Congressman Magaziner takes baton on bringing back House Aging Committee

Published in RINewsToday on March 4, 2024

Over 30 years ago, the US House Democratic leadership’s belt-tightening efforts to save $1.5 million resulted in the termination of the House Permanent Select Committee on Aging. Congressman Seth Magaziner (RI-2) has picked up the baton from former Congressman David Cicilline who sought to bring back the House Aging Committee during the 114^th-117^th Congresses.

At press time, Magaziner’s H. Res. 1029, introduced Feb. 23, 2024, has been referred to the House Committee on Rules for mark-up, and if passed, will be considered by the full House.

“Older Americans deserve a seat at the table, particularly when it comes to important issues such as protecting Social Security and Medicare,” said Magaziner in a statement announcing his legislative efforts to pass H. Res. 1029. “I am proud to introduce legislation to re-establish a House Permanent Select Committee on Aging, which will advocate for America’s aging population and ensure seniors’ voices are heard when it comes to federal policymaking,” he says.

Every day 12,000 Americans turn 60. By 2030, nearly 75 million people in the U.S. — or 20% of the country — will be age 65 or older. As our country’s aging population grows, the need for support and services provided under programs like Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid and the Older Americans Act increases.

“Ensuring that seniors can thrive in our communities should always be a priority for the House of Representatives,” said Congressman Gabe Amo (RI-1) one of 15 original cosponsors of H. Res. 1029, who initially called for bringing back the House Aging Committee during his campaign to win former Cicillini’s vacant seat.

“That is why it is essential that there is a dedicated committee for lawmakers to focus on the issues that impact seniors’ quality of life. From preserving and expanding Social Security and Medicare to reducing the cost of prescription drugs to keeping seniors in safe and stable housing, there are so many issues to address under the leadership of a Special Committee on Aging. Seniors in Rhode Island and across the country deserve nothing less,” says Amo.

The House can readily create an ad hoc (temporary) select committee by approving a simple resolution that contains language establishing the committee—giving a purpose, defining membership, and detailing other aspects, says EveryCRSReport. Salaries and expenses of standing committees, special and select, are authorized through the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.

Putting a spotlight on aging issues

H. Res. 1029 simply amends the Rules of the House to establishes a Permanent House Select Committee on Aging, noting that this panel shall not have legislative jurisdiction, but it’s authorized to conduct a continuing comprehensive study and review of the aging issues, such as income maintenance, poverty, housing, health (including medical research), welfare, employment, education, recreation, and long-term care.

The 213-word resolution would have authorized the House Aging Committee to study the use of all practicable means and methods of encouraging the development of public and private programs and policies which will assist seniors in taking a full part in national life and which will encourage the utilization of the knowledge, skills, special aptitudes, and abilities of seniors to contribute to a better quality of life for all Americans.

Finally, the House Resolution would also allow the House Aging Committee to develop policies that would encourage the coordination of both governmental and private programs designed to deal with problems of aging and to review any recommendations made by the President or by the White House Conference on aging in relation to programs or policies affecting seniors.’

Aging organizations, advocates call for passage of H. Res. 1029

According to Max Richtman, President and CEO of the Washington D.C.-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), jurisdiction over many programs affecting seniors is shared by multiple standing committees, which can make it difficult for them to fully explore solutions that do not fit squarely into a single committee’s expertise. Such issues include a variety of intergenerational concerns that merit attention, such as the growing demands on family caregivers and our intractable retirement security crisis. “An inter-disciplinary approach to these issues can best be advanced by a Select Committee with broad jurisdiction,” he says.

“Re-establishing a Select Committee on Aging in the House would also complement the strong bipartisan work of its counterpart in the Senate,” says Richtman. “In recent years, the Senate Special Committee on Aging has effectively promoted member understanding on a range of issues,” he says, noting that these issues include concerns of grandparents raising grandchildren, elder abuse and fraud, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on older Americans and their families, the importance of financial literacy in planning for retirement, and the costs associated with isolation and loneliness.

