Tag Archives for NCPSSM

Countdown to 2024 elections heating up about what to do about Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on November 27, 2023

The political clock is ticking. It’s 340 days before the upcoming presidential elections and control of Congress and the White House are up for grabs.  As education, abortion, foreign policy, immigration, crime are emerging as upcoming campaign issues, fixing Social Security and Medicare are also on the voter’s radar screens, too.  

As the Democrats call for expanding and shoring up the existing Social Security Program (by introducing H.R. 4583, Social Security 2100 Act and S. 393, Social Security Expansion Act and other legislative proposals), Republicans are calling for changes in the program including looking at raising the eligibility age for full-time retirement, possible means-testing, and adjusting benefits for higher income earners.

The Nov. 9th Republican debate was not reassuring for younger taxpayers who are counting on collecting the Social Security benefits they earn with every paycheck, says Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. Two of the GOP presidential hopefuls promised, in effect, to cut Social Security for future beneficiaries,” he said. 

However, former President Donald J. Trump, who didn’t participate in this debate, has warned the other candidates not to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits. While he opposes raising payroll taxes to ensure the fiscal solvency of these programs, he doesn’t provide specific proposals as how to do this. 

Presidential GOP candidates call for fixes to an unsustainable Social Security system 

According to Richtman, Nikki Haley claimed that Social Security is going “bankrupt,” and she would raise the retirement age for workers who are now in their 20s, and also means-test benefits. Chris Christie also said he would raise the retirement age and eliminate benefits for higher earners, essentially converting Social Security into a safety net program, instead of an earned benefit. 

“Governor Christie and Ambassador Haley fail to recognize that future generations of retirees will rely on their Social Security benefits even more than today’s seniors do — and that means testing would cut deep into the heart of the American middle class,” says Richtman.  “Ron DeSantis — to his credit — promised not to cut Social Security, but demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the program’s finances by perpetuating the myth that the government is ‘stealing’ from the trust fund,” he added.

On Oct. 25, the newly sworn in Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson (R-LA) sent a message to his caucus calling for Social Security and Medicare reforms to be made by a debt commission to tackle changes being targeted for these programs. Richtman warns that this approach is “designed to give Congress political cover for cutting Americans’ earned benefits.”  In response, the Biden Administration described such a commission as a “death panel” for Social Security.

Over six years ago, Congressman Johnson (now newly elected House Speaker) called for cuts to Social Security. According to Independent News Network, Meidas Touch Network, in a 2018 speech before the American Enterprise Institute, as incoming chair of the Republican Study Committee, he called for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  He viewed these programs as “essential threats” to the American way of life, even suggesting that the government might cease to exist if they continued to be fully funded the way they are now. 

Slashing SSA benefits through a Debt Reform Commission

“That is why these commissions have been rightly described as ‘death panels’ for Social Security and Medicare. It is unfortunate and disappointing that one of the Speaker’s first priorities is creating a mechanism intended to slash programs that American workers pay for in every paycheck, fully expecting the benefits to be there when they need them,” says Richtman, charging that the House Speaker “clearly wishes to break this compact with the American people.”

“Congress should address Social Security in the sunlight, through regular order, as it always has,” said Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, and former top assistant to Alan Greenspan on the 1983 commission. “The only reason to create a fast-track, closed door commission is to overthrow the will of the American people by cutting their hard-earned benefits. Anyone who supports this commission is supporting benefit cuts.”

In a Nov. 13 correspondence to Congress, Jo Ann C. Jenkins of the Washington, DC-based AARP, also opposes the creation of s debt commission.  She strongly disputes the GOP’s claim that Social Security is a driver of the annual deficits or national debt, stressing that the program is self-financed.

According to Jenkins, 90% of the retirement program is financed through payroll contributions from workers and their employers.  Around 4% of its funding comes from federal income taxes on some Social Security benefits and 5.4% comes from interest earned on U.S. Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Funds.

“Any argument that claims that Social Security is a driver of the national debt – simply because it receives interest from the U.S. Treasury bonds- is disingenuous,” says Jenkins, noting that U.S. Treasury bonds are of the world’s safest investments.

Alex Lawson, Executive Director of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works, agrees with Richtman’s assessment of House Speaker Johnson’s ongoing approach to Social Security and Medicare. “The Louisiana Congressman recently joined the vast majority of his caucus to vote for a commission designed to fast-track cuts to Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors”, notes Lawson. 

