Tag Archives for President Biden

Medicare Enrolled will see Lower Costs on Select Drugs in 2026

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on December 2, 2025

With Medicare Open Enrollment ending next week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that last year’s Medicare negotiations produced a net savings of 44%—about $12 billion—on 15 widely used prescription drugs that treat cancer and other serious chronic conditions.

The new Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs) for these 15 drugs will take effect on January 1, 2027. Combined with the 10 drugs already negotiated—whose MFPs take effect January 1, 2026—a total of 25 drugs will have negotiated lower prices. These medications, used to treat conditions such as cancer, diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular and neurological disorders, represent some of the highest Medicare Part D spending.

The Beginning of Drug Price Negotiations

Three years ago, after President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, CMS began developing the process for Medicare’s first-ever drug price negotiations. On March 15, 2023, the federal agency issued its initial program guidance and received more than 7,500 public comments from consumer groups, patient advocates, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies. Revised guidance followed on June 30, 2023.

On August 29, 2023, CMS released the first list of 10 high-cost drugs selected for negotiation—marking the first time in Medicare’s history that it could negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceutical industry groups and several companies attempted to block the law in court. In response, 70 organizations and 150,000 petition signers urged Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma US, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to drop their lawsuits. Multiple organizations also filed amicus briefs supporting the law.

Three years in process, and with courts ultimately allowing the program to proceed, that first round of 10 drugs with negotiated prices will take effect in 2026.

CMS Drug Negotiations Added 15 Drugs

On January 17th, CMS announced it had selected 15 additional drugs for the second cycle of negotiations under Medicare Part D and on November 25th, it was announced that agreements had been reached on all of them. These medications are among the most costly and most commonly used by Medicare beneficiaries, treating conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and asthma. The new round of negotiations is expected to save Medicare billions and strengthen the program’s long-term sustainability.

“This year’s results stand in stark contrast to last year’s,” said CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, MD, in announcing the second cycle of negotiations.  “Using the same process with a bolder direction, we have achieved substantially better outcomes for taxpayers and seniors in the Medicare Part D program — not the modest or even counterproductive ‘deals’ we saw before.”

“Whether through the Inflation Reduction Act or President Trump’s Most Favored Nation policy, this is what serious, fair, and disciplined negotiation looks like,” adds CMS Deputy Administrator and Medicare Director Chris Klomp. “I’m deeply proud of our team, who execute exceptionally well to bring affordability to the country in everything we do.”

Between January 1 and December 31, 2024, approximately 5.3 million Medicare Part D enrollees used one or more of these 15 drugs. Total gross Part D spending for them was $42.5 billion, representing about 15% of all Part D drug costs.

Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, praised the newly released negotiated prices, stating that they show what is possible when “policymakers put patients before corporate profits.” Wright emphasized that these reductions build on the work of establishing the Drug Price Negotiation Program, which aims to provide financial relief to older adults and people with disabilities.

Wright noted that the first and second rounds of negotiated drugs together account for about one-third of Medicare Part D spending, with price reductions ranging from 38% to 85%. In 2027, beneficiaries using these drugs are projected to save $685 million in out-of-pocket costs. He added that the savings support both individual beneficiaries and the long-term sustainability of the Medicare program.

Despite pharmaceutical companies’ continued attempts to limit the program—through lawsuits and legislative provisions such as those in H.R. 1—Wright said the negotiation program remains “the most effective tool currently available to lower drug prices.”

“The Medicare Negotiation Program changed the trajectory of drug pricing in the United States, helping to reduce Big Pharma’s monopoly pricing power, which dictated prices to Americans on Medicare for two decades,” said Merith Basey, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs in a statement. “This second round of negotiations — now under President Trump — marks another major milestone, delivering continued savings for patients and taxpayers,” he said.

“The lower negotiated prices are more than numbers on a page. For patients who’ve been forced to work multiple jobs, cut pills in half, or choose between filling a prescription and buying groceries, these lower prices will bring long-overdue relief, flexibility, and stability,” added Basey.

