage growth, historic job creation and a steady, low unemployment rate.”  

“So long as Americans across our country continue to work, Social Security can — and will — continue to pay benefits,” says O’Malley, calling on Congress to take action to ensure the financial viability of the Trust Fund “into the foreseeable future just as it did I the past on a bipartisan basis.”  

“I will continue to urge Congress to protect and support Social Security and restore the growth of the funds. Whether Congress chooses to eliminate the shortfall by increasing revenue, reducing benefits, or some combination, is a matter of political preference, not affordability,” observes O’Malley, noting that there are several legislative proposals that address the shortfall without benefit cuts — it should debate and vote on these and any other proposals. 

Social Security Advocacy Groups. Key GOP Lawmaker Issue Statements 

With the May 6 release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, statements were generated by Social Security advocacy groups and Congressional lawmakers to give their take on the projections. 

Even with the report pushing back the expected depletion dates for Social Security and Medicare, Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare (NCPSSM) called for Congress to immediately act to strengthen the Social Security program for the 67 million beneficiaries. “We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983.  The sooner Congress acts, the less painful the remedies will be, says Richtman.

In responding to comments that Social Security is going ‘bankrupt, Richtman says: “Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers’ payroll contributions, so the program will never be ‘broke.’ But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly.  A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.” 

Richtman warns that seniors will take a devastating financial hit if Congress is forced to make cuts in 2035. “Average Social Security benefits are already very modest — about $23,000 per year, which is only $3,000 higher than the federal poverty line for a household of two,” he says, noting that wealthier beneficiaries can afford to contribute more to the program without hurting them financially. 

“Social Security has an accumulated surplus of $2.79 trillion. It is 90 percent funded for the next quarter century, 83 percent for the next half century, and 81 percent for the next three quarters of a century. At the end of the century, in 2100,” says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, noting that the program is projected to cost just 6.1 percent of gross domestic product (“GDP”). 

Like the SSA Commissioner and NCPSSM’s Richtman, and Altman urges Congress to act sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security’s modest benefits. “That will restore one of the most important benefits Social Security is intended to provide to the American people — a sense of security,” she says.

As to Medicare, the released report notes the life expectancy for Medicare part A Trust Fund is extended another five years. 

“It’s great news that the Part A trust fund has an additional FIVE years before it becomes depleted, partly because of the unexpected strength of the U.S. economy.  But current and future seniors expect action to keep the trust fund solvent for the long-term,” said Richtman.

“We support President Biden’s plan to strengthen Medicare’s finances, as laid out in his FY 2024 and 2025 budgets,” says Richtman, noting that the president’s plan would bring more revenue into the program, rather than cutting benefits as some Republicans have proposed.  “Building on the prescription drug pricing reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act, the President’s budget proposal would lower Medicare’s costs — and some of those savings would be used to extend the solvency of the Part A trust fund,” he says.

According to Richtman, beyond trust fund solvency, the Trustees reported that the standard Medicare Part B premium will rise next year to $185 per month – a $20 or 6 percent monthly increase. “Any premium increase is a burden to seniors living on fixed incomes, who too often must choose between paying monthly bills or filling prescriptions and getting proper health care.  Seniors need relief from rising premiums and skyrocketing out-of-pocket health care costs. Fortunately, the Biden administration is taking steps to reduce those costs,” said Richtman.

Key GOP Chair  Responds to Trustee Reports

Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), of the House Budget Committee, quickly released a statement, responding to the release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report.

According to Arrington, the House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget, while not making any changes to Social Security or Medicare benefits, provides a way to prod Congress and the President to address the fiscal insolvency of these programs. The Budget Committee has also reported the Fiscal Commission Act, which will also give Congress the tools it needs to save and strengthen these vital programs,” he noted.

“We have the highest levels of indebtedness in our nation’s history, an inflationary and anemic economy, and the two most important senior safety net programs facing insolvency, says Arrington, noting that this year’s trustees report “only reiterates why we need a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to address the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and the $140 trillion unfunded liability on America’s balance sheet.”

“Republicans and Democrats have both proven they will not fix Social Security and Medicare on their own. We must put our seniors and country first and work together to find a solution,” he charges. “Doing nothing is condemning our seniors to automatic benefit cuts and our country to a future debt crisis,” he says.

Fixing Social Security…A Difference in Perspective.

Both NCPSSM and Social Security Works strongly endorse financially shoring up Social Security by bringing in more money into the trust fund by increasing the payroll wage-cap to require higher-income beneficiaries to pay a higher Social Security payroll tax.  Both Social Security advocacy groups endorse Rep. John Larson’s (D-CT) Social Security 2100 Act, a legislative proposal would maintain the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well — and dedicating some of high-earners’ investment income to Social Security. 

On the other hand, Republican lawmakers call for cutting earned benefits of younger workers by raising the full-retirement age, means-testing, and replacing the exiting COLA (CPI-W with the Chained CPI-U) that would result in a lower COLA over time. Also, no COLA’s would be provided to high income earners.  

Social Security is considered the third rail a nation’s politics.  Political pundits say that contact with the rail is like touching this high-voltage rail that can result in “political suicide.”  That is why the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee has proposed to create a fiscal commission to give lawmakers political cover to enact the cuts without having to vote on the record.  

Over two months ago, the most recent budget hammered out by the Republican Study Committee, endorsed by 80 percent of the House Republicans, calls for over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security in just the next ten years., including an increase in the retirement age to 69 and cutting disability benefits Medicare costs for seniors by taking away Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug costs, repealing a $ 35 insulin, and $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

 Additionally, the House GOP budget transitions Medicare to a premium support system that the Congressional Budget Office has found would raises premiums for many seniors.  Finally, it calls for cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $ 4.5 trillion over ten years, taking health care  coverage away from millions of people. 

While President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presidential candidate, has previous said he wouldn’t make cuts to Social Security, recent interviews reveal a change.  According to a March 11, 2024 web posting by CNN’s Kate Sullivan and Tami Luhby, former President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, “suggested[ in a CNBC interview] he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue.”

At the Polls

Legislative proposals to fix the ailing Social Security and Medicare programs are different as night and day. Rather than to  continue to debate the fine points, let’s put the differing policies on the ballot. With just 177 days left before the upcoming November presidential election, Congress must vote on Democratic and Republican legislative proposals, detailing differing provisions as to how these programs can increase the financial stability of these programs. Larson has already thrown his legislative proposal into the hopper, but it won’t see the light of day with a GOP controlled House.    

Last year, 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits.  This year’s Trustee’s report must send a clear message to these beneficiaries that how Congress acts during the next decade will either make or break the Social Security program. 

So, now House Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-La) and Senate President Charles E. Schumer (D- NY) must allow a vote on both Republican and Democratic legislative proposals in their respective chambers.  Let Senate and House lawmakers go on the record and publicly be tied to a vote as to which legislative political strategy they endorse to financially shore up Social Security and Medicare.  Of course, this can give voters a score card. And if this political issue is as important to them as the economy, abortion, and immigration, they can decide at the ballot box who they should bring back to Capitol Hill. 

That’s the American way to do it.