Tag Archives for President Joe Biden

Senate Aging Committee: Mandatory Arbitration in Age Bias Cases

Published in RINewsToday on September 8, 2025

Chairman Rick Scott (R-FL) and Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging recently held a full committee hearing titled ‘Protecting Older Americans: Leveling the Playing Field for Older Workers’ in SD-106 at 10:30 a.m., shining a spotlight on the harmful impact of age discrimination which is viewed as pervasive and damaging to the nation’s economy.  The intent of this hearing was to raise public awareness about how it results in the potential loss of legal rights of older workers through the legalese in employment contracts, requiring mandating arbitration.

According to a 2024 AARP survey, the vast majority of older workers have reported witnessing age discrimination. The survey found that 64% of older workers have either seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace.  Additionally, the findings indicated that, more than 1 in 5 older Americans said that they worried that they were being pushed out of their job because of their age. This comes as Americans have started working later in life, with workers who are over 75 years old becoming the fastest growing age group in the workforce

After calling the hearing to order, Chairman Scott stated, “Age discrimination isn’t just wrong, it’s stupid. I’m a business guy, and I can tell you that looking at someone’s age instead of the value they bring to an organization makes no sense. You can’t run a business or government that way and we need to make sure it’s not happening to American seniors.”

Opening the hearing, Chairman Scott stressed that work provides purpose and fulfillment. “Having a purpose is an essential part of the American Dream, and it has long been an indicator of both mental and physical well-being across all age groups,” he said, noting that research findings indicate that “older workers who remain engaged, experience greater physical health, mental resilience, and life satisfaction.”

“We need to make sure Americans of all ages have the opportunity to work and pursue their dreams by stopping age discrimination and removing the red tape and barriers that hamper or discourage older Americans from continuing work or starting new businesses or careers,” Chairman Scott told the Senate Panel.

The economic and overall well-being of older Americans was at the center of the Sept. 3 hearing, which brought the issue of age discrimination in the workplace to the forefront with a growing number of older workers being denied employment, being passed over for promotions, or just being fired because of their age. The discussion, led by Ranking Member Gillibrand, took a close look at a major legal barrier for victims of age discrimination, the forcing of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

“In a time when the population of older Americans is growing and many are returning to the workforce, we need to make sure that those who face age discrimination can have their day in court,” says Ranking Member Gillibrand in an opening statement. “Victims of age discrimination often can’t seek justice or accountability in court because of a forced arbitration clause that they signed when they were hired,” she said, noting that many of these individuals are not even aware that their employment contract contains  a forced arbitration clause.

According to Gillibrand, the contract “traps those who experience workplace discrimination in a system that advantages their employer — preventing them from seeking information that could help to prove their case. And victims are left in the hands of an extrajudicial arbitrator who is often selected by their employer and not always a trained lawyer,” she says.

At this hearing, witnesses also called this practice “fundamentally unfair” that suppresses age discrimination claims, favors employers and hides misconduct from the public, effecting blocking older workers from their seventh Amendment constitutional rights to a jury trial without their full consent.

Bill Restores Right to Sue for Discrimination

During the Senate panel hearing, Ranking Member Gillibrand called for the passage of a bipartisan legislative proposal, S. 2703, entitled the Protecting Older Americans Act, which she introduced alongside Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to protect seniors facing age discrimination at work. This common-sense legislation, introduced the day of the hearing and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, would invalidate forced arbitration clauses that prevent age discrimination victims from seeking justice and public accountability, ensuring that seniors can file their cases in court.

According to a statement released by Gillibrand, the bipartisan proposal would allow those who have experienced age discrimination the option to file their case in court if they choose, even if they previously signed a forced arbitration clause. It gives them a voice in the process and the ability to seek justice.

But, if employees decide, though, that they would like to pursue arbitration when they have faced age discrimination, they can. The point is that employees will now have a choice. The crux of the issue is that despite the fact that workplace age discrimination is categorically illegal, and that Congress has already passed laws to protect older Americans from it, forced arbitration clauses subvert justice, noted the statement.

