AARP Says Age Discrimination Robs $850 Billion from Nation’s Economy

Published in the Woonsocket Call on February 9, 2020

In 1985, my 71-year old father was ready to leave his job, looking for greener pastures. After working for Dallas, Texas-based Colbert-Volks for over 33 years as Vice President, General Merchandise Manager, he knew it was time for a job change.

After telling me of his desire to find a new employment, I told my father that he would bring over three decades of experience in the retail sector to a new company along with a vast network he had accumulated. I remember saying “You would be a great catch.” His curt response: “Nobody will hire me at my age.”

Thirty-five years after this conversation, AARP releases a report charging that age discrimination is still running rampant in America’s workplaces and it even negatively impacts the nation’s economy, too.

Last month, AARP and the Economist Intelligence Unit released a report, The Economic Impact of Age Discrimination, reporting that the age 50 and over population contributed 40 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2018, creating 88.6 million jobs and generating $5.7 trillion in wages and salaries through jobs held directly or indirectly.

But older workers would have contributed a massive $850 billion more in 2018 to the GDP if they could have remained in or re-entered the labor force, switched jobs or been promoted internally, notes the AARP study.

AARP’s new study shows that the elimination of that bias in 2018 would have increased the contribution of the 50-plus cohort to the GDP from $8.3 trillion to $9.2 trillion. It also projects that the potential contribution of the older population could increase by $3.9 trillion in a no-age bias economy, which would mean a total contribution of $32.1 trillion to GDP in 2050.

“This important report shows the cost to the entire economy of discriminating against older workers,” said Debra Whitman, AARP’s Executive vice president and Chief Public Policy Officer in a Jan. 30, 2020 statement announcing the release of the 22-page report. “The economy in 2018 could have been 4 percent larger if workers did not face barriers to working longer,” says Whitman.

“Studies have shown that older workers are highly engaged, with low turnover, and often serve an important role as mentors,” Whitman added. “Their expertise helps businesses and pays big dividends for the economy as a whole. Employers who embrace age diversity will be at an advantage,” she says.

House Moves to Combat Age Discrimination

The groundbreaking AARP report comes on the heels of the House of Representative’s recent passage of HR 2030, “Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act,” to combat age discrimination.

The House chamber’s action comes as older workers play an increasingly important role in the workforce. Estimates are that by 2024, 41 million people ages 55 and older will be in the labor force, nearly an 8 percent increase from the current number. In addition, next year the oldest millennials will start turning 40 and then will be covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The legislation, passing with bipartisan vote of 261-155, restores anti-discrimination protections under the ADEA that were weakened by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. The decision changed the burden of proof for workers to be the sole motivating factor for the employer’s adverse action, making it much harder for workers to prove age discrimination.

In the Senate, the bipartisan companion legislation (S.485) is sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Bob Casey (D-PA).

“The House vote sends a strong bipartisan message that age bias has to be treated as seriously as other forms of workplace discrimination,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement Officer. “Age discrimination is widespread, but it frequently goes unreported and unaddressed,” charges LeMond.

Thoughts on Age Discrimination

AARP’s new report includes survey findings gleaned from a study conducted last July and August, interviewing 5,000 people age 50-plus to identify how they have experienced age discrimination at work or while looking for work.

The researchers analyzed: involuntary retirement due to age bias; 50-plus workers involuntarily in part-time jobs; missed opportunities for wage growth; lost earnings following involuntary job separation; longer periods of unemployment compared to younger workers; and people age 50 and older who dropped out of the labor force, but want to continue working.

The study’s findings indicate that the age 50 and over labor force has grown by 80 percent since 1998, about 40 percent of workers age 65 over intend to continue working into their 70s. While 80 percent of employer’s support employees working into their later years, nearly two-thirds of older workers say they have experienced or seen age discrimination in the workplace.

As to gender, the study’s findings note that men who retire between ages 50 and 64 are most likely to feel that they are being forced into retirement because of their age. Older women bear the double burden of age and gender discriminate, say the researchers. Those age 50-64, especially women, experience longer unemployment than other groups

The study also found that lower-income workers are more likely to feel trapped in their present role as a result of age discrimination.

AARP’s report warns that “in order to benefit from age ‘inclusion,’ employers need not only to recognize age bias, but actually “actively” stop it; they need to “bust myths” about older workers, be it that they cost too much or are not tech-savvy; they need to recognize the value that experienced workers bring to the workplace, like their dependability and ability to problem-solve and remain calm under pressure, and they must build and support a multigenerational workforce.”

