Tag Archives for Nancy A. LeaMond

Senate Finance Panel Begins Discussion on Fixing Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 17, 2026

Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) is projected to reach insolvency by late 2032, triggering an automatic 22% across-the-board benefit cut if Congress fails to act, according to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report released June 9. The clock is ticking — fewer than 2,300 days remain.

What would that mean for older Americans? Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), put a dollar figure on the potential impact in his August 5 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Acomparable benefit reduction imposed today, he said, would mean an average loss of about $500 a month for beneficiaries.

For a typical newly retired couple, that could translate into an annual loss of roughly $12,000 in Social Security income — a substantial hit for households that depend on the program to pay for housing, food, utilities, health care and other basic expenses. Goldwein’s testimony underscores what the Trustees’ numbers mean beyond the percentages: a future across-the-board cut could have a very real impact on retirees’ daily lives.

Senate Finance Panel Takes Up Social Security’s Future

Just nine days before Social Security’s 91st birthday on Aug. 15, the Senate Committee on Finance held an Aug. 5 hearing, “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency,” to spotlight the program’s looming financial challenges and explore possible legislative approaches. The hearing brought together policy experts and advocacy organizations to discuss how Congress might move toward a solution.

The more than two-hour hearing examined the merits of using a commission versus the regular legislative process. Senators and witnesses also discussed increasing revenue from higher earners, raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap, adjusting benefits, and changing the retirement age.

Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) opened the hearing by warning that Social Security’s OASI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in late 2032. If Congress fails to act, incoming program revenues would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits, he said.

The last comprehensive congressional effort to address Social Security’s solvency took place more than 40 years ago, culminating in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Signed by President Ronald Reagan, the bipartisan legislation gradually raised the full retirement age, subjected some higher-income Social Security benefits to federal income taxation and increased payroll taxes to strengthen the program’s finances.

Crapo pointed to the 1983 reforms as an example of how an outside commission might help break legislative gridlock. He also cited his participation in a later bipartisan fiscal commission, commonly known as the Greenspan Commission, whose recommendations ultimately failed to win the support needed to move forward.

Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged the idea of creating another commission, arguing that Congress should take responsibility for solving the problem rather than sending it to an outside panel.

“Instead of ‘talking about talking,’ this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view,” Wyden said.

Crapo responded that the hearing was not intended to promote a specific proposal but to examine a broad range of ideas.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) pushed back against Democratic criticism that Republicans were seeking to cut benefits, saying Congress needs to be willing to consider different approaches to the problem.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took a much harsher view of the program, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and arguing that money collected from taxpayers has already been spent.

Rhode Island’s Whitehouse Calls for Answers

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Republicans for a specific plan to address Social Security’s finances.

“Where’s the Republican proposal? Where is it? It doesn’t exist,”

Whitehouse charged, arguing that Republicans were unwilling to publicly embrace proposals that could result in benefit reductions.

Whitehouse said Democrats have legislation that would make Social Security solvent “for as far as the actuarial eye can see” without cutting benefits.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) focused on raising more revenue from higher-income Americans by increasing the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Warren noted that the payroll tax currently applies only up to a certain level of earnings, meaning high-income workers pay Social Security taxes on a smaller percentage of their total income than most middle-income workers.

Sanders framed the issue in simpler terms, asking whether wealthy Americans should pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as firefighters and nurses.

But not every senator framed the debate in partisan terms.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) observed that conversations about Social Security often “immediately” become fear-mongering, with the discussion centered on taking benefits away.

“We’re actually trying to be able to get to a point where no one loses benefits,” Lankford said, noting that the goal should be long-term stabilization.

Lankford acknowledged that having a “grown-up conversation” about stabilizing Social Security’s finances and resolving the problem remains a real challenge.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also called for bipartisan action.  “We’ve got to fix this and that means working together. There’s a lot of great ideas out there. If we would just make this a focus and a priority, we can get something done,” she said.