Meanwhile, several witnesses drew parallels to the successful Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, signed into law in 2022 by President Joe Biden, which ended forced arbitration in cases of sexual harassment and assault. They argued that fears of excessive litigation following its passage were unfounded. The discussion also identified other policy barriers facing older workers, pointing to the Social Security’s retirement earnings test, that was identified as a disincentive that discouraged older workers from remaining in the workforce.

Targeting Hidden Job Contract Barriers

The hearing, featuring testimony from expert witnesses, including representatives from the Washington, D.C. based AARP—the nation’s largest aging advocacy group with 35 million members—a former Fox News journalist, an academic, and a conservative policy foundation, emphasized the importance of creating equal opportunities for older workers, especially as the nation’s population continues to age and many choose to continue working later in life.

Witnesses at this hearing shared insights on the specific challenges faced by seniors in the workplace and discussed how employers, communities, and lawmakers can take action to protect older workers.

Throughout the hearing, lasting over an hour, these witnesses warned that age discrimination has become widespread and an economically damaging problem that financially and emotionally harms older Americans.  Older workers contributed positively to America’s businesses and to the economy by bringing their life-long work experience, and mentorship to younger workers to the workplace, they stressed.

“Talk to older job seekers and they’ll tell you they hear things in interviews like you’re overqualified. We’re looking for a digital native or a more energetic candidate. This is undermining the financial stability of too many capable Americans,” said Nancy LeaMond, Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer for AARP.

LeaMond stressed that age discrimination was a pervasive issue, with nearly two-thirds of workers over 50 having seen or experienced it. She highlighted the severe economic consequences, noting it cost the U.S. economy $850 billion annually (a figure projected to reach nearly $4 trillion by 2050) and was particularly damaging for the many older Americans who lacked adequate retirement savings and needed to continue working.

Often because of necessity or choice, older Americans need to work, says LeaMond. Federal Reserve data indicated that 54% of households had no retirement savings, underscoring the financial need for many older Americans to work longer, she said.

The impact on losing a job for an older worker can be profound, notes LeaMond. She cited an Urban Institute Study that found that about half of workers in their early 50s experience involuntary job loss that sharply reduces earnings forcing them into long-term unemployment – something that older workers face at higher rates than younger peers.

While AARP endorses Ranking Member Gillibrand’s bipartisan proposal, S. 2703, she also called for passage of Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Grassley bill (R-IA),  S. 1820, The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Representative Robert C. “Bobby” Scott  (D-VA) has introduced H. 3522, the House companion measure.

Witness David Horton, Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, with a specialty in arbitration law and contracts, argued that forced employment arbitration in wrong doings, such as age discrimination, was not consensual, as employees had no real choice when accepting a job. “Studies confirm what our intuition tells us: workers are bombarded with information, their eyes glaze over at the legalese, and very few realize that they are surrendering their right to access the courts,” he testified.

Horton further explained that arbitration had systemic flaws that disadvantaged employees, such as the “repeat player” problem where arbitrators have a financial incentive to favor employers, and the inability to bring class-action claims. Horton, who holds the Fair Business Practices & Investor Advocacy Endowed Chair, concluded that forced arbitration’s purpose was not to resolve disputes, but to suppress them.

Meanwhile, witness Gretchen Carlson, a former Fox News journalist who is co-founder of the non-profit Lift Our Voices, shared her personal experience and her successful advocacy to pass the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. She argued that the fears of a “slew” of lawsuits following that bill’s passage did not happen, and she believed the same would be true for the Protecting Older Americans Act. She framed the issue as a fundamental matter of the ”freedom of choice” and restoring workers’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

“In my unscientific study…over nine and a half years, “the vast majority say that when they’re forced into arbitration, never work in their chosen profession ever again… there’s a myriad of problems here, but to me, forced arbitration is the evil,” said Carlson.

