Tag Archives for Vice President Kamala Harris

Trump’s Campaign Pledges Could impact Social Security’s Financial Stability

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on November 4, 2024

When voters go to the polls on Tuesday, they should know that Social Security will only be nine years away from insolvency when the next President takes office.  According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the law calls for a 23 percent cut in Social Security reductions in fiscal year 2034.  Restoring solvency in the retirement program over the next 75 years would require the equivalent of reducing all future benefits by 24 percent or increasing revenue by 35 percent, says CBO.

As the presidential campaign winds down, with voting taking place on Nov. 4, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris calls for protecting and expanding Social Security while former President Trump says would “fight for and protect Social Security.” But both candidates don’t provide a specific detail plan as to how to  fix the financially ailing Social Security program, despite the looming $16,500 cut facing a typical couple retiring just before the projected insolvency.

But campaign promises, if enacted, can have a devastating impact on the Social Security Programs ability to pay all future benefits.

Analysis Shows Campaign Promises Weaken Social Security

A new report, “What Would the Trump Campaign’s Mean for Social Security,” released by US Budget Watch 2024, a project the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), details how former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, if enacted, would advance Social Security’s insolvency by three years, from FY 2034 to FY 2031 – hastening the next President’s insolvency timeline by one-third.  CRFB is a non-partisan government watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. that analyses the fiscal impact of federal budget and fiscal issues.

According to CRFB’s new report, released on Oct. 21, 2024, Trump campaign pledges  would weaken Social Security’s financial stability by ending taxation of Social Security benefits. This would eliminate a revenue stream currently used to help finance Social Security. If enacted, the analysis notes that Trump’s plans would increase Social Security’s ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through FY 2035. Additionally, ending all taxes on overtime pay and tips, would also reduce the payroll taxes accruing to the Social Security trust funds.

CRFB’s analysis also predicted that Trump’s policies would worsen Social Security’s finances by increasing Social Security’s annual shortfall by roughly 50 percentin FY 2035, from 3.6 to 4 percent of payroll.

Trump’s calls for large tariffs on imports, which would either increase cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) through higher inflation or reduce taxable payroll would impact the financial viability of the Social Security program.  Enhancing boarder security and deporting unauthorized immigrants would reduce the number of immigrant workers paying into the Social Security Trust funds.

CRFB also questions whether Trump’s fixes would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfalls.

From the Sideline…

According to Aimee Picchi is associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, the personal finance website received a statement from Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt disputing the CRFB analysis: “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” she said.

Additionally,  Leavitt told CBS  Money Watch that Trump’s plans for “unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies” would put Social Security “on a stronger footing for generations to come.”

“President Trump has said he would close Social Security’s long-term shortfall by increasing drilling for oil and natural gas and by growing the economy. However, we’ve shown that increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security – even if the gains were deposited into the trust fund. We’ve also shown that it would require unrealistically fast economic growth to close Social Security’s existing long-term funding gap,” says CRFB’s analysis. .

“Faster growth can reduce Social Security’s shortfall [says Trump]. But based on available analyses and understanding the effects of President Trump’s agenda on the national debt, it is unlikely his plans would significantly boost the size of the economy, and many estimates find his plans would reduce long-term out-put long-term output,” adds CRFB.

Responding to CRFB’s analysis, in a statement Harris-Walz 2024 spokesperson Joseph Costello said: “Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail. 

Expand Social Security Caucus House Co-Chairs Reps. John B. Larso (D -CT), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and Debbie Dingell (D – MI) )call Trump’s campaign pledges “a no starter.”  If implemented, they would eliminate revenue streams used to help finance Social Security and accelerate the depletion of Social Security funding,” they say.

“Maintaining the solvency of Social Security is vital for promoting economic security, and a moral obligation to honor the commitments made to those who have contributed to the system throughout their working lives. To safeguard the future of Social Security, we cannot allow for Trump’s policies to gut these hard-earned benefits and instead must engage in a simple reform like the Social Security 2100 Act that fixes insolvency by having the wealthy pay into the system the same as everyone else,” note the Co-Chairs.

And Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, gives his thought’s to Trump’s campaign pledges: “We oppose his proposal to eliminate the taxes on benefits that help to fund the system, and any other measure that would deprive Social Security of much needed revenue,” he says.

“Once again, Trump postures as a friend of the working class, then puts forward plans that endanger the benefits working people have earned — and depend on in retirement. It is irresponsible for a presidential candidate to advocate plans that would hasten the depletion of the Social Security trust fund reserves, triggering an even larger automatic benefit cut if that happens,” adds Richtman.

According to Richtman, Trump’s plans reveal his “overall recklessness” with Social Security. “He suspended the payroll tax that funds the program during Covid — and hoped it would be eliminated.  His White House budgets would have slashed Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by billions of dollars.  He said earlier this year that he was ‘open’ to ‘cutting entitlements,’ then tried to walk it back. He once called Social Security a ‘Ponzi Scheme,” he adds.

