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.
Tag Archives for Inflation Reduction Act
Federal Court denies attempt to stop Medicare drug negotiation program
Published in RINewsToday on November 6, 2023
Over two months ago, as supporters of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) celebrated the one-year anniversary of the passage of the historic legislation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), along with drugmakers filed multiple lawsuits to block the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions. The drug price negotiation program, created by IRA, allows Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate the prices of ten prescription drugs for the first time.
The multiple-filed legal suits came weeks before Sept. 1 when the for Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was scheduled to publish a list of the first 10 drugs that would be subjected to negotiations. These lawsuits argued that the federal price negotiation program was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the separation of powers clause, by giving the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) discretion over a maximum fair price for any given drug selected for negotiation. These lawsuits also charge that CMS price controls would force drug makers to pull back on developing new drugs, jeopardizing medical breakthroughs for individuals with life-threatening and chronic illnesses.
Among the nine lawsuits scheduled to go to trial, one was a motion filed on July 12, 2023 by the Chamber and several of its affiliates in Ohio. This motion requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the Medicare drug negotiation program from implementation. The ruling came before the Oct. 1, 2023 deadline requiring drugmakers whose pharmaceuticals were selected for negotiations to either sign agreements to participate or to face stiff penalties.
The U.S. Department of Justice opposed the Chamber’s motion, filing a motion to dismiss its case. On Sept. 15, 2023, the court held oral arguments giving the Chamber and the DOJ an opportunity to present their legal arguments in greater detail.
Overcoming a Major Legal Hurdle
On Friday, September 29, 2023, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman for Southern District of Ohio, denied the Chambers request to block implementation of the newly established Medicare drug price negotiation program before the drug price negotiation talks began. The ruling called on the Chamber to file an amended complaint by Oct. 13, 2023. DOJ would then have until Oct. 27, 2023 to renew its motion to dismiss.
According to Spencer Kimball of CNBC, legal experts say the pharmaceutical industry hopes to see conflicting rules from lawsuits filed in other federal appellate courts to bring this issue to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
The Willimantic, Connecticut-based Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA), a nonprofit group pushing for comprehensive Medicare coverage, health equity and quality of health care for seniors and people with disabilities, is encouraged by Judge Newman’s ruling, which assessed the drug manufacturer’s claims “to be weak in the face of clearly established laws.”
According to CMA, the 28-page court order found that the Chamber and other plaintiffs had demonstrated neither likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm, which are required for a preliminary injunction. CMS noted that this case cited “clear” law that “participation in Medicare, no matter how vital it may be to a business model, is a completely voluntary choice.” The court also found that the price established by negotiations cannot be considered ‘confiscatory,’ as the Chamber charges or “a violation of due process, because drug manufacturers can opt out of Medicare entirely.”
Newman’s ruling noted that drugmakers are not compelled to sell drugs at the prices established by the Medicare program and that any economic harm, when the negotiated drug prices take effect in 2026, was too speculative to warrant immediate relief, reported CMS. However, the court did deny the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit entirely, saying that more information on whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue would be beneficial and therefore the judge is allowing for limited discovery to clarify issues related to legal standing, after which the government may renew its motion to dismiss, noted the Medicare advocacy group.
With this ruling, Medicare may move forward with its implementation of its drug negotiation program as this case and others continue to proceed.
Giving their two cents…
At press time, the Chamber did not respond to a request for comment about the court’s ruling. But health care and aging advocacy groups issued statements expressing their thoughts about the impact of Newman’s ruling.
“This is the first major blow to Big Pharma in its legal battles to block the drug price negotiation provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act, says Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s director of the Access to Medicines program.
“The Chamber’s lawsuit lacks merit; the court made the right decision not to grant the injunction, which would have caused needless patient suffering and treatment rationing, notes Maybarduk, calling on drugmakers “to drop their lawsuits and drop their prices.”
“Now, drug companies should agree to participate in the negotiation program in good faith. The program is an important first step in ending the exorbitant prices charged to Medicare enrollees,” adds Maybarduk.