Speaking Out Against Outdated Policies

Witness Rachel U. Greszler, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, focused on the older worker’s value and impact on the economy and society.  She identified public policies, primarily Social Security’s retirement earning test, calling it an outdated policy that would discourage work for older workers.  She also criticized regulations on independent contractors that limited flexible part-time work opportunities for older workers.

The testimony at this hearing, combining expert observations with personal stories, is intended to raise public awareness and increase political pressure on a divided Congress to act in protecting the legal rights of older workers from age discrimination hidden in the very fine print of employment contracts.

To watch the hearing, go to https://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/protecting-older-americans-leveling-the-playing-field-for-older-workers

Social Security is in Crisis: We Must Resist Efforts to Change It

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on August 19, 2025

Security will mark its 90th anniversary. On that date in 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the landmark program into law as a safeguard against the “hazards and vicissitudes” of life.

“For a federal program to endure for 90 years and maintain an extremely high level of popularity among the American people is truly extraordinary,” says the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM). “It is an achievement that should be celebrated far and wide.”

Yet this milestone comes amid growing political controversy that could shape the program’s future.

Privatization Concerns Emerge

Just 15 days before the anniversary, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made remarks that sent shockwaves through the aging advocacy community. Speaking at a Breitbart News–sponsored event, Bessent described President Trump’s newly enacted “Trump accounts” (also referred to as “Child Savings Accounts” or “Child IRAs”) as potentially serving as a “backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” His comments, made during a Breitbart policy panel on the evening of July 30, were quickly picked up by national media outlets.

Bessent elaborated: “If these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer too.” He suggested that the success and expansion of these individual retirement accounts—created under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act—could eventually reduce Americans’ reliance on traditional Social Security benefits.

The law, signed by Trump on July 4, creates a new tax-deferred investment account for children under the age of 18, born in the U.S. between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. These accounts are seeded with $1,000 in federal funds and allow additional contributions of up to $5,000 annually from parents, family members, or employers. Structured similarly to IRAs, the funds must be invested in low-cost mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track a U.S. stock index.

Max Richtman, NCPSSM President and CEO, quickly issued a public response, calling on Trump to denounce Bessent’s suggestion of a “backdoor” to privatization. “President George W. Bush tried it after his re-election in 2004—and failed miserably. The American people didn’t buy it then, and they won’t buy it now,” Richtman said.

He urged the former president to issue a clear and unequivocal statement: “Make a clear, unequivocal statement (as only you can) that your administration will not try to privatize Social Security.”

John Hishta, Senior Vice President of Campaigns at AARP, also issued a statement and condemned Bessent’s comments. “We have fought any and all efforts to privatize Social Security, and we will continue to,” he said. “President Trump has emphasized many times that Social Security ‘won’t be touched,’ and that he is ‘not going to touch Social Security.’ This must include any and all forms of privatization.”

“Privatization is a terrible idea”, says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works in a statement, noting that unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can’t outlive. “It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street’s hands off our Social Security!,” she says.

Following the backlash, Bessent attempted to clarify his remarks in a post on X (formerly Twitter) the next day: “Trump Baby Accounts are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments. This is not an either-or question. Our administration is committed to protecting Social Security and making sure seniors have more money.”

During her Thursday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that President Trump remains “wholeheartedly committed” to protecting Social Security—even as Bessent’s earlier comments appeared to contradict that position. “What the Secretary of the Treasury was saying—and what this administration believes—is that these Trump newborn accounts, which are an incredibly creative and positive provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill, are meant to help supplement, not substitute, Social Security,” Leavitt told reporters.

Democrats and Advocacy Groups Push Back

Last Thursday, amid hundreds of events scheduled this month throughout the nation to celebrate SSA’s 90th anniversary, the Washington, D.C.–based Social Security Works hosted a press conference to warn against what they called Trump administration efforts to undermine and dismantle Social Security.