Final Thoughts

We have worked for years to raise awareness of valuing people in the workforce, regardless of age,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “This isn’t AARP rhetoric. Data repeatedly proves that age discrimination is not only is unfair to older workers, but something that also has a negative impact on the economy.

“Employers should take advantage of the best talent available without dismissing equally capable employees at a certain age or by choosing not to hire new workers simply because of their age,” Connell added. “Companies with a diverse cultural often laud that as a business asset. That philosophy should not exclude older workers. They can bring experience and wisdom into the mix and should be judged only on their performance.”

For information on AARP workforce-related resources, go to http://www.aarp.employers.

For a copy of AARP’s report, go to http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/econ/2020/impact-of-age-discrimination.doi.10.26419-2Fint.00042.003.pdf.

Democratic House Passes Landmark Legislation to Drive Down Spiraling Prescription Drug Costs

Published in the Woonsocket Call on December 16, 2019

Just days ago, the Democratic House leadership successfully pushed for passage of landmark legislation, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3), that would give Medicare the power to negotiate directly with drug companies to bring down pharmaceutical prices and make those savings available to seniors.

House Democrats passed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s sweeping legislation on Dec. 12 to lower the cost of prescription drugs on a largely party-line vote. The bill, which passed 230 to 192 with unanimous Democratic support and the backing of two Republicans, Reps Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash), is considered “dead on arrival” in the Senate. The White House has indicated President Trump would veto H.R. 3 it if it came to his desk.

The House Republicans fought to block passage of H.R. 3 by releasing their own legislative proposal, H.R. 19, to lower drug costs. The bill, consisting of bipartisan legislative provisions to lower drug costs that had already been adopted, would have achieved lower drug prices without imposing government price controls that House Republicans believed would decrease research and development spending for new drug cures.

Although House Republican Whip Steve Scalise called on the Democratic leadership to bring H.R. 19, with 135 sponsors and no Democrats, to the House Floor, the GOP proposal did not receive a vote on its own. It was offered by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) as an amendment to H.R. 3 and failed by a vote of 201 to 223, getting eight Democrat votes.

The Nuts and Bolts

H.R. 3 would put the brakes of spiraling drug cost by giving power to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with drug companies to force real price reductions while also ensuring that seniors never lose access to the medicines they need. The legislation also expands access to the lower, negotiated drug prices to persons with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries.

The 320-page House bill also prevents pharmaceutical companies from price gouging patients by capping the maximum price for a negotiated drug at the average price people in countries similar to the U.S. pay. It would create a brand new, $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries and even delivers vision, dental, and hearing benefits to Medicare beneficiaries for the first time.

H.R. 3 also increases the number of low-income seniors eligible for assistance with their drug costs and cost sharing for hospital and doctor visits. By extending guaranteed issue protections to disabled beneficiaries and to individuals who want to switch from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare, the legislation improves access to private supplemental coverage that helps fill in Medicare’s gaps for beneficiaries in traditional Medicare.

“The U.S. House of Representatives resoundingly defied Big Pharma today by-passing historic legislation to lower prescription drug prices for America’s seniors and their families. The Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3) accomplishes what we and other advocates have long demanded — that Medicare be empowered to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies, which the CBO says will save more than $450 billion in drug costs. It also caps Medicare beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 per year, says Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, in a statement.

The Pros and Cons of H.R. 3

Richtman says that it is time for the Senate Chamber to act. Drug pricing legislation that passed by the Senate Finance Committee has not been brought up for a vote on the Senate floor. “We insist that the Senate follow the House’s lead and act now to lift the burden of crushing prescription drug prices. Seniors who have been rationing pills or foregoing other necessities in order to afford crucial medications have waited long enough,” he says.

In a statement released following House passage of H.R. 3, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond, called the legislation” a bold step toward lowering prescription drug prices and high out-of-pocket costs for millions of older Americans.”
“High drug prices disproportionately hurt older Americans, particularly Medicare Part D enrollees, who take between four and five prescription medications each month and have an average annual income of just over $26,000 a year. The average annual price of a specialty drug used on a chronic basis is now $79,000. Medications cannot work if they are unaffordable, says LeaMond.

Adds AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell, “Drug companies are price-gouging older Americans and taxpayers– who pay the highest drug costs in the world,” noting that “AARP is proud to support H.R. 3, which would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and cap out-of-pocket costs for Part D enrollees. The bill also enhances Medicare by improving access and adding needed dental, hearing, and vision coverage.”