Their comments underscored a central question facing Congress: Can lawmakers move beyond the political rhetoric surrounding Social Security and find enough common ground to actually fix the program?

AARP: Keep Social Security at the Table

Nancy A. LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, questioned whether another special commission is the best way forward.

“The history of special commissions is littered with very good intentions and failed results,” LeaMond told the committee. She argued that Social Security’s future should be addressed directly by Congress, which has jurisdiction over the program and a long history of tackling difficult Social Security issues.

LeaMond reminded senators that Social Security remains the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. She noted that it provides more than half of household income for 43% of older American households and provides at least 90% of income for nearly 12 million Americans age 65 and older.

Social Security’s impact also extends beyond individual beneficiaries, LeaMond said. “Every dollar paid in Social Security benefits generates two dollars of economic activity, supporting 12.2 million jobs and $2 trillion in economic output each year,” she said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged AARP’s efforts to protect Social Security, including its television advertising campaign warning against benefit cuts. But Grassley urged AARP and other organizations to do more to educate the public about the looming automatic reductions.

“We’ve got to wake this entire nation up to the fact that there’s going to be 22% cuts if we don’t do something right now,” Grassley said.

Goldwein told the committee that Social Security’s financial problems can be addressed if Congress begins the process rather than continuing to delay action.

In his testimony, Goldwein described CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions initiative, which offers potential approaches for restoring Social Security’s solvency. Among the ideas discussed are changes to the taxation of benefits, expanding the payroll tax base, limiting benefits for some high earners, and encouraging longer workforce participation.

The dollar figure Goldwein cited — an average reduction of about $500 a month under a comparable benefit cut — puts the Trustees’ warning into perspective. For retirees already struggling to keep pace with rising housing, food and health care costs, losing another $500 a month would not be an abstract budget number. It could mean difficult choices between paying bills, buying groceries or filling a prescription.

Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center also called for Congress to move quickly, arguing that the most important part of Social Security reform may simply be getting the process started before continued delays make the problem harder and more expensive to solve.

Rebecca D. Vallas, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance, told the committee that the decisions Congress makes about Social Security will rank among the most important work lawmakers undertake in generations.

Vallas cited a survey of more than 2,200 Americans conducted by NASI in partnership with AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The survey found that 85% of respondents favored preventing benefit reductions or increasing benefits, even if that would require raising taxes on some or all Americans. Only 15% preferred benefit reductions to tax increases.

Support for raising revenue rather than cutting benefits crossed party, income, education, and generational lines, Vallas said.

A Final Note…

“Social Security is too important to millions of Americans for Congress to take shortcuts or empower fast-track commissions to do their job. This is an opportunity to show that Washington can work, that it can deliver the results that the American people are demanding, and that it can achieve this goal without waiting until the very last minute to act,” says submitted testimony by Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The message from the hearing was clear: Social Security’s financial problems are real, the clock is ticking, and Congress has no shortage of policy ideas.

What remains uncertain is whether Democrats and Republicans can put aside their philosophical differences long enough to agree on a bipartisan solution.

After 43 years and 4 months since the enactment of Social Security reforms in 1983, the stakes are simply too high for millions of older Americans to wait much longer.  Lawmakers must roll up their sleeves and get the work done.

Medicare Drug Savings Eclipsed by Part B Premiums, COLA Challenges and ACA’s Rising Costs

Published in RINewsToday on January 5, 2026

The official arrival of the New Year was marked by millions of viewers channel surfing between ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, eager to watch the ball drop in Times Square and ring in 2026. The iconic New York City ball—12,000 pounds and adorned with 5,280 Waterford Crystal discs and LED lights—descended a 139-foot flagpole atop One Times Square. In just 60 seconds, it reached the bottom at midnight on New Year’s Eve, signaling the beginning of 2026.

Just two days before January 1—when Medicare-negotiated prices for 10 prescription drugs take effect—AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement Officer, Nancy LeaMond, shared good news. As the clock struck midnight, she announced that older Americans would see lower prices for the first 10 Medicare-negotiated drugs, which would take effect on January 1, 2026. AARP quickly issued a statement, celebrating the first-ever Medicare-negotiated drug prices and estimating a whopping 50% reduction in out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries.