Moderator Nancy Altman, President of SSW, opened the Town Hall by emphasizing the importance of celebrating Social Security’s milestone anniversary and the need to protect and defend the program. Throughout the event, Altman introduced each speaker, describing them as champions dedicated to safeguarding Social Security.

Speakers cited administrative actions such as firing 7,000 employees, closing field offices, and creating a customer service crisis. During the 37-minute press event, prominent Democrats and leaders of progressive advocacy groups argued these steps were part of a deliberate strategy to erode public confidence and justify future benefit cuts or privatization.

They contrasted these actions with proposals to expand benefits and extend the program’s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), described as a leading champion of earned benefits and author of the Social Security Expansion Act, called Social Security “the most successful federal government program of all time.” This was said to counter claims by critics, like Elon Musk, who have called it a “Ponzi scheme.” Sanders added: “This is a huge fight. We have the American people behind us. Let’s win it.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and a key figure in the Senate’s “Social Security War Room,” said: “Trump’s so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance.”

Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut), Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, urged Congress to expand benefits. He noted that the last major expansion was under President Nixon and that millions of seniors still live in or near poverty.

Former Social Security Commissioner under President Biden, Martin O’Malley, charged, “They’re trying to wreck its customer service so they can turn enough Americans against it—and ultimately get away with robbing it.” He described this as the strategic motivation behind what he called the Trump administration’s dismantling of the SSA’s operational capacity.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), who helped organize the Expand Social Security Caucus and has deep family ties to the creation of both Social Security and Medicare, declared: “I’ll be damned if anybody’s going to take us back to those days,” recalling the poverty and desperation seniors faced before the program’s enactment.

Judith Brown, a Social Security beneficiary, gave personal testimony underscoring the critical role her monthly check plays in her financial survival.

Keisha Bras, Director of Opportunity, Race, and Justice for the NAACP; Molly Weston Williamson, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund and an expert on paid leave; and Sarah Francis of Unrig Our Economy rounded out the panel.

A Legacy Under Threat

NCPSSM President Max Richtman warns that while the anniversary is cause for celebration, “we must always defend the program from those who would privatize or outright eliminate it. These forces have been at work ever since Social Security was enacted.”

To educate the public and counter misinformation, NCPSSM has produced a new documentary, Social Security: 90 Years Strong, with funding from AARP. The film tells the story of the program’s creation during the Great Depression and its enduring role for seniors, people with disabilities, and their families.

The documentary features interviews with Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Nancy Altman (Social Security Works), Bill Arnone (formerly of the National Academy of Social Insurance), FDR’s grandson Jim Roosevelt, Tracey Gronniger (Justice in Aging), Kathryn Edwards (Labor Economist), and Giovanna Gray Lockhart (former Director, Frances Perkins Center).

Social Security is often called the “third rail” of American politics—a metaphor drawn from the high-voltage rail powering some trains, where contact can be fatal. In politics, “stepping on the third rail” can mean political death.

“More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America ages, we expect at least 13 million more people to rely on it by 2035.” said Myechia Minter-Jordan, Chief Executive Officer at AARP in s July 21 statement announcing the results of a new SSA survey. “For 90 years, Social Security has never missed a payment, and Americans should have confidence that it never will,” she said. 

The survey findings indicate that nearly two in three (65%) retired Americans say they rely substantially on Social Security, while another 21 percent say they rely on it somewhat. In 2020, 63% of retired Americans said they relied substantially on Social Security, jumping from 58% in both 2015 and 2010.

Social Security has strong bipartisan support, too.  The survey found that that more than two-thirds of Americans (67%) believe Social Security is more important to retirees today than it was five years ago. Overall, 96% consider the program important, with broad bipartisan agreement: 98% of Democrats, 95% of Republicans, and 93% of Independents.

The Social Security Trustees’ 2025 annual report, released in June, projects the program’s trust funds will run short of money by 2034. Without action, beneficiaries could face an estimated 19% cut in monthly payments.