“Historically, the House Select Committee on Aging served as a unique venue that allowed open, bipartisan debate from various ideological and philosophical perspectives to promote consensus that, in turn, helped facilitate the critical work of the standing committees. We believe that issues affecting seniors would be best advanced by the re-establishment of such a Committee in the House,” adds Richtman.

NCPSSM will endorse H. Res. 1029 and plans to promote it to House lawmakers. If the Democrats take control of the House next November, the organization will approach the Democratic House Speaker when he is crafting rules to operate and request that the rules include reestablishing the HSCoA.

Nancy Altman, President of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works, strongly supports Magaziner’ efforts to bring back the HSCoA. “Social Security is a critical issue for older Americans. “There’s so much misinformation out there about Social Security, and as a result many people aren’t confident they’ll get the benefits they’ve earned. More accurate information coming from Congress would help,” she says.

According to Altman, the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee does incredibly important work, but Ways and Means has such a broad jurisdiction that Social Security and other aging related issues don’t always get the attention they deserve. “A House Aging Committee could shine an important spotlight, informing the public, the media, and fellow members,” she notes.

Altman offers suggestions to the Rhode Island Congressman to increase the chances for passage of H. Res. 1029. “If he doesn’t already have Republican co-sponsors, he should try to get some since they’re more likely to convince Speaker Mike Johnson to create the committee,” she says.

In addition to working for passage of H. Res. 1029, this Congress, Altman recommends that Magaziner start working now to line up Democrats to push for the reestablishing the House Select Committee on Aging at the beginning of the next Congress, where there is likely to be Democratic control.

Robert S. Weiner, now President, Robert Weiner Associates News, was House Aging Committee Chief of Staff under Chairman Claude Pepper, from 1976 to 1980, when the Florida lawmaker headed the HSCoA, as a force to be reckoned with in his advocacy of America’s seniors.

“I saw first-hand the power of that committee when we met with Presideent Jimmy Carter and he endorsed the HSCoA’s efforts to abolish mandatory retirement,” says Weiner, noting that the bill passed 359-2 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate, and signed into law by the President.

According to Weiner, the Carter Center recently invited him to pen an article this fall, for their “last print edition of the “Carter-Mondale Newsletter,” entitled “Carter, Pepper Strike Blow Against Age Discrimination.”

“We also held high-powered hearings on nursing home abuses, cancer insurance fraud, the need for expanded home health care (which ultimately became law), elder abuse, and pensions,” adds Weiner. As to Social Security, the Pepper-O’Neill-Reagan deal guaranteed the solvency of Social Security through 2034.

As to legislative strategy, Weiner suggests that Magaziner get 100 plus sponsors – Democrats and Republicans – by bringing a copy of the resolution to the House floor and getting cosponsoring significantly efficiently and quickly by first-hand recruiting action. He might even ask to address the House for a one-minute speech about the importance of passing H. Res. 1029.

“Both parties are nuts if they don’t help seniors by having a dedicated House Select Committee on Aging,” asserts Weiner.

“This is a significant opportunity for the Congress to take a comprehensive view as to how we as a country wish to better support the aging of America. Older adults suffered the most during the COVID pandemic — more than 90% of the deaths were individuals over 60. Many older adults are still suffering from loneliness and social isolation. Such a bipartisan effort led by Congressmen Magaziner and Amo would be historic,” stated Vincent Marzullo, who served 31 years as a career federal civil rights and social justice administrator at the National Service Agency, and a well-known aging advocate. He serves on Magaziner’s he RI-02 Seniors Advisory Committee.

The clock is ticking. With the upcoming presidential elections taking place in about 246 days, Magaziner must quickly work to get House Republicans cosponsors to get House Speaker Mike Johnson to allow a vote in the House Rules Committee. Without support of his caucus, he is likely to say no.

Magaziner must convince Congressmen Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), co-chairs of the “Problem Solvers Caucus,” consisting of essentially an equal number of 63 Republican and Democratic lawmakers, to push for passage of H. Res. 1029. This may be the only way to pass a resolution to reestablish HSCoA in a Republican-controlled House.