“For millions of older Americans managing chronic conditions, prescription drugs are not optional—they are a lifeline. But medicine doesn’t work if people can’t afford it,” said LeaMond in a Dec. 29 statement. She emphasized that AARP has been at the forefront of advocating for drug pricing reforms since 2022. The nation’s largest aging advocacy group, representing nearly 38 million members, shared their stories, conducted national research on drug costs, and urged lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to support legislative efforts to lower drug costs.

According to LeaMond, this advocacy has delivered significant progress. On January 1, negotiated prices will take effect for the first time, marking a major milestone for both patients and taxpayers. “Older Americans will see real results and billions in savings as the first Medicare-negotiated prices take effect,” she stated, pledging that “AARP won’t stop fighting to lower drug prices until every American can get the medications they need at a price they can afford.”

“These drugs are used by nearly 9 million Medicare beneficiaries and treat conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, autoimmune disorders, and cancer,” she noted.

While Medicare beneficiaries are set to see substantial savings, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) anticipates that the Medicare drug price negotiation program will save billions. CMS, a federal agency providing health coverage to over 160 million people through Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Marketplace, expects the program to save enrollees roughly $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs in 2026 while saving the Medicare program $6 billion per year.  The negotiated prices are a minimum of 38% off the 2023 list price.

On the Other Hand

Though Medicare beneficiaries will benefit from lower out-of-pocket costs on 10 Medicare-negotiated drugs in the new year, the 2026 Social Security COLAs will barely cover Medicare Part B premiums and rising inflation.  Meanwhile, older Americans who are not eligible for Medicare coverage will face soaring health insurance premiums due to the Senate’s failure to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Tax Credits.

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, stressed the importance of ACA marketplace coverage for older adults, who often struggle to find affordable health insurance. “It’s not only cruel to let their premiums skyrocket; it costs everyone in the long run,” observes Richtman. “Older patients without insurance will be forced to use emergency rooms for care, which drives up costs for all healthcare consumers,” he says in a statement released on Dec. 11, 2026.

“They’ll also arrive at Medicare sicker or more disabled, which not only costs taxpayers more but raises premiums for all older Americans on Medicare,” warns Richtman.

Richtman pointed out that 40% of ACA enrollees are between the ages of 45 and 64. Without the extended tax credits, many of these individuals—including farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs, and small business owners—will face unaffordable premium increases and may be forced to drop or downgrade their health care coverage. “Extending these tax credits to prevent premium hikes would have made simple common sense,” Richtman argued. “Why would Senators vote to push people off health insurance instead of widening the safety net when the ACA is so clearly beneficial, especially for older, vulnerable enrollees?,” he asked.

Additionally, this year’s premium increase for the standard Medicare Part B program, while not as high as originally projected, will still affect beneficiaries, too. They will face an increase of nearly $18 per month, marking roughly a 10% hike in 2026. In a statement on Nov. 17, 2025, Richtman said that this rise basically cancels out one-third of the average beneficiary’s cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2026.

The standard Part B premium for 2026 will be $ 202.90 a month, which is $17.90 more than last year’s $ 186.  The average COLA will be $ 56 a month in 2026. After accounting for the $18 Part B premium increase, the average Social Security beneficiary will be left with an effective monthly increase of only $36 next year, notes Richtman.

Richtman pointed out that the 2.8% COLA for 2026, announced in October, was already modest before the Medicare premium hike. “In this economy, an extra $36 per month will provide only marginal relief for Social Security beneficiaries,” he said, stressing that seniors with below-average benefits will see even less of a benefit increase once Medicare Part B premiums are deducted.

“Some in lower-income brackets may experience an effective COLA of zero,” predicts Richtman.