Opposing the passage of H.R. 3, the White House says in a statement, “Heavy-handed government intervention may reduce drug prices in the short term, but these savings are not worth the long-term cost of American patients losing access to new lifesaving treatments.” Noting that lowering the price of prescription drugs is major concern for seniors, the White Houses warned that H.R. 3 is the wrong approach to address this issue, “especially when bipartisan legislative alternatives that encourage innovation while lowering prescription drug

During a briefing with reporters over two months ago, President and CEO Stephen Ubl, of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), warned the passage of H.R.3 would trigger “nuclear winter” for biotech innovation. Fiercely opposing passage, PhRMA has called on the Senate to “stop H.R. 3 in its tracks.”

Putting the Brakes on Rising Drug Costs in Rhode Island

“We all know someone who has been forced to ration the medication they need to live so that they can afford to keep a roof over their family’s heads or put food on the table. In America, in 2019, this should never be the case,” said Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who voted to pass the measure. “Pharmaceutical companies have abused American patients and taxpayers to increase their profits hand over fist without recourse for too long. The Lower Drug Costs Now Act will put an end to the price gouging by big pharma that sees American patients and taxpayers paying more for their prescription drugs than people in other countries, says the Rhode Island Congressman representing the state’s first congressional district.

In his 2016 campaign, President Donald J. Trump supported the government to negotiate drug prices. Cicilline calls on the president to honor this promise and urges Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring a companion measure to the Senate floor for consideration. At press time more than 300 House passed bills are stuck in the Senate (about 275 are bipartisan).

According to Cicilline, the out-of-pocket savings to Rhode Islanders will be substantial. “This year alone, more than 1,000 women in the state will be diagnosed with breast cancer, 550 people will be told they have prostate cancer, and 190 folks will be diagnosed with leukemia. H.R. 3 will lower the average costs of many popular medications for these and other cancer treatments. The cost of Ibrance for treating breast cancer will be reduced by as much as 65 percent. Zytiga, a common prescription for people with prostate cancer, will be reduced by as much as 66 percent. And the cost of Tasigna, which is commonly prescribed to people with leukemia, will go down by as much as 71 percent,” says Cicilline, who serves as the Democratic Policy and Communication Committee Chair.

Earlier this year, the Rhode Island Congressman released information detailing how much more Rhode Islanders with diabetes pay for their insulin than people in other countries. Currently, 8.6 percent of Rhode Islanders, just over 83,000 people, have diabetes. They pay from $1,200 to $20,000 per year for the most commonly used insulin medications. Under the newly passed H.R. 3, the average total cost of NovoLOG Flexpen, a common insulin medicine, would decrease by as much as 76 percent. Under H.R. 3, Rhode Islanders could spend 3.5 times less on insulin, and some of the commonly used insulins could cost as little as $400 per year.

According to Cicilline, seniors in his Congressional District will see Medicare improvements if H.R. 3 becomes law. At this time, Medicare does not provide coverage for: oral exams for 71 percent of beneficiaries, eye exams for 66 percent of beneficiaries, hearing exams for 66 percent of beneficiaries, dental exams for 75 percent of beneficiaries, eye glasses for 75 percent of beneficiaries, and hearing aids for 86 percent beneficiaries.

Under H.R. 3’s Medicare expansion, 93 percent of beneficiaries (98,800 people) stand to gain from adding a dental benefit, 75 percent of beneficiaries stand to gain from adding a vision benefit, and 97 percent (102,700 people) of beneficiaries stand to gain from adding a hearing benefit.

On December 6, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) released an updated version of their bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 201. Will McConnell, who controls its legislative fate, allow it to be considered on the Senate floor? Can a conference committee iron out the different between a Senate bill and H.R. 3, that can be pass both chambers and be signed by the president?

The legislative clock is ticking. It’s 324 days until the upcoming 2020 presidential election and the voters are demanding Congress to put aside philosophical policy differences and come up with a compromise that will truly put the brakes on rising drug costs. We’ll see.

Herb Weiss, LRI’12, is a Pawtucket writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. To purchase Taking Charge: Collected Stories on Aging Boldly, a collection of 79 of his weekly commentaries, go to herbweiss.com.

Caregivers Find it Difficult to Shop at Retail Stores

Published in the Woonsocket Call on September 22, 2019

Survey findings from a recently released national study, by the Washington, DC-based AARP and NORC at the University of Chicago, will send a strong message to America’s businesses.