“The requirement that Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs continues to pay dividends for older Americans and taxpayers,” adds Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “The announcement of lower drug prices for 15 high-priced drugs is a win for more than 5 million seniors who take these drugs to treat asthma, diabetes, lung disease and other serious conditions, and will soon pay less for their medications,” he says.

“The 4.4 million members of the Alliance are pleased that the Trump Administration has followed the law, negotiated these prices, and defended this law in court,” Fiesta says, calling on Congress to increase the number of drugs subject to price negotiations.

While the White House along with aging groups praise the impact of IRA’s Medicare drug negotiation provisions, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) issued a statement calling it “flawed.”

“Whether it is the IRA or MFN, government price setting for medicines is the wrong policy for America. Price setting does nothing to rein in PBMs who decide which medicines are covered and what patients pay. In fact, many patients are facing additional coverage barriers and paying more out-of-pocket for medicines because of the IRA, warns Alex Schriver, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs.

“These flawed policies also threaten future medical innovation by siphoning $300 billion from biopharmaceutical research, undermining the American economy and our ability to compete globally,” states Schriver, noting that PhRMA members are stepping up to make medicines more affordable by enabling direct purchase at lower prices and investing in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure.

Lower Drug Cost Legislation Introduced

Congressman John B. Larson (D-CT), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, praised the latest CMS announcement, estimating that both negotiation rounds will save older Americans more than $2 billion per year in out-of-pocket costs. Larson noted that families and seniors continue to struggle with rising prices, especially for prescription drugs.  The lawmaker pushed to enable Medicare to negotiate drug prices to lower drug costs by the enactment of IRA.

Last week, House Democrats introduced the Lower Drug Costs for American Families Act, aimed at closing loopholes in H.R. 1 and further reducing prescription drug prices. The bill (H.R. 6166), introduced November 20 by Ranking Members Frank Pallone Jr. (Energy and Commerce), Richard Neal (Ways and Means), and Bobby Scott (Education and Workforce), has been referred to all three committees.

Key provisions of the bill would:

  • Extend Medicare’s price negotiation authority to all Americans with private insurance—covering more than 164 million people with employer-sponsored plans and over 24 million enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans
  • Apply inflation-based rebate protections to private insurance markets, potentially saving $40 billion over 10 years
  • Increase the number of negotiated drugs from 20 to 50 per year
  • Extend the $2,000 annual out-of-pocket prescription drug cap to privately insured patients
  • Cap insulin costs at $35 per month for those with private insurance
  • Close the orphan-drug loophole that allows companies to avoid negotiation
  • Require consideration of international drug prices to ensure Americans do not pay three to five times more than patients in other countries

Continue the Momentum

According to CMS, the agency will announce the specifics on 15 drugs for the third round of Medicare price negotiations by February 1, 2026. This new round will include drugs paid under Medicare Part B for the first time and will begin with negotiated prices effective January 1, 2028. CMS has already released final guidance for the program and will also use this process to select drugs for renegotiation in previous cycles. IRA also establishes an ongoing process where more drugs will be selected for negotiation in subsequent years.

A Dec. 2024 AARP survey found that almost 3 in 5 adults age 50 and older expressed concern about their ability to afford prescriptions over the near future.  Respondents included both Medicare beneficiaries and younger persons. About 96 percent of the respondents call on the government to do more to lower pharmaceutical prices.

AARP noted that this survey was taken right before a new $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket drug expenses took effect in 2025.

With the announcement of lower drug costs that result from Medicare’s round 2 drug negotiations, there is an  opportunity to build on this momentum for real change. Lawmakers can legislate to put the public’s health above profit by giving consumers more power to negotiate, making competition stronger, and keeping patients from having to pay too much out of pocket.

It is now time for Congress to act.