AARP poll says older women’s vote a “Wild Card” in upcoming election

Pubished in RINewsToday on February 26, 2024.

According to a newly released AARP public opinion poll, women voters age 50 and older are the biggest wild card vote in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, divided almost evenly on their preferred presidential candidate. But these voters express common concerns about their financial wellbeing, political bickering and gridlock, and the overall future direction of the nation.

With woman voters politically split, Democratic and Republican political consultants will most certainly analyze the poll’s findings to the reshape their strategies to win the White House and take control of Congress. The national on-line survey was conducted Jan. 10–21, 2024, polling 2,001 likely women voters age 50 and over and it had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

AARP’s poll findings detailed in “2024 She’s the Difference: The Wildcard of the 2024 Election” released on Feb. 22, indicated that in head-to-head matchup, 43% of women age 50+ respondents said they would vote for Donald Trump in an election today, while 46% said Joe Biden. In a generic Congressional ballot, Republicans and Democrats are tied at 45%, say the researchers.

Conducted with national pollsters Kristen Soltis Anderson and Margie Omero, the AARP survey of the 2024 Likely Electorate, shows Biden does particularly well among women 65+, winning this group over Trump by a 7-point margin, while women aged 50-64 are more likely to say they are undecided (15%). However, overall, these voters are dissatisfied with the country’s political leaders, and nearly half (48%) are worried about the upcoming election. They are likely to feel they are not being heard by the country’s political leaders — 75% say politicians in Washington don’t listen to the views of people like them.

“Women aged 50 and over are one of the most consequential and influential voting groups in this election,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer in a Feb. 22 statement announcing the release of the survey’s findings detailed in the 10-page report. “Women in this voting bloc are concerned about America’s future, their own financial security, wellbeing, and our nation’s political divisiveness. And yet, they are not a monolithic group. Candidates who want to win in 2024 should pay attention to the concerns they share, and the concerns that differ,” notes LeaMond.

During a press call scheduled after the release of AARP’s poll data, LeaMond reinforced the point that woman were fairly evenly divided by party and ideology, and they tend to fall more in the center than their male counterparts. She also emphasized that there’s bipartisan support for policies that help family caregivers, and said AARP plans to ask every candidate running for public office: “What’s your position on Social Security? And what’s your position on family caregiving?”

AARP’s survey found that women voters 50+ have serious worries about their financial security. When asked to choose the two biggest issues facing the nation today, cost of living tops their list, with 38% citing it a top issue, followed by immigration (32%), threats to democracy (20%), and political division (16%).

The survey’s findings also indicated that half (51%) say they are not confident they will be better off financially a year from now. Among those currently working, 54% don’t think they will have enough money to retire at the age they would like to. Finally, almost half (48%) say their own personal financial situation is falling short of what they expected at this point in their lives.

A large percentage of the survey respondents expressed their fears about the future of the nation. Seven-in-ten (70%) think the country is on the wrong track, and nearly half (47%) think America’s best days are behind us, while only 27% say the best days are ahead.

AARP’s survey also found that only 19% think the nation will become more stable in the year ahead, while 46% think it will become less so, citing government dysfunction resulting from political gridlock (63%), the economy (58%), political division and partisanship (55%), crime (55%), and the situation at the southern border (53%) as the top issues driving this instability.

Finally, the poll findings indicate that only 28% of women 50+ expect the economy to improve over the next year, while 42% expect the economy to get worse.

Many women 50+ respondents feel pulled by a wide range of demands, especially caregiving, and that their personal lives aren’t what they expected at this stage of their life. A third (32%) respondents say that their overall enjoyment in life falls short of what they expected. Many say they are stressed (34%) and worried (32%) when they were asked about how they feel about their life today.

Over seven-in-ten of the respondents noted they are currently a family caregiver (21%) or have been a caregiver (50%) to a parent, partner/spouse, or adult child. Among current unpaid caregivers, more than a third (36%) are also still working.

Across political affiliations, caregiving was viewed as a key political issue to be addressed inside the Beltway. Women voters overall (82%) and women voters 50+ (84%) overwhelmingly see a need for elected officials to provide more support for seniors and caregivers.