“Time and again, Trump has chosen political expediency without considering – or caring about – the consequences. Despite his posturing, Donald Trump is no friend to Social Security or American seniors,” charges Richtman.

Looking Back on Efforts to Fix Social Security

“The history and reasoning in both Congress and the White House on protecting Social Security is still important and persuasive– as it was to President Obama, and House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid,” says Robert Weiner, former chief of Staff of the House Aging Committee and later a  White House senior staffer

“The great Claude Pepper helped forge the Reagan-O’Neill-Pepper deal of 1983 that stopped cuts and even partial insolvency through 2034,” says Weiner, noting that he remembers Pepper saying “over my dead body” to cabinet officers and congressional leaders who wanted to impose severe cuts. 

Weiner noted that Nancy Pelosi said  “First, do no harm” to the would-be cutters right through all the years of her Speakership and leadership. “’We did that’ to stopping the Social Security cutters, she told Weiner. 

Senate Leader Harry Reid’s staff removed the term ‘reform’ from his Social Security talking points when they were given the documents and realized that the program has a surplus, not a deficit,” noted Weiner. “These great leaders knew that Social Security ‘reform’ meant cuts, breaking Social Security’s promise to American seniors, and that the deficit was a myth and excuse to take from the program and its two-trillion-plus dollar surplus,” he said. 

“And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told me that congressional leaders knew that, if necessary, if the time comes, and it’s not now, a slight tweak by Congress to raise the income level for tax payments could fix it, if necessary, if the growing economy hadn’t already maintained full solvency,” says Weiner.

“Let’s hope this kind of sanity and sensitivity continues to prevail,” Weiner concludes.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security

Expanding Medicare on political agendas: In-home Health Care critically important

Published in RINewsToday on October 14, 2024

This week Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled a “Medicare at Home” proposal on ABC’s The View that would expands Medicare to assist older Americans to age in place at home by covering some of the cost of in-home care. The proposal targets adults who are part of the ‘sandwich generation,’ estimated to be 105 million Americans who are raising children along with taking care of their elderly parents.

The Medicare benefit to assist caregivers would propose to have cost-saving benefits for the federal government by allowing seniors to stay at home rather than being sent to costly nursing homes. It would also reduce hospitalizations, too.

Harris told about her personal experience as a caregiver, providing care to her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a biomedical scientist, who died of cancer in 2009 at the age of 70. Caring for a parent can translate into “trying to cook what they want to eat, what they can eat,” she said. “It’s even trying to think of something funny to make them laugh or smile,” she added.

“We’re talking about declining skills” of older people, “but their dignity, their pride, has not declined,” Harris added.

“There are so many people in our country who are right in the middle. They’re taking care of their kids and they’re taking care of their aging parents, and it’s just almost impossible to do it all, especially if they work,” Harris said.  “…we’re finding that so many are having to leave their job, which means losing a source of income, not to mention the emotional stress,” she said, explaining why there is a need to expand Medicare to cover more in-home care services.

Harris’ Issues on her website – Protect and Strengthen Social Security and Medicare

“Vice President Harris will protect Social Security and Medicare against relentless attacks from Donald Trump and his extreme allies. She will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long haul by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. She will always fight to ensure that Americans can count on getting the benefits they earned”.

The Costs

The Brookings Institution recently estimated that a “very conservatively designed” program would cost $40 billion a year. They noted that “controlling demand in such a program is nearly impossible – for reference, Medicaid, which covers far fewer adults than Medicare, actually spent $207 billion on long-term services and supports in 2021”.

In addition, “Home health is such a hotbed of fraud,” said Theo Merkel, a health policy expert at the Paragon Health Institute and the Manhattan Institute. “If the proposal is adopted, taxpayers could end up paying for everyone who stays at home with their Medicare-eligible family member as a government paid Service Employees International Union member.”

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., charges that Harris’ new Medicare home care benefit is “uncompassionate, fiscally reckless, and a corrupt attempt to buy the votes of Medicare enrollees and their middle-aged children in an election year.”

Examining the Differences…

According to Matthew E. Shepard, Communications Director for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the new Harris proposal is quite different from the existing home care benefits that Medicare’s 65.5 million enrollees receive. ”The new proposal focuses on Long Term Services and Supports, something of a term of art in the health care world. While details are scarce, it would provide, we believe, ongoing affordable home care aide service without a need for skilled care or that strict definition of homebound,” said Shepard.  The proposal’s funding would come from increased savings in Medicare Part D as the list of negotiable drugs grows  [a historic provision of the Inflation Reduction Act which is lowering the cost of senior’s medication]  savings currently estimated at $6 billion in 2026, and which will only grow as more drugs are added, he noted.

“We are going to save Medicare that money, because we’re not going to be paying these high prices [for drugs] and that those resources are then put to use in a way that helps a family,” Harris said.

The Trump proposal

The Trump/Vance campaign quickly issued a statement taking credit for already making a commitment to America’s seniors receiving at-home care, saying that Harris’ Medicare expansion policy was just following his lead. Former President Trump released his home care platform last summer, according to an Oct. 8th statement. “Specifically, President Trump will prioritize home care benefits by shifting resources back to at-home senior care, overturning disincentives that lead to care worker shortages, and supporting paid family caregivers through tax credits and reduced red tape,” noted the statement.