Next November, Let Seniors Vote on Social Security Fixes  

Published in RINewsToday on May 13, 2024

By Herb Weiss

The recently released 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report shows an improved outlook for these programs. This year’s projections show that Social Security can pay its benefits and cover administrative costs now until 2035, one year longer than projected in last year’s report. But, after that, it can only cover 83 percent of benefits, even if Congress fails to take no action to fix the program to ensure its financial viability.  

Medicare’s fiscal health improves even more, says the Medicare Trustees Report. It projects that the program’s Part A (Hospital) fund will be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits until 2036 — a full five years later than estimated by the trustees last year. 

Under the Social Security Act of 1935, the Board of Trustees is required to submit the annual reports on the current and projected financial status of the trust funds to Congress on April 1 each year. 

It’s Time for Congress to Protect Social Security

“This year’s report is a measure of good news,” says Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, in a statement recognizing the impact of “strong economic that have yielded impressive wage growth, historic job creation and a steady, low unemployment rate.”  

“So long as Americans across our country continue to work, Social Security can — and will — continue to pay benefits,” says O’Malley, calling on Congress to take action to ensure the financial viability of the Trust Fund “into the foreseeable future just as it did I the past on a bipartisan basis.”  

“I will continue to urge Congress to protect and support Social Security and restore the growth of the funds. Whether Congress chooses to eliminate the shortfall by increasing revenue, reducing benefits, or some combination, is a matter of political preference, not affordability,” observes O’Malley, noting that there are several legislative proposals that address the shortfall without benefit cuts — it should debate and vote on these and any other proposals. 

Social Security Advocacy Groups. Key GOP Lawmaker Issue Statements 

With the May 6 release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, statements were generated by Social Security advocacy groups and Congressional lawmakers to give their take on the projections. 

Even with the report pushing back the expected depletion dates for Social Security and Medicare, Max Richtman, President & CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare (NCPSSM) called for Congress to immediately act to strengthen the Social Security program for the 67 million beneficiaries. “We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983.  The sooner Congress acts, the less painful the remedies will be, says Richtman.

In responding to comments that Social Security is going ‘bankrupt, Richtman says: “Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers’ payroll contributions, so the program will never be ‘broke.’ But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly.  A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.” 

Richtman warns that seniors will take a devastating financial hit if Congress is forced to make cuts in 2035. “Average Social Security benefits are already very modest — about $23,000 per year, which is only $3,000 higher than the federal poverty line for a household of two,” he says, noting that wealthier beneficiaries can afford to contribute more to the program without hurting them financially. 

“Social Security has an accumulated surplus of $2.79 trillion. It is 90 percent funded for the next quarter century, 83 percent for the next half century, and 81 percent for the next three quarters of a century. At the end of the century, in 2100,” says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, noting that the program is projected to cost just 6.1 percent of gross domestic product (“GDP”). 

Like the SSA Commissioner and NCPSSM’s Richtman, and Altman urges Congress to act sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security’s modest benefits. “That will restore one of the most important benefits Social Security is intended to provide to the American people — a sense of security,” she says.

As to Medicare, the released report notes the life expectancy for Medicare part A Trust Fund is extended another five years. 

“It’s great news that the Part A trust fund has an additional FIVE years before it becomes depleted, partly because of the unexpected strength of the U.S. economy.  But current and future seniors expect action to keep the trust fund solvent for the long-term,” said Richtman.

“We support President Biden’s plan to strengthen Medicare’s finances, as laid out in his FY 2024 and 2025 budgets,” says Richtman, noting that the president’s plan would bring more revenue into the program, rather than cutting benefits as some Republicans have proposed.  “Building on the prescription drug pricing reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act, the President’s budget proposal would lower Medicare’s costs — and some of those savings would be used to extend the solvency of the Part A trust fund,” he says.

According to Richtman, beyond trust fund solvency, the Trustees reported that the standard Medicare Part B premium will rise next year to $185 per month – a $20 or 6 percent monthly increase. “Any premium increase is a burden to seniors living on fixed incomes, who too often must choose between paying monthly bills or filling prescriptions and getting proper health care.  Seniors need relief from rising premiums and skyrocketing out-of-pocket health care costs. Fortunately, the Biden administration is taking steps to reduce those costs,” said Richtman.