A Final Note…

Yes, Medicare beneficiaries will see a decrease in Medicare-negotiated prices for 10 prescription drugs that took effect last week.  But, with inflation rising and older adults struggling to afford basic needs such as food, rent, utilities, and healthcare costs, aging advocates urge Congress to  take action to mitigate the negative impacts of HR 1, the 2025 budget reconciliation bill, on the Medicare drug price negotiation program.  It’s also crucial that Social Security COLAs accurately reflect the out-of-pocket expenses faced by beneficiaries, they say.

“Unfortunately, the 2025 budget reconciliation bill—HR 1—further limits the drugs that can be negotiated under the IRA’s negotiation program, reducing its effectiveness,” warns Julie Carter of the Medicare Rights Center in an October 9, 2025, blog post for Medicare Watch. “KFF, an independent health policy and research organization, estimates that this change will increase Medicare spending by at least $5 billion. As always, increases in Medicare spending lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries,” she says.

“At Medicare Rights, we strongly oppose efforts to scale back the IRA’s negotiation framework. We believe more drugs should be subject to negotiation, not fewer. We also advocate for expanding other cost-saving aspects of the law to reduce expenses for those covered by other forms of insurance,” Carter adds.

“Social Security COLAs are meant to offset the impact of inflation on beneficiaries. However, they are clearly insufficient for many seniors living on fixed incomes,” argues NCPSSM’s Richtman. He explains that this is why his organization has been pushing for an improved COLA formula—the CPI-E (Consumer Price Index for the Elderly). The CPI-E would more accurately reflect the inflationary effects on the goods and services seniors rely on, he says.

“We support legislation that would adopt the CPI-E for determining COLAs, but Congress has yet to take action. Adopting this formula would be a reasonable step toward expanding benefits and truly meeting the needs of 21st-century seniors,” Richtman concludes.

It’s time. Staff vaccinations required for nursing homes as 10 RI facilities see new COVID cases

Published in Rhode Island News Today on August 24, 2021

With the COVID-19 Delta variant spiking across the country especially among the unvaccinated, last Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced at an afternoon address at the White House that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will require nursing homes to require all workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition for those facilities to continue receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid funding.

According to federal data, of the 1.6 million nursing home workers across the  nation, about 540,000 — 40 percent of the work force — are unvaccinated.  

Since the spread of the Delta variant, there has been a rise in the number of COVID-19 cases, especially in those states that have low rates of vaccinated workers. Both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data confirm a strong relationship between the increase of COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents and the rate of vaccination among nursing home workers.

These new emergency federal regulations, crafted  by CDC and CMS, would apply to nearly 15,000 nursing home facilities, which employ approximately 1.6 million workers and serve approximately 1.3 million nursing home residents.

Rhode Island Gov. Dan J. McKee, along with other states, has already taken a similar step to protect nursing home residents by requiring all staff to be vaccinated and the new federal mandate will ensure consistent and equitable standards throughout the country. 

At a COVID-19 update held at the state the state capitol in early August, McKee called for the new vaccine mandate (as a term of employment) to take effect on Oct. 1st.

On August 23rd, Pfizer’s vaccine was fully approved by the FDA. Approvals of Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and booster shots are expected to follow soon.

According to CMS, the new mandate is a key component of protecting the health and safety of nursing home residents and staff by ensuring that all nursing home staff receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Over the past several months, millions of vaccinations have been administered to nursing home residents and staff, and these vaccines have shown to help prevent COVID-19 and have proven to be effective against the Delta variant.

“Keeping nursing home residents and staff safe is our priority. The data are clear that higher levels of staff vaccination are linked to fewer outbreaks among residents, many of whom are at an increased risk of infection, hospitalization, or death,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in a statement announcing the new vaccine mandate.  “We will continue to work closely with our partners at the CDC, long-term care associations, unions, and other stakeholders to advance policies that keep residents and staff safe. As we advance these new requirements, we’ll work with nursing homes to address staff and resident concerns with compassion and by following the science,” she said.