“Women aged 50 plus are not easy to pin down into a single stereotype,” said Kristen Soltis Anderson, founding partner, Echelon Insights. “We know they’re frustrated with the way things are going, don’t believe their voices are being heard, and are worried about the future of the country. Even when they say they feel satisfied with some things in their own lives, they remain very worried about cost of living and our nation’s deep political divisions,” she said.

“While women over 50 might be looking for more ways to stay connected compared to voters overall, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with the amount of time spent with family,” adds Margie Omero, principal at GBAO. “They are less likely to make their voices heard, and are also less likely to feel listened to. Given the size and importance of this group, political leaders should put in the work to stay attuned to these voters’ needs and how to best reach them,” said Margie Omero, principal at GBAO, she said.

Woman’s Political Clout Can Win Elections

According to AARP, women aged 50 and over are one of the largest, most reliable voting blocs. While U.S. Census Bureau data shows they are a little over one-quarter (25.5%) of the voting age population and 28% of registered voters, a study by Pew Research Center found that they casted one-third (33%) of ballots in the 2022 election.

Political insiders also know they are the largest bloc of swing voters. In 2022, AARP polling showed women 65+ in battleground Congressional districts moved from favoring Republican candidates by 2 points in July 2022, to favoring Democrats by 14 points in November 2022 – a 16-point shift that contributed to the narrowness of the Republican House majority.

According to Wendy J. Schiller, is a Professor of Political Science, Brown University and serves as a political analyst for WJAR10, the local NBC affiliate in Providence and WPRO radio, the gender gap in presidential elections still persists giving Democrats an average 9% advantage over Republicans among all women, but when you break that down, you do see some differences across age and other demographics. Women of color, especially Black women, tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and white women are more evenly divided according to their geography, religion, and marital status. “In recent years, suburban women voters who used to be more typically Republican have shifted their votes to a slight majority for the Democrats, starting with Obama and continuing through Trump and Biden. Voters over 65 have the highest turnout at about 72% so winning or losing women in this age category can be crucial to an election outcome,” she says.

Schiller notes that abortion access is an issue that resonates with women of all ages, and that has become a much larger issue since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. “The immediate reaction among the GOP controlled states was to severely restrict abortion access to 6 weeks, although those efforts have been mitigated by state ballot initiatives in states like Ohio and Kansas. Now we see with Alabama how far-reaching Dobbs is in terms of things related to defining life; the super majority Republican legislature of Alabama is now scrambling to preserve the right to fertility treatments whose aim is to create life, not end it,” she says.

“And Donald Trump is expected to announce his support for a national ban on abortion after 16 weeks, which is a political move designed to both preserve the right to abortion but also limit it nationally in states where that time frame is longer (20 weeks). These moves are a clear sign that the GOP knows there may be an electoral cost they will pay for Dobbs in 2024, especially among women,” adds Schiller.

“The lingering presence of Nikki Haley as a female challenger to Donald Trump in the GOP presidential primary has clearly irritated him, and we will see what his victory speech in South Carolina does to his standing with women in the next national polls that come out,” says Schiller.

Women and Aging Issues

Recent polling indicating that women — especially women over 50 — are concerned about their financial future this election year is not surprising,” says Max Richman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “We have long advocated for improved retirement security for women,” he says.

“On average, women do not enjoy the same level of retirement security as men, due to historic wage inequality and uncompensated time off caring for family members. Women also tend to live longer than men, meaning that their retirement income and savings must be stretched over a longer period of time, Richtman notes.

According to Richtman, this election is crucial for women’s retirement security, because the two parties’ approaches to Social Security are so divergent. President Biden has called on Congress to expand and strengthen Social Security. “Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation to enhance the program, which would boost benefits for all retirees, with special increases for widows and widowers and beneficiaries over 85 years of age,” he says, noting that Democrats have also proposed new caregiver credits that would increase Social Security benefits for those who take time out of the workforce to care for loved ones.

