Tag Archives for Medicare

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program to save billions. Cut costs for 10 drugs, 2026

Published in RINewsToday on August 19, 2024

On Aug. 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which aimed to reduce the federal budget deficit, invested in domestic energy production while promoting the use of clean energy.  The historic federal law (Public Law 117-169) also lowered the health cost for millions of older Americans by lowering the high cost of prescription drugs by granting Medicare the power to directly negotiate drug prices with drug companies 

 IRA also created the first ever annual cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries,  capping the cost of each covered insulin at $ 35 per month, and the law also made the Affordable Care Act market plans more affordable.

On Aug. 15, 2024, just one day before IRA’s 2nd Anniversary, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled the new lower prices for 10 drugs in which Medicare and drug companies negotiated under the new Medicare Drug Price Negotiation program. As a result, the negotiated prices will save the Medicare program some $6 billion.

Before a crowd of thousands at the Price George’s Community College in Largo, Maryland, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris who has become the presumptive Democratics nominee for president, made the announcement. 

“We finally beat Big Pharma,” said  Biden.

 Sixty-five million Medicare beneficiaries give Medicare “collecting bargaining power,” noted the Vice President. “And now Medicare can use that power to go toe-to-toe with Big Pharma and negotiate lower drug costs,” said Harris.

And that they did. 

Medicare’s Bargaining Power Puts the Brakes on Rising Drug Costs

 Empowered by the passage of IRA, Medicare was able to negotiate 38-79% discounts on 10 life-saving drugs that treat heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other serious conditions.  These include popular, brand name drugs such as Eliquis, Jardiance, Farxiga, and Stelara — some of the expensive and commonly prescribed medications in the Medicare program.

 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Aug. 15, 2024, beneficiaries will now save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket drug costs thanks to newly announced prices negotiated by the Medicare program with Big Pharma. The negotiated prices will save the Medicare program some $6 billion in costs. 

According to CMS, “the selected 10 drugs accounted for $50.5 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs, or about 20%, of total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs between June 1, 2022 and May 31, 2023, which is the time period used to determine which drugs were eligible for negotiation.”    8 Eight of the 10 drugs selected for this year’s negotiation program raised their prices in 2024 – after all 10 drugs were already priced three to eight times higher in the United States than in other countries, noted the federal agency.

The new prices take effect in January, 2026.  Under the IRA’s provisions, Medicare will select up to 15 more drugs covered under Part D for negotiation by Feb.1, and those prices will take effect in 2027. It will expand 20 drugs starting in 2028, says CMS. 

“It’s no exaggeration to say that this a truly historic moment.  We have been advocating for Medicare to have the power to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma since 2003, when prescription drug coverage was added to the program,” said Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM).  “Unfortunately, the law literally forbade Medicare from negotiating prices with drug makers. The Inflation Reduction Act finally changed that, he said.

According to Richtman, billions saved are proof that the federal government can, and should, leverage its buying power to save Medicare beneficiaries  money — in this case, giving relief to millions of seniors of not having to pay for high drug costs. “This is momentous news for Medicare beneficiaries and the Medicare program itself,” he says.

“The negotiated prices of these first 10 drugs are a great start. We would like to see even more drugs included more rapidly in the negotiation process so that seniors can reap the maximum cost-savings that this process can provide,” said Richtman.                                                                                    

Responding to the White House’s announcement of new details about Medicare drug price negotiations, in a statement Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, noted that it took more than two decades of activism on the ground, advocacy by thousands of members and the Biden Administration to push for passage of IRA, giving Medicare the power to negotiate fair prices to patients and taxpayers.

 “The savings are staggering. The new prices are 60% lower on average with two drugs slashed by more than 75% per month,” says Fiesta. “Combined with the $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap on drug costs that will take effect in January, millions of Americans will not be healthier and more financially secure,” he says.

 Fiesta notes, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, in future years, the prices of additional drugs will be negotiated and Medicare will save about $ 100 billion over 10 years. 