One of Trump’s 20 point platforms is “Fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age”. In the accompanying 16-page document, which, supports Medicare it says, “President Trump has made absolutely clear that he will not cut one penny from Medicare or Social Security. American citizens work hard their whole lives, contributing to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are promises to our Seniors, ensuring they can live their golden years with dignity. Republicans will protect these vital programs and ensure Economic Stability. We will work with our great Seniors, in order to allow them to be active and healthy. We commit to safeguarding the future for our Seniors and all American families. We will strengthen Medicare. Republicans will protect Medicare’s finances from being financially crushed by the Democrat plan to add tens of millions of new illegal immigrants to the rolls of Medicare. We vow to strengthen Medicare for future generations.”

 Dementia caregiving already set to quadruple in 2025

AARP notes on their website that one expansion of caregiver coverage, “a program for dementia patients and their caregivers that launched this year will quadruple in 2025, serving more of the country. The program, called Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE), provides a 24/7 support line, a care navigator to find medical services and community-based assistance, caregiver training and up to $2,500 a year for at-home, overnight or adult day care respite services. Patients and their caregivers typically won’t have copayments”.

Praise for expanding Medicare benefits

“We have long championed the expansion of federal support for long-term care,“ says Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), noting that Harris’ proposal gives that cause an enormous boost.

“Expanded Medicare coverage for home health care also would provide relief to millions of ‘sandwich generation’ Americans, who are struggling to provide care for their elderly relatives while also raising children.  Those ‘sandwich generation’ members are not Medicare beneficiaries, but would most definitely benefit from Harris’ long-term care plan,” says Richtman in an Oct. 8 statement.

According to Richtman, the plan also would add hearing and vision coverage to traditional Medicare. “Proper hearing and vision care are essential to healthy aging — but too many beneficiaries forgo it due to cost and lack of coverage. It is long past time that those coverages be added,” he added.  

Co-Director David Lipschutz says that the Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) strongly supports the proposed enhancement of Medicare coverage for on-going home care. “Access to services and supports in the home for those who are unable to independently perform activities of daily living would provide immeasurable help to millions of beneficiaries and their families and is an important step forward for the Medicare program,” says CMA’s Lipschutz. To maximize access to care for people who need it, expansion of home care coverage in Medicare should be combined with enforcing the benefit that exists now, he suggests. 

“Recognizing that most older persons and those with disabilities prefer to remain at home when they need help with daily living tasks, the Senior Agenda Coalition has worked for years to increase access to home and community-based care at the state level as these services are one of the biggest gaps in Medicare,” says Maureen Maigret, Policy Advisor for Senior Agenda Coalition of RI.  To include them in Medicare will lift a financial burden on both recipients and family caregivers as home care costing at least $35/hour that  can be out of reach for far too many who need these services to stay at home,” she says.

“We have not seen many details about the plan, but it would be important to make sure that Medicare provider reimbursement levels are sufficient to allow direct care staff to earn livable wages in order to have workforce sufficient to meet the demand,” note Maigret. “This new Medicare home care benefit should also be a boon for states as it can prevent persons from spending down their resources to a level where they become eligible for state Medicaid and need costly nursing home care,” she says.  

In a new paper for O’Neill Institute for Georgetown Law, McCourt Professor Judith Feder and Nicole Jorwic explore how adding a home care benefit can help beneficiaries and family caregivers. “While this new benefit would not reach the full population in need of long-term care, paired with investments in Medicaid, it’s a good strong start-and given our nation’s resources, clearly within our means,” say the authors. 

“A support system that relies on unpaid family members and underpaid workers is simply not sustainable for the future,” warn the authors.

“Our failure to make Medicare “whole” by addressing Long Term Services and Support needs is not about a shortage of resources, it’s about a shortage of political will. It’s time the nation stepped up,” they say.

Pay attention to Caregiver voters

AARP is nonpartisan and does not take a position on campaign proposals, though AARP has previously said financial relief is needed to help individuals age in place at home and support family caregivers, says Sarah Lovenheim, AARP’s vice president, external relations.

According to AARP’s “She’s the Difference” survey released last month, 96% of woman aged 50 and over say they are highly motivated to vote in the upcoming elections, making them one of the most driven and key voting groups.

“Any political candidate would be wise to pay attention to the concerns and needs of caregivers today. Voters over age 50, who disproportionately make up America’s 48 million plus caregivers, could make or break elections up and down the ballots,” says Nancy LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer. “From recent battleground polls, we know that roughly one-third of swing voters over age 50 identify as family caregivers,” she notes.

“Supporting family caregivers is an urgent need – not only for families struggling to get by but for our country’s future,” warns LeaMond.

Regardless of who wins the election, a Medicare at home proposal cannot happen without Congressional support. As the presidential campaign winds down, older voters must make it extremely clear to lawmakers seeking their vote how they feel about expanding Medicare benefits.  

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