Frederick Isasi, Executive Director of Families USA, happily noted that the Medicare drug negotiation program continues, calling the ruling “a big win for seniors and their ability to purchase life-saving medications. The ability to afford medication is a matter of life and death for millions of older adults. That’s why we are fighting this David and Goliath battle – people deserve to pay a fair price for their drugs and Medicare price negotiation is a critical piece of this puzzle. And let’s not forget each drug subject to fair price negotiation is an old drug that millions of people need and doesn’t have competition,” he notes.
“It never ceases to amaze us that – on one hand – Big Pharma can cry poverty by saying that drug negotiations will hurt their bottom line, while recent earnings reports show they are raking in money hand over fist. We are glad Judge Michael J. Newman, a Trump appointee in Ohio’s Southern District, saw through this hypocrisy by affirming the Biden administration’s power to begin negotiating the prices of 10 medications with drugmakers,” says Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. (NCPSSM).
According to NCPSSM, Drug makers made a whopping $493 billion in revenue from ten drugs that are now subject to price negotiations between CMS and the manufacturer, which have accounted for more than $170 billion in gross Medicare spending, according to a report from the nonprofit, Protect Our Care.
“The court’s decision to allow Medicare drug price negotiations to move forward is welcome news, says William Alvarado Rivera, Senior Vice President for Litigation at AARP Foundation. “Pausing Medicare negotiations would have risked billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers – and countless lives. It is unconscionable that Americans face such high prescription drug costs that many people skip taking medication altogether or must ration it,” he said.
“We’re prepared to fight for as long as necessary to ensure big drug companies can’t charge excessive prices at the expense of patients’ health, says Rivera, noting that the new Medicare negotiation law would bring financial and medical relief to millions of older Americans and their families, and put drugs that treat life-threatening and chronic conditions, from cancer to heart disease, within their reach. Rivera says, “It must not be derailed.”
Congress has put the breaks to the spiraling costs of pharmaceuticals by giving Medicare the authority to negotiate the price of popular drugs with drug makers. America’s seniors will continue to suffer financial hardships and many might even lose their lives by not choosing not to take their costly medications if courts rule in favor of drug companies. Time will tell.
U.S. Judge Michael J. Newman ruling denying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s request for a preliminary injunction, go to https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/DaytonAreaChamberofCommerceetalvBecerraetalDocketNo323cv00156SDOh/5?doc_id=X3U600KOGG69QHQBPEU24OS1JMO
A listing of drugmaker revenues of the first ten negotiated drugs, go to https://www.protectourcare.org/by-the-numbers-the-ten-costly-drugs-that-are-now-eligible-to-have-lower-prices-negotiated-by-medicare/
Health advocacy groups oppose groups against drug price negotiations
Published in RINewsToday on August 21, 2023
As supporters of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) celebrate the one-year anniversary of the passage of this historic legislation, health advocacy groups gathered last week in Austin, Texas, Washington, D.C., Chicago and New York City to publicly oppose and call on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) along with drugmakers to withdraw their lawsuits to block the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions. They instead called for the immediate lowering of the prices of brand-name pharmaceuticals.
At press time, Merck & Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma US, PhaRMA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed lawsuits arguing that the price negotiation program is unconstitutional and violates the Constitution’s separation of powers clause by giving the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) discretion over a maximum fair price for any given drug selected for negotiation. These lawsuits charge that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) price controls would force drug manufacturers to pull back on developing new drugs, jeopardizing medical breakthroughs for individuals with life-threatening and chronic illnesses.
The filed legal suits come weeks before Sept. 1 when CMS is scheduled to publish a list of the first 10 drugs that will be subject to negotiations. By Oct. 1, the drug companies must declare whether they will participate in negotiations or face steep financial penalties for not negotiating. The lower negotiated prices will not take effect until 2026.