CMS says that it’s requiring all nursing home staff to be vaccinated is in keeping with the federal agency’s authority to establish requirements to ensure the health and safety of individuals receiving care from all providers and suppliers participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. About 62% of nursing home staff are currently vaccinated as of August 8 nationally, and vaccination among staff at the state level ranges from a high of 88% to a low of 44%. The emergence of the Delta variant in the United States has driven a rise in cases among nursing home residents from a low of 319 cases on June 27, to 2,696 cases on August 8, with many of the recent outbreaks occurring in facilities located in areas of the United States with the lowest staff vaccination rates.

Last May, CMS issued new regulations that require Long-Term Care (LTC) facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICFs/IID) to educate residents, clients, and staff about COVID-19 vaccination and, when available, offer a COVID-19 vaccine to these individuals. These regulations also mandate that LTC facilities report weekly COVID-19 vaccination data for residents and staff to the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).

CMS will continue to analyze vaccination data for residents and staff from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) data as an additional method of compliance monitoring and in keeping with current practice, as well as deploy the Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs)—operated under the Medicare Quality Improvement Program—to educate and engage nursing homes with low rates of vaccinations.

CMS strongly encourages nursing home residents and staff members to get vaccinated as the Agency undergoes the necessary steps in the rule-making process over the course of the next several weeks. CMS expects nursing home operators to act in the best interest of residents and their staff by complying with these new rules, which the Agency expects to issue next month.  CMS also expects nursing home operators to use all available resources to support employees in getting vaccinated, including employee education and vaccination clinics, as they work to meet this staff vaccination requirement.

Rhode Island Long Term Care Facilities with new cases in the last 14 days (as of 8/14/2020):

These RI nursing homes are on the RI Dept. of Health list with increased cases –

Alpine – Coventry – 5-9 cases

Avalone – Warwick – less than 5

St. Antoine – North Smithfield – less than 5

Woonsocket Health – Woonsocket – less than 5

All America Assisted Living – Warwick – less than 5

Anchor Bay – Johnston – less than 5

Smithfield Woods – Smithfield – less than 5

Sunrise House – Providence – less than 5

Bridge at Cherry Hill – Johnston – 5-9

Tockwotton – Providence – less than 5

AARP Strongly Supports Biden’s Vaccine Mandate in Nursing Homes 

In response to the Biden Administration directing all nursing homes that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds to require vaccinations for all staff, Nancy A. LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement Officer, stated:  

“The Administration’s announcement today requiring vaccinations for nursing home staff is a significant step in the fight against this pandemic. Around 30% of COVID deaths have been among residents and staff in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, even though they represent less than 1% of the population. As the new variants are emerging, facilities cannot let preventable problems be repeated. Increasing vaccination rates in nursing homes is one of the most common sense and powerful actions we can take to protect the lives of vulnerable older adults.”

The AARP Public Policy Institute, in collaboration with the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University in Ohio, created the dashboard to provide snapshots of the virus’ infiltration into nursing homes and impact on nursing home residents and staff, with the goal of identifying specific areas of concern at the national and state levels in a timely manner.

Don’t Just Single Out Nursing Homes 

“We appreciate the Administration’s efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccinations in long term care. Unfortunately, this action does not go far enough. The government should not single out one provider group for mandatory vaccinations. Vaccination mandates for health care personnel should be applied to all health care settings. Without this, nursing homes face a disastrous workforce challenge,” warns Mark Parkinson, president and CEO of the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living (AHCA/NCAL) 

“Focusing only on nursing homes will cause vaccine hesitant workers to flee to other health care providers and leave many centers without adequate staff to care for residents. It will make an already difficult workforce shortage even worse. The net effect of this action will be the opposite of its intent and will affect the ability to provide quality care to our residents. We look forward to working with the Administration in the coming days to develop solutions to overcome this challenge,” says Parkinson.

The full Nursing Home COVID-19 Dashboard is available at www.aarp.org/nursinghomedashboard. For more information on how COVID is impacting nursing homes and AARP’s advocacy on this issue, visit www.aarp.org/nursinghomes.