Whether lawmakers who support privatization —while keeping their voter base—if they “step on the third rail” by raising the full retirement age or refusing to raise taxes remains to be seen.

We’ll see.

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program to save billions. Cut costs for 10 drugs, 2026

Published in RINewsToday on August 19, 2024

On Aug. 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which aimed to reduce the federal budget deficit, invested in domestic energy production while promoting the use of clean energy.  The historic federal law (Public Law 117-169) also lowered the health cost for millions of older Americans by lowering the high cost of prescription drugs by granting Medicare the power to directly negotiate drug prices with drug companies 

 IRA also created the first ever annual cap on out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries,  capping the cost of each covered insulin at $ 35 per month, and the law also made the Affordable Care Act market plans more affordable.

On Aug. 15, 2024, just one day before IRA’s 2nd Anniversary, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled the new lower prices for 10 drugs in which Medicare and drug companies negotiated under the new Medicare Drug Price Negotiation program. As a result, the negotiated prices will save the Medicare program some $6 billion.

Before a crowd of thousands at the Price George’s Community College in Largo, Maryland, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris who has become the presumptive Democratics nominee for president, made the announcement. 

“We finally beat Big Pharma,” said  Biden.

 Sixty-five million Medicare beneficiaries give Medicare “collecting bargaining power,” noted the Vice President. “And now Medicare can use that power to go toe-to-toe with Big Pharma and negotiate lower drug costs,” said Harris.

And that they did. 

Medicare’s Bargaining Power Puts the Brakes on Rising Drug Costs

 Empowered by the passage of IRA, Medicare was able to negotiate 38-79% discounts on 10 life-saving drugs that treat heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other serious conditions.  These include popular, brand name drugs such as Eliquis, Jardiance, Farxiga, and Stelara — some of the expensive and commonly prescribed medications in the Medicare program.

 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Aug. 15, 2024, beneficiaries will now save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket drug costs thanks to newly announced prices negotiated by the Medicare program with Big Pharma. The negotiated prices will save the Medicare program some $6 billion in costs. 

According to CMS, “the selected 10 drugs accounted for $50.5 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs, or about 20%, of total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs between June 1, 2022 and May 31, 2023, which is the time period used to determine which drugs were eligible for negotiation.”    8 Eight of the 10 drugs selected for this year’s negotiation program raised their prices in 2024 – after all 10 drugs were already priced three to eight times higher in the United States than in other countries, noted the federal agency.

The new prices take effect in January, 2026.  Under the IRA’s provisions, Medicare will select up to 15 more drugs covered under Part D for negotiation by Feb.1, and those prices will take effect in 2027. It will expand 20 drugs starting in 2028, says CMS. 

“It’s no exaggeration to say that this a truly historic moment.  We have been advocating for Medicare to have the power to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma since 2003, when prescription drug coverage was added to the program,” said Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM).  “Unfortunately, the law literally forbade Medicare from negotiating prices with drug makers. The Inflation Reduction Act finally changed that, he said.

According to Richtman, billions saved are proof that the federal government can, and should, leverage its buying power to save Medicare beneficiaries  money — in this case, giving relief to millions of seniors of not having to pay for high drug costs. “This is momentous news for Medicare beneficiaries and the Medicare program itself,” he says.

“The negotiated prices of these first 10 drugs are a great start. We would like to see even more drugs included more rapidly in the negotiation process so that seniors can reap the maximum cost-savings that this process can provide,” said Richtman.                                                                                    

Responding to the White House’s announcement of new details about Medicare drug price negotiations, in a statement Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, noted that it took more than two decades of activism on the ground, advocacy by thousands of members and the Biden Administration to push for passage of IRA, giving Medicare the power to negotiate fair prices to patients and taxpayers.

 “The savings are staggering. The new prices are 60% lower on average with two drugs slashed by more than 75% per month,” says Fiesta. “Combined with the $ 2,000 out-of-pocket cap on drug costs that will take effect in January, millions of Americans will not be healthier and more financially secure,” he says.