“On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have repeatedly proposed to cut Social Security by raising the retirement age, means testing, and adopting a more miserly COLA formula — all of which would be detrimental to women in retirement. After years of financial inequality, it is time for women to enjoy a level of retirement security on par with men. And this year, the choice for women at the ballot box could not be clearer,” states Richtman.

According to Well-Know Rhode Island political analyst, Joe Fleming, confirms that female voters will be key in this election. In 2020 Biden did extremely well with this group and retain them to win re-election. “There is no question that suburban women will be key, if Biden is to win the suburbs he must have support from these female voters,” says Fleming.

“The issue of abortion plays very well with female voters and does not have a personal impact on female voters over 50 but, I believe it still has a major impact on them. We have seen this in states that had abortion questions on the ballot and in some red state” notes Fleming.

However, Fleming warns that one must keep in mind that the election is many months away and voters opinions change over time.

American Political Scientist Darrell M.West agrees with Fleming assessment that woman voters will be key in electing the next president. “Women will make up a majority of the electorate in 2024 so will play an outsized role in who wins. Suburban women will be especially crucial because they have been swing voters in recent elections. Whoever wins that group likely will be the next president,” says Darrell West, Senior Fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation of the Governance Studies program at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute. His research focuses on media, technology, and elections.

To view the full poll findings, visit www.aarp.org/shesthedifference.

To access all of Herb’s articles published by RINewstoday, go to https://rinewstoday.com/herb-weiss/

Federal Court denies attempt to stop Medicare drug negotiation program

Published in RINewsToday on November 6, 2023

Over two months ago, as supporters of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) celebrated the one-year anniversary of the passage of the historic legislation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), along with drugmakers filed multiple lawsuits to block the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions. The drug price negotiation program, created by IRA, allows Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate the prices of ten prescription drugs for the first time.

The multiple-filed legal suits came weeks before Sept. 1 when the for Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was scheduled to publish a list of the first 10 drugs that would be subjected to negotiations. These lawsuits argued that the federal price negotiation program was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the separation of powers clause, by giving the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) discretion over a maximum fair price for any given drug selected for negotiation. These lawsuits also charge that CMS price controls would force drug makers to pull back on developing new drugs, jeopardizing medical breakthroughs for individuals with life-threatening and chronic illnesses.

Among the nine lawsuits scheduled to go to trial, one was a motion filed on July 12, 2023 by the Chamber and several of its affiliates in Ohio. This motion requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the Medicare drug negotiation program from implementation. The ruling came before the Oct. 1, 2023 deadline requiring drugmakers whose pharmaceuticals were selected for negotiations to either sign agreements to participate or to face stiff penalties.

The U.S. Department of Justice opposed the Chamber’s motion, filing a motion to dismiss its case. On Sept. 15, 2023, the court held oral arguments giving the Chamber and the DOJ an opportunity to present their legal arguments in greater detail.

Overcoming a Major Legal Hurdle

On Friday, September 29, 2023, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman for Southern District of Ohio, denied the Chambers request to block implementation of the newly established Medicare drug price negotiation program before the drug price negotiation talks began. The ruling called on the Chamber to file an amended complaint by Oct. 13, 2023. DOJ would then have until Oct. 27, 2023 to renew its motion to dismiss.

According to Spencer Kimball of CNBC, legal experts say the pharmaceutical industry hopes to see conflicting rules from lawsuits filed in other federal appellate courts to bring this issue to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

The Willimantic, Connecticut-based Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA), a nonprofit group pushing for comprehensive Medicare coverage, health equity and quality of health care for seniors and people with disabilities, is encouraged by Judge Newman’s ruling, which assessed the drug manufacturer’s claims “to be weak in the face of clearly established laws.”

According to CMA, the 28-page court order found that the Chamber and other plaintiffs had demonstrated neither likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm, which are required for a preliminary injunction. CMS noted that this case cited “clear” law that “participation in Medicare, no matter how vital it may be to a business model, is a completely voluntary choice.” The court also found that the price established by negotiations cannot be considered ‘confiscatory,’ as the Chamber charges or “a violation of due process, because drug manufacturers can opt out of Medicare entirely.”