While Biden and Democratic lawmakers see the value of granting Medicare the power to negotiate with Drug Companies to lower high drug costs,  no GOP lawmaker voted to pass Biden’s IRA last year, a proposal that allowed Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of drugs.

Not Everyone is On Board 

The drug price policies of IRA were the topic of a Sept. 20, 2023  hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of. House of Representatives’ Energy & Commerce Committee. The hearing, “At What Cost: Oversight of How the IRA’s Price Setting Scheme Means Fewer Cures for Patients,” GOP lawmakers sitting on the panel and four witnesses warned how the drug price negotiations could hurt or help market conditions for new medicines.

 At the hearing, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) warned that the “Democrat’s drug pricing control scheme was going to do immense harm to patients by crushing drug innovation.  She charged that “unaccountable bureaucrats -not cutting-edge science- backed with entrepreneurial initiative- dictate the value of new cures.”

At press time, GOP lawmakers have remained silent as to their thoughts about last week’s announcement of Medicare lowering the drug prices for ten of the most expensive drugs in Medicare.  

But not President and CEO Steve Ubl – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO Steve Ubl quickly released a statement.

 “The administration is using the IRA’s price-setting scheme to drive political headlines, but patients will be disappointed when they find out what it means for them. There are no assurances patients will see lower out-of-pocket costs because the law did nothing to rein in abuses by insurance companies and PBMs who ultimately decide what medicines are covered and what patients pay at the pharmacy,” he said.

“As a result of the IRA, there are fewer Part D plans to choose from and premiums are going up. Meanwhile, insurers and PBMs are covering fewer medicines and say they intend to impose further coverage restrictions as the price-setting scheme is implemented. More than 3 million beneficiaries taking medicines with government-set prices will pay more in 2026,” adds Ubi.

Reflecting Roger’s opening hearing statement last year, Ubi noted: “The IRA also fundamentally alters the incentives for medicine development. Companies are already changing their research programs as a result of the law, and experts predict this will result in fewer treatments for cancer, mental health, rare diseases and other conditions. Medicine development is a long and complex process, and the negative implications of these changes will not be fully realized for decades to come.

“The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act is a bad deal being forced on American patients: higher costs, more frustrating insurance denials and fewer treatments and cures for our loved ones.” charges Ubi.

Following in PHARMA’s footsteps, drug companies also issued statements opposing the power given to Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.  Novartis, manufacturer of Entresto, one of the 10 selected medicines participating in the price setting process issued a statement.   It called the negotiations “unconstitutional,” predicting “it would have long-lasting and devastating consequences for patients by limiting access to medicines now and in the future.”

Seniors Support Allowing Medicare to Negotiate Drug Costs 

As Congress began debated the merits of the IRA, a national poll of older Americans tracked wide-support for its provisions to reduce skyrocketing drug costs.

According to KFF Health Tracking Poll, a Oct. 12, 2021 poll, few accepted PHARMA and drug makers dire warnings that  high drug prices are necessary for supporting research into new drugs.  Giving the federal government the buying power to negotiate lower drug prices with drug makers and those enrolled in private plans were “favored by large majorities across the political partisans, even if they hear arguments from both sides,” said the San-Francisco-based  national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

KFF poll findings indicated that  83% of the public favor allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to lower drug prices on behalf of people enrolled in Medicare beneficiaries and private plans. “This includes 91% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 76% of Republicans, as well as majorities of seniors (84%), who would be most affected by such a provision, the findings indicate.

As older voters go to the polls, one thing is clear.  Lowering the cost of pharmaceuticals is a bipartisan issue.   When the dust settles after the November elections, those taking the reins of Congress must not forget this fact and continue to push for policies that will continue to work of IRA.