Key GOP Chair  Responds to Trustee Reports

Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), of the House Budget Committee, quickly released a statement, responding to the release of the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report.

According to Arrington, the House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget, while not making any changes to Social Security or Medicare benefits, provides a way to prod Congress and the President to address the fiscal insolvency of these programs. The Budget Committee has also reported the Fiscal Commission Act, which will also give Congress the tools it needs to save and strengthen these vital programs,” he noted.

“We have the highest levels of indebtedness in our nation’s history, an inflationary and anemic economy, and the two most important senior safety net programs facing insolvency, says Arrington, noting that this year’s trustees report “only reiterates why we need a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to address the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and the $140 trillion unfunded liability on America’s balance sheet.”

“Republicans and Democrats have both proven they will not fix Social Security and Medicare on their own. We must put our seniors and country first and work together to find a solution,” he charges. “Doing nothing is condemning our seniors to automatic benefit cuts and our country to a future debt crisis,” he says.

Fixing Social Security…A Difference in Perspective.

Both NCPSSM and Social Security Works strongly endorse financially shoring up Social Security by bringing in more money into the trust fund by increasing the payroll wage-cap to require higher-income beneficiaries to pay a higher Social Security payroll tax.  Both Social Security advocacy groups endorse Rep. John Larson’s (D-CT) Social Security 2100 Act, a legislative proposal would maintain the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well — and dedicating some of high-earners’ investment income to Social Security. 

On the other hand, Republican lawmakers call for cutting earned benefits of younger workers by raising the full-retirement age, means-testing, and replacing the exiting COLA (CPI-W with the Chained CPI-U) that would result in a lower COLA over time. Also, no COLA’s would be provided to high income earners.  

Social Security is considered the third rail a nation’s politics.  Political pundits say that contact with the rail is like touching this high-voltage rail that can result in “political suicide.”  That is why the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee has proposed to create a fiscal commission to give lawmakers political cover to enact the cuts without having to vote on the record.  

Over two months ago, the most recent budget hammered out by the Republican Study Committee, endorsed by 80 percent of the House Republicans, calls for over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security in just the next ten years., including an increase in the retirement age to 69 and cutting disability benefits Medicare costs for seniors by taking away Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug costs, repealing a $ 35 insulin, and $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

 Additionally, the House GOP budget transitions Medicare to a premium support system that the Congressional Budget Office has found would raises premiums for many seniors.  Finally, it calls for cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $ 4.5 trillion over ten years, taking health care  coverage away from millions of people. 

While President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presidential candidate, has previous said he wouldn’t make cuts to Social Security, recent interviews reveal a change.  According to a March 11, 2024 web posting by CNN’s Kate Sullivan and Tami Luhby, former President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, “suggested[ in a CNBC interview] he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue.”

At the Polls

Legislative proposals to fix the ailing Social Security and Medicare programs are different as night and day. Rather than to  continue to debate the fine points, let’s put the differing policies on the ballot. With just 177 days left before the upcoming November presidential election, Congress must vote on Democratic and Republican legislative proposals, detailing differing provisions as to how these programs can increase the financial stability of these programs. Larson has already thrown his legislative proposal into the hopper, but it won’t see the light of day with a GOP controlled House.    

Last year, 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits.  This year’s Trustee’s report must send a clear message to these beneficiaries that how Congress acts during the next decade will either make or break the Social Security program. 

So, now House Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-La) and Senate President Charles E. Schumer (D- NY) must allow a vote on both Republican and Democratic legislative proposals in their respective chambers.  Let Senate and House lawmakers go on the record and publicly be tied to a vote as to which legislative political strategy they endorse to financially shore up Social Security and Medicare.  Of course, this can give voters a score card. And if this political issue is as important to them as the economy, abortion, and immigration, they can decide at the ballot box who they should bring back to Capitol Hill. 

That’s the American way to do it.

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/