With the graying of America, retail stores must change the way they do business in order to attract customers who provide unpaid family caregiving to their loved ones.

The study, “Family Caregiver Retail Preferences and Challenges,” and its survey findings were presented at the AARP Executive Summit, The Price of Caring, on September 10 in Washington, D.C. The summit’s mission was to highlight public- and private-sector solutions to support Americans who care for an older or ill loved one.

In-store Shopping is a Struggle

While juggling a multitude of caregiving tasks, caregivers say a lack of accommodations for their frail family members is a problem for shopping at retail stores. The study’s findings reveal that in-store shopping is a struggle for one-third of the nation’s 40 million unpaid family caregivers. Many leave their loved ones at home or choose to shop online, despite strongly preferring the in-store experience.

A whopping 93 percent of caregivers surveyed say they shop for the person they care for. Among these caregivers, most report shopping monthly for groceries (87 percent), basic household items (65 percent), toiletries (61 percent), prescription drugs (58 percent) and other health products (52 percent for persons they regularly care for.

“Americans who take care of loved ones are often strapped for time, and many face logistical challenges doing something as simple as going to the grocery store,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy & engagement officer, in a September 10th statement announcing the study’s findings. “Retailers can score big with caregivers if they make it easier for them to bring their loved ones along when they shop,” says LeaMond.

The AARP survey findings detail simple but important changes retailers should consider to enhance the shopping experience of caregivers. Businesses can provide dedicated parking spots and ample comfortable reserved seating for older shoppers to rest, wider aisles that easily accommodate both wheelchairs and shopping carts, longer store hours, and train their staff to specifically work with caregivers.

The Pros and Cons of In-Store and On-Line Shopping

The survey findings in the 26-page study reveal that 82 percent of the caregiver respondents prefer to shop in-store because of the ability to touch the products and they don’t have to wait for a product’s delivery or pay for shipping charges. But 84 percent say they shop online for ease and convenience, despite preferring an in-store experience. Forty three percent of the respondents say a major reason they leave their loved one at home when shopping is because the store environment is too difficult for the recipients of their care.

More than 56 percent of the caregiver respondents say that when shopping on behalf of their loved ones they spend at least $50 per month. Forty one percent note they spend more than $250 or more a month when shopping for a loved one.

Businesses Must Listen to the Shopping Needs of Caregivers

We listen to a lot of caregivers and it seems clear that, regardless of the challenge, the help they want most is for somehow to find a convenient, time-efficient and accommodating means of getting what they need, when they need it,” said Rhode Island AARP State Director Kathleen Connell. “In retailing, convenience is a huge competitive advantage these days. But there are aspects of convenience that – for caregivers – go beyond finding what you need on Amazon and having it delivered the next day or two,” says Connell.

“Some caregiver needs are in the ASAP category and they head for brick and mortar retail establishments. Shopping for food and clothes, picking up a prescription or medical supplies, even simple things such as picking up dry cleaning feel like ‘emergencies’ because time is so. Imagine this in the context of being with someone in a walker or wheelchair,” notes Connell.

Connell urges retailers to take this report to heart. “There is an incredible amount of goodwill to be earned if you think about caregivers, as well as those in their care, and give them the consideration that makes their tasks a little easier.”

The AARP survey was conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago and is based on a nationally representative survey of 1,127 Americans who provide unpaid care for an adult age 18 or older. The survey was funded by AARP and used AmeriSpeak®, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Interviews were conducted between Aug. 1-19, 2019, online and using landlines and cell phones. The overall margin of sampling error is +/- 4.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, including the design effect. The margin of sampling error may be higher for subgroups.

To read the full report, visit: http://www.aarp.org/caregivershopping.

For more details about AARP’s Caregiver Shopping study, contact Laura Skufca, AARP Research, Lskufca@aarp.org.

Putting the Brakes on Skyrocketing Prescription Drug Costs

Published in the Woonsocket Call on August 25, 2019

A few days ago, AARP Rhode Island released new state specific data detailing the impact of high prescription drug prices for Ocean State residents, specifically those living with cancer, prediabetes or diabetes, and heart disease. The Washington-based AARP unveiled the infographic at the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) annual conference as part of AARP’s nationwide Stop Rx Greed campaign to lower drug prices for all Americans.

“While prescription drug prices continue skyrocketing, Americans are being forced to choose between filling life-saving medications or paying rent and buying food,” said AARP State Director Kathleen Connell in an August 21 statement announcing the release of the drug cost data. “So far in 2019, 29 states have passed 46 new laws to rein in drug prices. It’s critical that state and federal lawmakers continue this momentum to stop Rx greed.” says Connell.