Newman’s ruling noted that drugmakers are not compelled to sell drugs at the prices established by the Medicare program and that any economic harm, when the negotiated drug prices take effect in 2026, was too speculative to warrant immediate relief, reported CMS. However, the court did deny the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit entirely, saying that more information on whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue would be beneficial and therefore the judge is allowing for limited discovery to clarify issues related to legal standing, after which the government may renew its motion to dismiss, noted the Medicare advocacy group.

With this ruling, Medicare may move forward with its implementation of its drug negotiation program as this case and others continue to proceed.

Giving their two cents…

At press time, the Chamber did not respond to a request for comment about the court’s ruling. But health care and aging advocacy groups issued statements expressing their thoughts about the impact of Newman’s ruling.

“This is the first major blow to Big Pharma in its legal battles to block the drug price negotiation provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act, says Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s director of the Access to Medicines program.

“The Chamber’s lawsuit lacks merit; the court made the right decision not to grant the injunction, which would have caused needless patient suffering and treatment rationing, notes Maybarduk, calling on drugmakers “to drop their lawsuits and drop their prices.”

“Now, drug companies should agree to participate in the negotiation program in good faith. The program is an important first step in ending the exorbitant prices charged to Medicare enrollees,” adds Maybarduk.

Frederick Isasi, Executive Director of Families USA, happily noted that the Medicare drug negotiation program continues, calling the ruling “a big win for seniors and their ability to purchase life-saving medications. The ability to afford medication is a matter of life and death for millions of older adults. That’s why we are fighting this David and Goliath battle – people deserve to pay a fair price for their drugs and Medicare price negotiation is a critical piece of this puzzle. And let’s not forget each drug subject to fair price negotiation is an old drug that millions of people need and doesn’t have competition,” he notes.

“It never ceases to amaze us that – on one hand – Big Pharma can cry poverty by saying that drug negotiations will hurt their bottom line, while recent earnings reports show they are raking in money hand over fist. We are glad Judge Michael J. Newman, a Trump appointee in Ohio’s Southern District, saw through this hypocrisy by affirming the Biden administration’s power to begin negotiating the prices of 10 medications with drugmakers,” says Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. (NCPSSM).

According to NCPSSM, Drug makers made a whopping $493 billion in revenue from ten drugs that are now subject to price negotiations between CMS and the manufacturer, which have accounted for more than $170 billion in gross Medicare spending, according to a report from the nonprofit, Protect Our Care.

“The court’s decision to allow Medicare drug price negotiations to move forward is welcome news, says William Alvarado Rivera, Senior Vice President for Litigation at AARP Foundation. “Pausing Medicare negotiations would have risked billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers – and countless lives. It is unconscionable that Americans face such high prescription drug costs that many people skip taking medication altogether or must ration it,” he said.

“We’re prepared to fight for as long as necessary to ensure big drug companies can’t charge excessive prices at the expense of patients’ health, says Rivera, noting that the new Medicare negotiation law would bring financial and medical relief to millions of older Americans and their families, and put drugs that treat life-threatening and chronic conditions, from cancer to heart disease, within their reach. Rivera says, “It must not be derailed.”

Congress has put the breaks to the spiraling costs of pharmaceuticals by giving Medicare the authority to negotiate the price of popular drugs with drug makers. America’s seniors will continue to suffer financial hardships and many might even lose their lives by not choosing not to take their costly medications if courts rule in favor of drug companies. Time will tell.

U.S. Judge Michael J. Newman ruling denying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s request for a preliminary injunction, go to https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/DaytonAreaChamberofCommerceetalvBecerraetalDocketNo323cv00156SDOh/5?doc_id=X3U600KOGG69QHQBPEU24OS1JMO

A listing of drugmaker revenues of the first ten negotiated drugs, go to https://www.protectourcare.org/by-the-numbers-the-ten-costly-drugs-that-are-now-eligible-to-have-lower-prices-negotiated-by-medicare/