Public Citizen, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit consumer advocacy group along with other health care advocacy groups including Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, Protect Our Care, Families USA and Doctors for America and AARP and the AARP Foundation have filed amicus briefs supporting HHS’ position that the motion for a preliminary injunction requested by the Chamber and the other plaintiffs in that case should be denied.
At the Washington, D.C. press conference, Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen delivered a petition signed by 150,000 individuals to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce demanding that all court suits be dropped.
Public Citizen, Social Security Works, and more than 70 health and consumer organizations also sent letters to the prescription drug corporations, demanding those corporations drop their lawsuits and begin negotiating lower drug prices. The letter cited how drug corporations routinely charge Medicare beneficiaries in the United States twice or more of what they charge patients in other large, wealthy countries – even in cases where U.S. taxpayers supported the drug’s development.
“It’s a disgrace that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fronting for Big Pharma [against the interests of the mom-and-pop businesses it purports to represent,” said Robert Weissman. “Patients, small businesses, large businesses, state and local governments, and the federal government all have a shared interest in curtailing Big Pharma price gouging, as the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug price negotiation provisions will do.”
“The lawsuits filed by the large pharmaceutical corporations to overturn Medicare drug price negotiation authority demonstrates that there is no bottom to big pharma’s greed, charges Max Richtman, President and CEO of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “It isn’t enough that revenue to U.S. drug corporations was over $1 trillion in 2022. It isn’t enough that big pharma benefits from the $54 billion spent in taxpayer dollars per year on pharmaceutical research. It isn’t enough that the 2017 Trump tax cut bill lowered average tax rates of the big pharmaceutical companies by more than 40 percent. It isn’t enough that pharma’s profit margin is 15 percent to 20 percent while the average profits of the nation’s largest 500 corporations ranged between 4 percent to 9 percent,” he says.
“Americans have had enough of big pharma’s greed – and while I am sure the price gougers won’t stop putting profits before people – we urge the industry to drop this unconscionable lawsuit against the authority to negotiate prescription drug prices,” he adds.
“Big drug companies and their allies are fighting furiously to stop Medicare from negotiating drug prices so they can keep charging Americans the highest prices in the world. Allowing these distractions to derail implementation of the law would not be in the public’s interest, especially for older adults who have waited far too long for affordable drug prices. Medicare drug price negotiation represents a historic opportunity to access lifesaving drugs for millions of Americans at a time when they need them the most,” said William Alvarado Rivera, Sr. VP for Litigation at AARP Foundation.
“Pharmaceutical corporations have long shown that they care about nothing but profits. So, it is not surprising that they are attempting to use the courts to subvert the will of the people and block Medicare from using its bulk purchasing power to get better prices,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works. “The law is incredibly clear, as is the will of the American people: Medicare drug price negotiations are legal and incredibly popular. Everybody wins except the greedy CEOs who see their drug price extortion rackets shut down.”
Protests Call for the Immediate Dropping of Court Suits
On Aug. 16, 2023, in Washington, D.C., the “Drop Your Suits, Drop Your Prices,” a press conference/rally was held outside the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C., and in New York City outside of the offices of Jones Day, and outside the Federal Courthouse in Austin where some of the drug makers are launching their legal attacks on Medicare, and at the offices of Astellas in Chicago.
At the Washington, DC press conference, a digital billboard advertising on a parked box truck set the stage for the event. In big bold red and gold letters the message read: “The Chamber of Commerce and Big Pharma are suing to keep your drug prices high. They must drop their lawsuits and lower drug prices.”
Public Citizen’s Weissman kicked off the noon time press conference, stating, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims to represent small businesses but these businesses are bearing the brunt of paying for the high price of drugs. Because of this, 3 in 10 Americans are rationing their drugs, he says.
Weissman asked why is the U. S Chamber of commerce opposing the interests of small and large businesses? He charges that the nation’s largest lobbying group for the nation’s businesses is “is shamefully fronting for Big Pharma and companies that have an interest in overturning this law” that requires Big Pharma to negotiate with Medicare on drug prices. “But we are here today to tell Big Pharma were not going to let you get away with it,” he says.