Across the nation, 28 percent of consumers ages 19 to 64, say they are being forced to choose between filling costly life-saving prescriptions and paying their rent, buying food and affording other critical essentials, according to AARP research. In 2016, 25 percent of Rhode Islanders stopped taking a prescription drug prescribed by their health care provider due to cost.

The AARP Rhode Island-specific Infographic zeros in on three commonly used prescriptions to treat cancer, diabetes and heart disease to detail the spiraling increases in drug costs.

Between 2012 and 2017, the retail price of Revlimid, used to treat cancer, increased from $147,413 per year to $247,496 per year. In Rhode Island, 112,403 people are living with cancer.

Lantus, a form of insulin used to treat diabetes, increased from $2,907 per year to $4,702 per year. There are 82,318 people with diabetes in Rhode Island.

Finally, Aggrenox, a heart disease medication, increased from $3,030 per year to $5,930 per year. In Rhode Island, 31, 756 people have heart disease.

Specialty Drug Prices Continue 12-Year Surge

The AARP-state specific infographic released this month follows on the heels of an earlier AARP Public Policy Institute report released in June, reporting that the prices of widely used specialty prescription drugs grew more than three times faster than general inflation in 2017.

The researchers found that the average annual price for a single specialty drug used on a chronic basis is now nearly $79,000, compared to $27,824 in 2006.

Specialty drugs often require special administration and handling and are used to treat conditions that often affect older populations, including cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis.

According to the findings of the AARP report, the average annual cost for a single specialty drug was almost $20,000 more than the median U.S. household income ($60,336), more than three times the median income for beneficiaries ($26,200, and over four-and-a-half times higher than the average Social Security retirement benefit ($26,200).

The report also found that the average annual p rice for one specialty medication would have been $29,843 in 2017 – almost $50,000 lower – if the retail price changes for these products had been limited to general inflation between 2006 and 2017.

“Prescription drugs are not affordable when their prices exceed the patient’s entire income,” said Debra Whitman, AARP’s Executive Vice President and Chief Public Policy Officer. Unfortunately, drug prices seem to be in a never-ending race to the top, leaving more and more people unable to afford the medications they need,” she says.

The researchers also noted that revlimid, used to treat cancer, had the highest annual price surge of the 30 top selling specialty drugs at 21.4 percent, going from $203,928 in 2016 to $247,497 in 2017. Revatio, a pulmonary hypertension medication, had the single highest retail price increase (48 percent) among the 97 most widely used specialty drugs.

“Specialty drugs account for the majority of the prescription drugs that were approved by the FDA in recent years,” said Leigh Purvis, Director of Research at AARP Policy Institute. “Given the remarkably high prices associated with such products, it is imperative that policymakers finally enact meaningful changes that target drug manufacturers’ pricing behavior,” she said.

Putting the Brakes to Skyrocketing Drug Costs

Last March, AARP launched its ‘Stop Rx Greed Campaign’ to find Federal and State solutions to slash skyrocketing drug prices. The goal of AARP’s sustained campaign is to help drive down drug prices for all Americans by advocating for a variety of legislative, executive, and regulatory actions at both the federal and state level.

“Americans are paying the highest prescription drug prices in the world,” said Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond, in a statement kicking off this advocacy initiative. “It’s time for pharmaceutical companies to stop deflecting blame and acknowledge that the root cause is the price they set for their products,” she says.

The Stop Rx Greed campaign will include national television, radio and digital ads, editorial content, emails to members, social media posts, ongoing advocacy and grassroots activity in D.C. and the states, and a petition calling on Congress and the Administration to take action now.

As part of the campaign, AARP is actively supporting a number of policy solutions at the national and state level to help lower drug prices. The aging advocacy group supports allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices and states to negotiate lower prices with drug companies. AARP also calls for giving state Attorneys General authority to crack down on outrageous price increases and clamping down on pay-for-delay and other loopholes that keep
lower cost generic drugs off the market. Finally, AARP endorses capping prescription drug out-of-pocket costs and preserving state pharmacy assistance programs.

Congress is now considering legislation to put the brakes on rising pharmaceutical calls. As the 2020 election approaches the GOP-controlled Senate must work across the aisle with Senate Democrats to craft and pass bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs. It’s time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who vows to block any Democratic priories coming out of the Democratic-controlled Houses to the Senate, to put Senate companion bills on the floor for a vote. It’s time for the Kentucky Senator to put the needs of older Americans first, rather than political wins.