For fact sheet on Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, go to https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fact-sheet-negotiated-prices-initial-price-applicability-year-2026.pdf

Strengthening the Safety Net for Seniors Living in Poverty

Published in RINewsToday on July 15, 2023

A recently released U.S. Census Bureau report should send a message to Congress and spur the efforts of aging advocates to protect older Americans from financial hardship and poverty.  Some consider the “golden years” to be age 60, or 65, and over.  But it’s not so golden for millions of retirees.

According to a recently released U.S. Census Bureau’s report, “Profile of Older Adults by Poverty Status: 2021,” 8.3% of the nation’s population age 65 and over are living in poverty.    

The Census Report, released on June 25, 2024, uses data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), to draw a profile of the 4.7 million older adults who lived in poverty in 2021. This longitudinal survey provides comprehensive information on the dynamics of income, employment, household composition and government program participation.

Poverty in your later years

Here are a few data nuggets from the latest Census Report’s findings…

According to the report, two-thirds of older adults living in poverty in 2021 were women. Limited time in the workforce, raising children or serving as a caregiver, have decreased Social Security benefits, leading to income insecurity in their later years. Older adults living below the poverty line were more likely than those “non-poor” to have never married, says the report, noting that this limits the chance of these individuals to accumulate financial resources with a spouse or to obtain financial incentives (such as tax benefits) associated with being married.

And yes, living alone can be hazardous to your pocketbook, notes the Census report. In 2021, most older adults in poverty (62.9%) lived alone, compared to only 26.3% of those not in poverty.

In addition, among older adults in poverty who lived with at least one other person, 65.5% lived with a spouse, 29.9% lived with a child and 11.2 percent lived with a grandchild, noted the report’s findings.

A snapshot of poverty in Rhode Island

According to Maureen Maigret, Policy Advisor for the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island,” the Census Bureau released a “significant and must-read report.”  

“The data shows that almost five million older adults across the nation are living in poverty, and details how gender and social characteristics contribute to poverty status and wealth,” says Maigret. “Two-thirds of the nation’s older adults living in poverty are women, which is like the poverty profile of older adults in Rhode Island, as are the higher rates of poverty for older persons of color.

Maigret noted that a comprehensive 2014 report on RI Older Women she researched for The Women’s Fund of RI documented the high poverty rate of older women in the state – 9.7% for men and 11.3% for women. The Women’s Fund report also found about 20% of older RI adults living in poverty were more likely to be Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black. 

“Unfortunately, things have not improved,” she says, noting that the poverty rate for older Rhode Islanders has increased to 12.3% (US Census ACS 2022 estimates) which is higher than the 10.9% national poverty rate for older adults.

“Providing data on the poverty status of older adults is important for our state policymakers. It is also critical for them to understand the notable gender differences as women outnumber men in the state’s older population (56% vs 44%), have greater healthcare expenses, are more likely to live alone and need long term supports,” states the former Director of the state’s Department of Elderly Affairs (DEA), now referred to as the Office of Healthy Aging.  Older RI women also have lower Social Security benefits than men (about $5,000 less) and 37% less pension benefits, she says.

Maigret notes that most older Rhode Islanders are not wealthy with  many falling into what is termed the “forgotten middle.” A specifically, term used to describe those individuals with income not low-income enough to be on Medicaid but not enough to meet basic needs–estimated at $30,000/year for a single renter in good health (Elder Index). 

Twenty-seven percent of our older households have income below $25,000 (US Census) which is not sufficient to meet basic needs. This is why we must both improve some of the programs that can help them financially and better inform them of available benefits, she says. 

Tackling poverty in the Ocean State

According to Susan Sweet, founder of the Rhode Island Minority Elder Task Force (RIMETF) (riminorityeldertaskforce@gmail.com), a 501 © (3) nonprofit, established in 1992 after a survey found that elders from minority groups were not being serviced by aging network providers, “The survey revealed that Senior Centers, Adult Day Centers, and other state and local programs had almost no staff who were able to communicate with clients who had limited or no English language skills, and paid no attention to cultural differences in different populations,” she noted.