“We’re going to win. We’re going to win the in the courts. We’re going to win on the streets. This price negotiation is going to go forward. It’s the beginning not the end in getting big Pharma price gouging under control, making sure medicines are affordable for everyone who needs in this country,” predicts Weissman.
Like all the speakers, 22-year-old Jacqueline Garibay called on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, PhaRMA, and the other pharmaceutical companies to immediately drop their lawsuits to lower drug prices. She was diagnosed with Ankylosing Spondylitis, an autoimmune disorder that primarily affects her spine and has spread to most of her major joints. Without expensive biologic medications, Garibay’s spine could fuse and leave her unable to walk by the time she graduates from George Washington University.
In the last four years since her diagnosis, doctors have put her on four biologic drugs, each one with a price tag ranging from $5,000 to $13,000 every month, trying to find one that will work for her. There have been times when Garibay has had to forego refilling her prescriptions because of financial difficulties resulting from having to pay for her rent, groceries, and tuition at the same time. “It’s “absolutely terrifying,” she says, fearing that without taking these medications she will risk losing the ability to walk.
“The new drug price reforms are projected to save patients like her tens of billions of dollars. “It will help me have a future I can afford, a future where I can pursue all my dreams without being financially undermined for the sake of my health condition,” she says.
Laura Marston, a 41-year-old diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes over 27 years ago at age 14, has seen the price of her insulin soar from the price of a vial for $ 21 to over $300. “No vial costs Eli Lilly less than $5 to make,” says the resident of Washington, D.C.
Marston picked up her insulin prescription from the pharmacy a week ago. The price for a three-month supply of seven vials that will enable her to live was $ 2,267.99. “That’s immoral, that’s inhuman and that’s flat out wrong,” she said.
“My message to Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and the Chamber of Commerce is lower your insulin prices, or we will do it for you in the form of federal price caps legislation. The 7 million Americans who rely on insulin to level not-stop raising our voices until we no longer have to choose our money or our lives,” she says.
Arthur Blair, a patient advocate for Spaces in Action, described how a debilitating disease forced him to quick his job. What do you do when you don’t have money, not even enough to pay for high cost of drugs,” he asked.
“Pharma has proven with this latest action [attempting to block the negotiation of drug prices] that they put unreasonable profits before the people. They don’t mind knowing that people are done because they are unable to obtain prescription drugs that would easily save their life and eliminate easier suffering,” charges Blair.
According to HHS, as of June 2021, about 48 million Medicare beneficiaries are currently enrolled in plans that provide the Medicare Part D drug benefit. Last year, Congress came together begin putting the brakes on spiraling drug costs by passing legislation that allows Medicare to negotiate for lower prices.
Currently drug prices are higher in the U.S. than other countries because Medicare doesn’t negotiate prices with drug makers like other countries do. Because the practice of negotiating drug prices was banned in 2003 under the law that created the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, 77 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries pay more for prescription drugs than these nine countries — Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (This was documented by a 2021 study of the Rand Corporation.)
Although the “Drop Your Suits, Drop Your Prices” press conferences held around the nation drew small crowds, the importance of these gatherings is the message they sent to the nation, that is “It’s time to stop blocking a law that puts money into the pockets of seniors instead of the bank account of drug makers.”
To watch the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_8WHFv7oL4
To read why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to challenge drug price negotiations, go to https://www.uschamber.com/lawsuits/why-were-suing-hhs-and-cms-to-challenge-illegal-price-controls.
To read an amicus brief submitted by Public Citizen, Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, Protect Our Care, Families U.S.A and Doctors for American, supporting HHS’s position that the motion for a preliminary injunction requested by the Chamber and the other plaintiffs in that case should be denied, go to https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/35-1-Proposed-amicus-brief.pdf.
To read AARP and AARP Foundation’s full amicus brief, go to https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/aarp_foundation/2023/dayton-area-cha mber-of-commerce-v-becerra-brief.pdf.