For more details about AARP’s Stop Rx Greed initiative, go to http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/prescription-drugs/.

Attacking Rising Prescription Drug Costs

Published in the Woonsocket Call on April 7, 2019

The Washington, DC-based AARP timed the release of its latest Rx Price Watch report as the House Energy Commerce Committee marked up and passed a dozen bills just days ago, six that would lower prescription drug costs. The legislative proposals now go to the House floor for consideration.

AARP’s new report, a continuation of a series that has been tracking price changes for widely used prescription drugs since 2004, was circulated to House Committee members before their markup and vote and its findings sent a message to the lawmakers that they hear from their older constituents, that is the costs of pharmaceutical drugs is skyrocketing, making it difficult to fill needed prescriptions.

Poll after poll findings reflect the concerns of seniors about their ability to pay for prescribed medications. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll released last month, 79 percent of survey respondents view drug prices to be “unreasonable,” while just 17 percent found the costs to be “reasonable.” Twenty-four percent of these respondents found it difficult to pay the costs of their prescription drugs.

Generic Drugs Can Save Dollars

According to the new AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) report, by Leigh Purvis and Dr. Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, the average annual cost of therapy for one widely used brand-name prescription drug in 2017 was over 18 times higher than the cost of therapy for one generic drug. The cost for a generic medication used on a chronic basis averaged $365 per year. In contrast, the average annual cost for a brand-name prescription drug was $6,798. But, four years earlier the price differential between these same market baskets was substantially smaller ($4,308 verses $751 respectively).

“Generics account for nearly nine out of every 10 prescriptions filled in the U.S. but represent less than a quarter of the country’s drug spending,” said Debra Whitman, Executive Vice President and Chief Public Policy Officer at AARP, in a statement released with the PPI’s 28 page report “These results highlight the importance of eliminating anticompetitive behavior by brand-name drug companies so that we get more lower-priced generic drugs on the market,” says Whitman.

AARP’s PPI report, entitled “Trends in Retail Prices of Generic Prescription Drugs Widely Used by Older Americans,” found that retail prices for 390 generic prescription drugs commonly used by older adults, including Medicare beneficiaries, decreased by an average of 9.3 percent in 2017, compared to the general inflation rate of 2.1 percent. The decline follows two consecutive years of substantial generic drug price decreases; the previous two consecutive years saw increases in generic drug prices. All but three of the 390 generic prescription drugs analyzed in AARP’s report had a retail price change in 2017. While prices for 297 (76 percent) drug products decreased, 90 (23 percent) products had price increases.
Six commonly used generic drug products had retail price increases of greater than 70 percent, including a nearly 200 percent increase for sertraline HCL, an antidepressant, finds the AARP.

AARP’s PPI report found that with older adults taking an average of 4.5 prescription drugs every month, those using generic prescription drugs were likely to have an average annual retail cost of $1,642 in 2017.

“The gap between average annual brand-name and generic drug prices has increased dramatically—brand name drug prices were six times higher than generic drug prices in 2013 but more than 18 times higher in 2017,” said Leigh Purvis, Director of Health Services Research, AARP Policy Institute, and co-author of the report. “As long as brand name drug prices continue to skyrocket, the value of prohibiting brand name drug company practices that slow or prevent competition from generic and biosimilar drugs cannot be overstated.”

AARP Pushes for Passage of Bills to Lower Drug Costs

Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce vote on April 3, in correspondence AARP urged Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) and Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore) to enact two bills (along with four other proposals) being considered at the morning markup session. These legislative proposals would lower prescription drug costs and had previously been approved by the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.

In the correspondence, AARP’s Nancy A. LeaMond, Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, pushed for passage of H.R., 1499. the “Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2019.” introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL). This proposal would make it illegal for brand-name and generic drug manufacturers to enter into agreements in which the brand-name drug manufacturer pays the generic manufacturer to keep a generic equivalent off the market. The bill was passed by voice vote.

LeaMond also supported H.R., 965, the “Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act of 2019,” introduced by Reps. David Cicilline (D-RI), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and David McKinley (R-WV). The proposal would establish a process by which generic manufacturers could obtain sufficient quantities of brand drug samples for testing thereby deterring gaming of safety protocols that brand manufacturers use to delay or impede generic entry. The bill passed by a bipartisan vote of 51-0.