“While there has definitely been some improvement, most older Rhode Islanders of different cultures and/or languages must seek assistance from the few programs that are specifically directed to them,” says Sweet, a former state associate director of DEA, and advocate for seniors facing hardships and low-income difficulties.

“But they are not the majority of those who barely survive because of a lack of funds and support. Coming from all backgrounds, many poor elders are struggling to meet basic needs such as shelter, food, medicine, medical care, utilities and other necessities”, says Sweet.

“Older adult needs appear to be much worse than they were in the early 2000s. Inflation, Covid, lack of adequate housing options, as well as difficulty in accessing existing assistance programs are pushing these individuals to an existence that threatens their health and their life,” warns Sweet.

State programs that exist for the purpose of helping poor, older adults often have long application periods and stringent rules that create very little ability to respond to emergency situations,” according to Sweet.

Sweet says that RIMETF’s most extensive work is in direct assistance to poor elders for basic needs. “We provide mini-grants , generally in the range of $200 – $400, to low-income elders in dire circumstances by paying directly to providers of goods and services such as rental entities, utilities, fuel companies and gift cards for items such as food, clothing, medicine, and household goods. “Our members also assist to get people on payment plans, programs, services, and better situations that may prevent future emergencies and enable longer-term solutions,” she says.

RIMETF has no paid staff and its Board membership consists of a diverse group of health and social work representatives, program administrators, community members, Senior Center and Community Action staff members, housing specialists, and advocates from other aging programs. The older adults who need help are identified by the group’s membership and demographic information and records are kept by the organization.

The nonprofit group is funded by private foundations such as Nursing Placement Foundation, Rhode Island Foundation, Tufts, Harriet Boucher Foundation, Dexter Fund as well as municipalities including the Cities of Providence, East Providence and Pawtucket.

Both Maigret and Sweet call for more to be done by the Rhode Island lawmakers next session to strengthen the safety net for struggling older Rhode Islander’s to protect them from poverty.

“Yes, absolutely more work needs to be done,” says Maigret. ”Data from the national profile and corresponding state data provide strong evidence of the need to continue advocacy to fight for policies to ensure Rhode Islanders enjoy economic security in their older years.” 

“Policies are a necessary part of the work, but oversight and quality control of state and private programs and services is vital to ensure that actual help is available in a timely manner; currently, oversight is lacking,” says Sweet, calling for state programs and policies to be better monitored and evaluated by those who deal with poor older adults and know the hardships suffered by them.  

“The reality of increasing poverty among elders requires a grass roots understanding of the lack of support actually available to meet their needs,” says Sweet.

To get a copy of the Census Bureau’s report,  “Profile of Older Adults by Poverty Status: 2021,” go to https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p70-193.pdf

To read “Older Women in Rhode Island: A Portrait, Woman’s Fund Rhode Island 2014,” go to https://wfri.org/assets/older-woman-rhode-island.pdf

Rhode Island nursing home bill veto response

Published in RINewsToday on July 1, 2024

With the adjourning of the General Assembly on the early morning of June 14, out of thousands of bills thrown into the legislative hopper in this year’s legislative session, 249 bills passed both chambers.  At press time, Gov. Dan McKee has vetoed five bills, including one to create a Rhode Island Nursing Home Workforce Standards Advisory Board (WSB).

Just weeks after the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the establishment of a 13-member advisory board to keep state leaders informed on current market conditions, wages, benefits and working conditions in Rhode Island’s nursing home industry, McKee vetoed the legislation. The final vote count for H 7733 A was 63-7 in the House and 37-0 in the Senate for S 2621 A.

WSB would advise the General Assembly and the RI Department of Labor and Training on market conditions, wages, benefits and working conditions in the nursing home industry; recommend minimum statewide compensation and working standards for nursing home workers; propose minimum standards for nursing home training programs and assist in ensuring compliance by employers with the recommended standards.