“As Chair of the Republican Study Committee from 2019-2021, Johnson released budgets that included $2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and $750 billion in cuts to Social Security,” says Lawson. This includes raising the retirement age, decimating middle class benefits, making annual cost-of-living increases smaller and ultimately moving towards privation of Social Security and Medicare,” he notes.  

With Johnson pushing for the creation of a debt commission, over 100 organizations have become co-signers on Nov. 8 correspondence to Congress opposing the legislative proposal.   

Aging groups begin to mobilize

While the Social Security Trust Fund Report, released in April 2023, warned that Social Security funds will become depleted in 2033, making the program totally insolvent in 2034 when beneficiaries could only receive about 80 percent of their scheduled benefits, the cosigners say the program’s projected short falls are “manageable by size and still a decade away, are fully understood.” 

“In this Congress alone, several legislative proposals that do just that have been introduced with numerous cosponsors. The only reason to make changes to Social Security via a closed-door commission is to cut already modest earned benefits — something the American people overwhelmingly oppose  — while avoiding political accountability, say the co-signers. 

“Congress already has a process to confront the federal debt. That process is known as reconciliation. Revealingly, Social Security cuts are excluded from the reconciliation procedure, because, as previously stated, the program is totally self-funded, cannot pay benefits or associated costs without the revenue to cover the costs, has no borrowing authority, and, therefore, does not add a penny to the deficit. Consequently, if a debt commission with jurisdiction over Social Security were to be formed, its purpose would be clear: to cut its modest benefits, while avoiding political accountability,” warn the cosponsors.

But the shortfall is real

In an article in Money magazine, the writer notes, “Taxpayer funds cover the bulk of Social Security payments, but if the program’s reserves run dry, beneficiaries would face immediate 20% cuts to their checks come 2034. Any decrease to Social Security payments would likely be extremely unpopular, considering they’re a major source of retirement income for tens of millions of people.” According to a new report from the ​​American Academy of Actuaries, the longer the issue is put off, the harder it will be to address the looming shortfall.

The Third Rail of national politics 

According to AARP research, “85% of older Americans, regardless of party, strongly oppose targeting Social Security and Medicare to reduce federal budget deficits. Specifically, the survey found that 88 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats strongly oppose cutting Social Security. Similarly, 86 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of independents, and 88 percent of Democrats said they strongly oppose cutting Medicare.”

Washington insiders consider Social Security to be the “third rail of a nation’s politics”, a metaphor coming from the high-voltage third rail in some electric railway systems. Stepping on it usually results in electrocution and the use of the term in the political arena refers to “political death”.

Next November, can the GOP politically survive stepping on the third rail by targeting the nation’s most popular social welfare programs (Social Security and Medicare) for adjustments to reduce the federal budget deficit? When the dust settles after November, 2024 elections, we’ll see if younger voters, who have the most to economically lose, view Social Security and Medicare as a key issue influencing their vote and “untouchable.”

We’ll see. 

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/

Modest Social Security COLA increase seen as chump change by some

Published in RINewsToday on October 16, 2023

Last week, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 71 million beneficiaries will increase 3.2% in 2024, about $59 per month starting in January. The 2024 payment declined from last year’s 8.7%, but that had been the highest in four decades. And, its higher than the average 2.6% increase recorded over the past 20 years.

The Social Security Act determined how the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is calculated. Enacted on August 14, 1935, the Act ties the annual COLA to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) as determined by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

More than 66 million Social Security beneficiaries will see that COLA increase 3.2% beginning in January 2024, and increased payments to approximately 7.5 million people receiving SSI will begin on December 29, 2023. (Note: some people receive both Social Security and SSI benefits).  

“Social Security and SSI benefits will increase in 2024, and this will help millions of people keep up with expenses,” observes Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security in an Oct. 12 statement announcing this year’s COLA increase.

According to SSA, some other adjustments that will also take effect in January of each year are based on the increase in average wages. Based on that increase, the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax (taxable maximum) will increase to $168,600 from $160,200.

Advocacy groups on aging talk turkey about COLA

“The annual COLA is a reminder of Social Security’s unique importance. Unlike private-sector pension plans, whose benefits erode over time, Social Security is designed to keep up with rising prices, noted Nancy Altman, President of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works (SSW), in response to SSA’s COLA announcement.  