At the markup, Pallone and Walden were able to work out philosophical differences on H.R. 1499 and H.R. 965. The two lawmakers also hammered out a compromise on H.R. 1503, the “Organize Book Transparency Act of 2019,” that would ensure that the Orange book, which identifies drug products approved on the basis of safety and effectiveness by the Food and Drug Administration, is accurate and up-to-date.

Washington Insiders say that Democratic control of the House will ensure the passage of these legislative proposals on the House floor and the bipartisan vote on the CREATES Act in the lower chamber creates an opportunity for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to successfully push his CREATES Act companion measure in the Senate.

Grassley says the broad, bipartisan action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to advance the CREATES Act is a major win for consumers. “I look forward to advancing this bill because it will cut down on abuses in the system that keep prices high for patients. I’m also pleased that the committee advanced a bill to address pay-for-delay schemes. Although that bill is not identical to the bill I’ve sponsored in the Senate, the bill’s movement shows that the committee is serious about addressing the pay-for-delay problem,” says the Senator.

As They See It…

AARP’s LeaMond, says “Brand-name drug companies want to stifle generic competition to protect their monopolies and profits. AARP believes that eliminating these deliberate anticompetitive behaviors will result in a more robust generic drug market and greater savings for both patients and taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that legislation such as the CREATES Act could save taxpayers more than $3 billion over a decade, and the Federal Trade Commission estimated pay-for-delay deals cost consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion a year.

“We have long supported the CREATES Act and banning pay-for-delay agreements, and are heartened that Congress is acting to improve access to generic drugs. These bills will promote competition driving down costs for seniors,” says Lisa Swirsky, Senior Policy Analyst, at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“Congressman Cicilline has been a leader in our caucus for putting prescription drug prices at the front of our agenda. Moving generics to market faster is an important step to lower prescription drug costs for every American,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “House Democrats have made it a top priority to lower Americans’ health costs by reducing the price of prescription drugs, and these bipartisan bills show we mean to deliver,” she says.

Congress Gears Up its Legislative Efforts in its Fight Against Age Discrimination

Published in Woonsocket Call on March 3, 2019

With the 116th Congress beginning on January 3, 2019, Congress moves quickly to protect older Americans from rampant age discrimination. It is a key reason why Americans, age 40 and over, are fired or offered buyouts (with younger persons being hired in their place) and why they can’t find work after a period of unemployment and struggle to return to the workforce.

On Valentine’s Day, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging, with cosponsors Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) re-introduced S 485, The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA). The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Fixing a Supreme Court Ruling

Over a decade ago, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services weakened the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by imposing a significantly higher burden of proof on older workers alleging age discrimination than is required of workers alleging other forms of workplace discrimination. As a result, workers that allege age discrimination must meet an undue legal burden not faced by workers alleging discrimination based on race, sex, national origin or religion. This sent a clear signal to employers: some age discrimination is perfectly fine.

Enacting the bipartisan POWADA bill would restore the pre-Gross standard, recognizing once again the legitimacy of so-called “mixed-motive” claims in which discrimination is a, if not the deciding, factor. It would also reaffirm that workers may use any type of admissible evidence to prove their claims.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and seven original cosponsors have introduced a House companion bill, H.R. 1230. Scott’s bill should get traction in the House because it’s referred to his committee.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I), who serves on the House Seniors Task Force, has requested to be added as a cosponsor. “There is no place for age discrimination in this country,” says Cicilline, when explaining his support for POWADA. With the Rhode Island congressman recently being elected to House leadership, taking the position of Chairman of Democratic Policy and Communication Committee, the bill will most certainly get attention.

Here is a sampling of organizations that are lining up to support POWADA: AARP, American Association of People with Disabilities, Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, and National Partnership for Women and Families and Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Efforts Begin in 116th Congress to Tackle Age Discrimination

“As a lawyer I worked on age discrimination cases, and I relied heavily on the ADEA to help workers fight back,” said Casey in a statement released when the bill was thrown into the legislative hopper. “More Americans are continuing to work until later in life and we must recognize and address the challenges they face. We must make clear to employers that no amount of age discrimination is acceptable, and we must strengthen antidiscrimination protections that are being eroded,” said the Pennsylvania Senator.

“The Supreme Court case involving Iowan Jack Gross affected employment discrimination litigation across the country. It’s long past time we clarify the intent of Congress to make sure people like Jack Gross don’t face discrimination due to age,” said Grassley, who served as Chair of the Senate Aging Committee from 1997-2001.