This advisory board would consist of three members representing nursing home employers, three representing nursing home workers, two representing community organizations that work with the Medicaid population, one member representing a joint labor-management multi-employer nonprofit training fund, and representatives of the Health and Human Services secretary, the Department of Labor and Training, the Department of Health and the Long-Term Care State Ombudsman.

Reasons Gov. wielded his veto pen

On June 26, Gov. McKee’s 2-page veto message to House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi (D-Dist. 13, Warwick) and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio (D- Dist. 4, Providence, North Providence) outlined his objections to creating the WSB.   

“Rhode Island needs comprehensive solutions to resolve its critical nursing home emergency and support residents, workers and the long-term care facilities,” stated McKee, stressing that the Act didn’t meet that need.

McKee noted that letters submitted by nursing homes and assisted living facilities opposing this legislation charged that the Act didn’t address real issues faced by facilities, including “years of underfunding, increased costs and the lack of available workforce in the state.”

The Board created by the Act focused narrowly on only working conditions and wages without consideration for the key constraints such as reimbursement, the governor told lawmakers.  This will not “generate the comprehensive solutions Rhode Island needs to address the nursing home emergency,” he added.

Aging advocacy groups call for an override of the veto

“Governor McKee’s veto of legislation to create the WSB is a significant setback in our efforts to improve the quality of care in Rhode Island’s nursing homes and to find a way out of the nursing home crisis,” charges Kathleen Gerard, Director of Advocates for Better Care in Rhode Island (ABC-RI) in a statement quickly released after the governor’s veto.

“The veto yet again underscores the reality that the McKee administration has created no framework or plan to stabilize our state’s broken nursing home system,” says Gerard. “Instead of once again catering to the concerns of for-profit facility owners, Governor McKee must prioritize the needs of thousands of nursing home residents and caregivers who continue to suffer from the staffing crisis,” she adds.

According to Gerard, Governor McKee says that the WSB is not a sufficiently comprehensive solution, but the governor himself has proposed no alternative solutions. “In fact, when convening his own closed-door nursing home advisory board, he initially included only industry representatives, then perfunctorily invited union representatives for the final meeting, but failed to include consumer advocates, Long Term Care Ombudsmen, or Medicaid experts,” charged Gerard.  

Gerard notes that the only recommendation from the industry members in this group was to indefinitely suspend enforcement of the Nursing Home Staffing and Quality Care Act—a course of inaction which lacked any basis in evidence and did nothing to ameliorate any of the critical problems with care in Rhode Island nursing homes. “In fact, that course only hurt the facilities that were consistently meeting minimum staffing requirements,” she says.

“Governor McKee’s veto of the WSB is a devastating blow to the residents of Rhode Island’s nursing homes,” says Raise the Bar on Resident Care Coalition in a released statement. Currently, 34 out of 74 nursing homes are rated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at two CMS stars or lower, indicating a dire need for improvement in care standards, notes the resident advocacy coalition. 

According to WSB, the legislation creating the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board would have ensured better training and working conditions for caregivers, which are essential for enhancing the quality of resident care. Rhode Island ranked second in the nation for serious nursing home deficiencies in the last three years, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive solutions that prioritize the health and safety of residents.

Raise the Bar urges the Rhode Island General Assembly to override McKee’s veto. “The WSB bill was a necessary step towards ensuring better wages, benefits, and training for caregivers, and higher quality care for residents,” says the advocacy coalition, calling on the McKee administration “to remember its promises and create a comprehensive plan to end the nursing home crisis in Rhode Island.”

“The Senior Agenda Coalition of RI (SACRI) is extremely disappointed with Governor Dan McKee’s veto of the legislation passed by the House and Senate to create a Nursing Home Workforce Standards Advisory Board, andn we are calling for the general assembly to override the veto”, said Diane Santos, SACRI’s Chair, in a statement.