“Retirees can rest a little easier at night knowing they will soon receive an increase in their Social Security checks to help them keep up with rising prices,” said Jo Ann Jenkins, AARP chief executive. “We know older Americans are still feeling the sting when they buy groceries and gas, making every dollar important,” she added, stressing that Social Security has been the foundation for financial security for hundreds of millions of retirees. “SSA’s COLA announcement shows that it’s continuing to deliver on this promise,” she says.  

However, Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare charges, “While we are grateful that Social Security is the only major retirement program with a built-in cost-of-living adjustment, the current formula for determining COLAs is inherently flawed. SSA’s current COLA formula doesn’t truly reflect the increase in prices for the goods and services that beneficiaries rely on.”

According to Richtman, the 3.2% 2024 COLA only represents a modest $59 increase in the average monthly benefit for retired workers, and that’s before deducting the projected increase in the 2024 Medicare Part B premium of about $10 per month. Because of this the average retirement beneficiary will receive a net COLA of about $50. 

Richtman notes, “That is not enough for a tank of gas or half a week’s worth of groceries in many states. The net COLA will barely cover one brand-name prescription co-pay for some patients.”  

Last year, Richtman noted that the COLA of 8.7% was unusually high, the highest in some 40 years. But post-pandemic inflation was also at record highs, he said, noting that historically, COLA’s have been relatively low. In fact, the COLA has been ZERO; three times since 2009.  

“Seniors deserve an accurate COLA formula that accounts for the impact of inflation on their living costs. That is supposed to be the entire purpose of a COLA. The current formula measures the impact of inflation on urban wage earners and clerical workers. How is that a reasonable formula for seniors? Seniors have different spending patterns than urban wage earners & clerical workers,” asks Richtman.  

Richtman notes that seniors spend more than other age group on expenses like housing, long-term care, and medical services. “We strongly favor the adoption of the CPI-E (Consumer Price for the Elderly) for calculating COLAs. The CPI-E would more accurately reflect the impact of inflation on the goods and services seniors need, he believes. 

The CPI-E is included in both major pieces of legislation to expand and protect Social Security that have been introduced in this Congress: Bernie Sanders’ Social Security Expansion Act and Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act.  We have endorsed both of those bills as part of our commitment to boosting Social Security for current and future retirees. It’s past time for Congress to act,” says Richtman. 

Although the 3.2% COLA is well above the 2.6% average over the past 20 years, a newly released retirement survey released on Oct. 12, 2023, by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) indicates that seniors are pessimistic about their financial well-being in the upcoming months and very concerned about growing calls on Capitol Hill for Social Security cuts. Sixty-eight percent of survey participants report that their household expenses remain at least 10 percent higher than one year ago, although the overall inflation rate has slowed. This situation has persisted over the past 12 months.

According to TSCL’s latest retirement survey, worry that retirement income won’t be enough to cover the cost of essentials in the coming months is a top concern of 56 percent of survey respondents. Social Security benefit cuts are an even bigger concern, ranked as the number one worry by nearly 6 out of 10 survey participants, or 59%. Over the past year, benefit cuts and trims have affected a large percentage of older Americans low-income households, individuals who can least afford them.

A year ago, TSCL warned that higher incomes due to the 5.9% and 8.7% COLAs in 2022 and 2023 could potentially affect eligibility for low-income assistance programs such as SNAP and rental assistance. Earlier this year, federal emergency COVID assistance for SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid also ended. Surveys conducted in 2022 and this year suggest that significant numbers of lower-income older households have lost access to some safety net programs over the past 12 months, the survey finds.

A Final Note…

Social Security plans to start notifying beneficiaries about their new COLA amount by mail starting in early December. Individuals who have a personal “my Social Security account” can view their COLA notice online, which is secure, easy, and faster than receiving a letter in the mail. People can set up text or email alerts when there is a new message–such as their COLA notice—instead of waiting for them in my Social Security.

People will need to have a “my Social Security account” by November 14 to see their COLA notice online. To get started, visit www.ssa.gov/myaccount.

Information about Medicare changes for 2024 will be available at www.medicare.gov. For Social Security beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare, their new 2024 benefit amount will be available in December through the mailed COLA notice and my Social Security’s Message Center.

For details about SSA’s 2024 Changes, go to: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2024.pdf.