“No matter whether it is a determinative or contributing factor in an employment decision, discrimination is wrong and should be treated as such. I am proud to once again cosponsor legislation that reinforces these fundamental rights for our nation’s seniors,” says Leahy.

Adds, Senator Collins, current Chair of the Senate Aging Committee, “Older employees bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the workplace. Individuals who are willing and able to remain in the workforce longer can also improve their retirement security for their golden years. We should do all we can to ensure that these employees are not faced with age-related bias while doing their jobs.”

Adds, Virginia Congressman Scott, who introduced the House companion measure, “Discrimination shuts too many people out of good paying jobs. All Americans – regardless of their age – should be able to go to work every day knowing that they are protected from discrimination.”

AARP Calls for Congress to Act

“We commend these lawmakers for sponsoring this crucial legislation,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy & Engagement Officer. “Too many older workers have been victims of unfair age discrimination and are denied a fair shake in our justice system. The time for Congress to act is now.”

According to AARP, the legislation is especially needed with the graying of the nation’s workforce. By 2022, 35 percent of the U.S. workforce will be 50 or older, and workers age 65-plus are the fastest growing age group in the workforce. Three in five older workers report they have seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace. POWADA would restore the ADE’s longstanding protections and fix the same problem under two other civil rights laws.

An AARP survey, “The Value of Experience: Age Discrimination Against Older Workers Persist,” published in 2018, found that older workers still face discrimination at their workplace.

The researchers noted that more than 9 in 10 of these older survey respondents say they see age discrimination as somewhat or very common. At work, more than 61 percent report they’ve seen or experienced age discrimination on the job, and of those concerned about losing their job in the next year, 34 percent list age discrimination as either a major or minor reason. Only 3 percent report they have made a formal complaint to a supervisor, human resource representative, another organization or a government agency.

On the job hunt, almost 44 percent) of older job applicants say they have been asked for age-related information from a potential employer.

The older AARP survey respondents would support the recently introduced POWADA, too. Nearly 59 percent strongly supported strengthening the nation’s age discrimination laws.

We need vigilance at every regulatory level and awareness and compliance in every workplace,” says AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “Most workers reach a point in their lives when society wants to diminish their relevance and dismiss their knowledge and abilities by simply adding the prefix ‘older-’ to worker or employee. It’s not acceptable and can be proven to be unlawful. I would add that is can be disturbing to many others in the workplace. We all get older every day. No one – even younger workers – should be comfortable thinking it is okay to deny employment, harass or terminate someone on the basis of age.

“The problem goes beyond hiring and firing or being denied a promotion over a younger, less capable co-worker,” Connell added. “Day to day negative comments that point to age or suggest someone should just retire ‘and give someone younger a chance to advance’ also can make people feel disrespected and vulnerable. POWDA is important because it codifies the notion we all have to take this as seriously as other, more familiar, types of workplace discrimination.

“Age discrimination is a big part of AARP’s effort to ‘Disrupt Aging,’” Connell Concluded. “As promised at http://www.aarp.org/DisruptAging (and in CEO Jo Ann Jenkins’ book of the same title), AARP ‘will celebrate all those who own their age. We will hold a mirror up to the ageist beliefs around us. We will feature new ways of living and aging, and the products and solutions that make this possible. We will partner with companies and communities to create new solutions that work for all of us at any age. And we will get this story — our story — out there. It’s time to change the conversation.’

“Society as a whole needs to be a part of this change. Everyone will benefit now and when they are … older.”

Third Time’s the Charm

In 2009, the initial POWADA bill was introduced in the Senate chamber by Grassley and Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa). No action was taken. In 2015 Casey and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) reintroduced it. Again no action was taken. Now, with the POWADA bill again being reintroduced this month, Congress now has the opportunity to make the needed legislative fix to a Supreme Court ruling to restore protections of the ADEA to older workers. Congressional action will put the brakes to an epidemic of age discrimination complaints. Those pushing for passage express the hope that “The third time is the charm.” Yes, it is finally time to pass POWADA once and for all.

Any individual who believes that they have been or are being the victim of age-related employment discrimination can call the RI Commission for Human Rights at (401) 222-2661 or visit the office at 180 Westminster Street, 3rd floor, in Providence, to talk with staff to file a complaint.

Herb Weiss, LRI’12, is a Pawtucket writer covering aging, healthcare, and medical issues. To purchase Taking Charge: Collected Stories on Aging Boldly, a collection of 79 of his weekly commentaries, go to herbweiss.com.