There are significant issues impacting the state’s nursing homes from how they are financed; the adequacy of staffing levels, training and wages; and the quality monitoring process, stated Santos. “As the state’s population grows older there will be an ongoing need to provide quality nursing home care for those with high support needs. It is critical that the many issues facing the nursing home industry be addressed,” she said.

ABC-RI and Raise the Bar strongly urge the Rhode Island General Assembly to override McKee’s veto and allow the creation of the WSB. 

In response to the aging advocacy groups calling for a veto override, House Speaker Shekarchi and Senate President Ruggerio issued statements pledging to review the Governor’s veto messages and to confer with each other and lawmakers to determine their response.  

Provider groups give thumbs-up to Gov. McKee’s veto

The state’s largest nursing home provider group agrees with Gov. McKee’s veto of the Workforce Standards Advisory Board, says John E. Gage, President and CEO of the Rhode Island Health Care Association. “This legislation would have set a precedent, establishing an Advisory Board with a narrow and ill-defined mission that failed to recognize the myriad of challenges facing nursing homes in Rhode Island and across the nation,” says Gage,  “these challenges include chronic Medicaid underfunding, skyrocketing costs, a historic workforce shortage, and the existing staffing mandate that is unfunded and fails to address the workforce crisis and includes draconian fines and penalties.”

According to Gage, S 2621A and H 7733A would also have replicated the many layers of existing oversight authority that exists at both state and federal levels – including CMS, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the RI Executive Office of Health & Human Services, the RI Department of Health, and the RI Department of Labor & Training, among others.

“There needs to be a comprehensive solution to the current environment of care facing Rhode Island’s nursing homes,” says Gage, stressing that this strategy should include workforce training programs, student loan forgiveness for RI nursing home professionals including RNs, LPNs and CNAs who are trained and choose to remain in RI to work in long-term care settings.

“In addition, reimbursement from Medicaid must become and remain adequate to cover the increasing cost of care in all settings, and changes are needed to address the staffing mandate passed back in 2021,” says Gage, noting that the bill was passed in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic without addressing the workforce crisis and failing to provide sufficient funding that would be needed to layer in sufficient staff to meet the metrics, if those staff could be found.

Gage says that if fully implemented and enforced, fines would amount to $100 million in the first full year of enforcement – closing the majority of facilities, displacing thousands of vulnerable residents from their homes and devastating access to care for Rhode Island seniors.

LeadingAge RI agrees with RIHCA’s detailed observations about this issue and the Governor’s veto message, which highlight the myriad of entities already in place to oversee and enforce nursing home care, says James Nyberg, Executive Director of LeadingAgeRI. “Furthermore, the Governor noted the need for a more comprehensive solution to the nursing home emergency, and steps are already being taken or are in place towards this goal,” he said.

According to Nyberg, the Governor and General Assembly just made a significant investment in the chronically underfunded industry in this year’s budget, which will benefit all residents and staff.  In addition, the industry has regular meetings with the Health Department and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to  discuss any quality-of-care issues and how to mitigate and resolve them immediately, he says, noting that these meetings are frank and productive. 

Nyberg noted that the industry, and individual nursing homes, also provide countless hours of educational programming to support and improve quality of care.  “All nursing home providers are working to overcome the challenges facing the industry, and demonizing them is disrespectful to the thousands of individuals who work 24/7/365 to care for our older Rhode Islanders,” he says.

As the dust settles…

Last Monday, Gov. McKee’s veto message was sent to House Speaker Shekarchi and Senate President Ruggerio to notify them of his veto. Now they can either let the veto stand or allow it to die.  Overriding the veto can occur if three-fifths of members in both chambers vote to affirm the bill’s passage. This vote would need to take place before the start of the new law-making session in January.

As the dust settles after McKee’s vetoing of legislation to create a WSB, with the overwhelming support of the General Assembly and the lobbying of resident advocacy groups opposing McKee’s veto, will the General Assembly have the political will to act and override the governor’s veto, especially during a time when lawmakers are just beginning their political campaigns? 

We’ll see…