 Fiesta notes, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, in future years, the prices of additional drugs will be negotiated and Medicare will save about $ 100 billion over 10 years. 

While Biden and Democratic lawmakers see the value of granting Medicare the power to negotiate with Drug Companies to lower high drug costs,  no GOP lawmaker voted to pass Biden’s IRA last year, a proposal that allowed Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of drugs.

Not Everyone is On Board 

The drug price policies of IRA were the topic of a Sept. 20, 2023  hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of. House of Representatives’ Energy & Commerce Committee. The hearing, “At What Cost: Oversight of How the IRA’s Price Setting Scheme Means Fewer Cures for Patients,” GOP lawmakers sitting on the panel and four witnesses warned how the drug price negotiations could hurt or help market conditions for new medicines.

 At the hearing, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) warned that the “Democrat’s drug pricing control scheme was going to do immense harm to patients by crushing drug innovation.  She charged that “unaccountable bureaucrats -not cutting-edge science- backed with entrepreneurial initiative- dictate the value of new cures.”

At press time, GOP lawmakers have remained silent as to their thoughts about last week’s announcement of Medicare lowering the drug prices for ten of the most expensive drugs in Medicare.  

But not President and CEO Steve Ubl – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO Steve Ubl quickly released a statement.

 “The administration is using the IRA’s price-setting scheme to drive political headlines, but patients will be disappointed when they find out what it means for them. There are no assurances patients will see lower out-of-pocket costs because the law did nothing to rein in abuses by insurance companies and PBMs who ultimately decide what medicines are covered and what patients pay at the pharmacy,” he said.

“As a result of the IRA, there are fewer Part D plans to choose from and premiums are going up. Meanwhile, insurers and PBMs are covering fewer medicines and say they intend to impose further coverage restrictions as the price-setting scheme is implemented. More than 3 million beneficiaries taking medicines with government-set prices will pay more in 2026,” adds Ubi.

Reflecting Roger’s opening hearing statement last year, Ubi noted: “The IRA also fundamentally alters the incentives for medicine development. Companies are already changing their research programs as a result of the law, and experts predict this will result in fewer treatments for cancer, mental health, rare diseases and other conditions. Medicine development is a long and complex process, and the negative implications of these changes will not be fully realized for decades to come.

“The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act is a bad deal being forced on American patients: higher costs, more frustrating insurance denials and fewer treatments and cures for our loved ones.” charges Ubi.

Following in PHARMA’s footsteps, drug companies also issued statements opposing the power given to Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.  Novartis, manufacturer of Entresto, one of the 10 selected medicines participating in the price setting process issued a statement.   It called the negotiations “unconstitutional,” predicting “it would have long-lasting and devastating consequences for patients by limiting access to medicines now and in the future.”

Seniors Support Allowing Medicare to Negotiate Drug Costs 

As Congress began debated the merits of the IRA, a national poll of older Americans tracked wide-support for its provisions to reduce skyrocketing drug costs.

According to KFF Health Tracking Poll, a Oct. 12, 2021 poll, few accepted PHARMA and drug makers dire warnings that  high drug prices are necessary for supporting research into new drugs.  Giving the federal government the buying power to negotiate lower drug prices with drug makers and those enrolled in private plans were “favored by large majorities across the political partisans, even if they hear arguments from both sides,” said the San-Francisco-based  national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

KFF poll findings indicated that  83% of the public favor allowing the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to lower drug prices on behalf of people enrolled in Medicare beneficiaries and private plans. “This includes 91% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 76% of Republicans, as well as majorities of seniors (84%), who would be most affected by such a provision, the findings indicate.

As older voters go to the polls, one thing is clear.  Lowering the cost of pharmaceuticals is a bipartisan issue.   When the dust settles after the November elections, those taking the reins of Congress must not forget this fact and continue to push for policies that will continue to work of IRA.

For fact sheet on Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, go to https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fact-sheet-negotiated-prices-initial-price-applicability-year-2026.pdf