Tag Archives: Medicare

WATCH: Trump’s Full Press Gaggle Aboard Air Force One from Breitbart’s Vantage Point

BEDMINSTER, New Jersey — Breitbart News captured the entirety of President Donald Trump’s press gaggle aboard Air Force One on Friday, in which he discussed a number of topics, ranging from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to Elon Musk.

Breitbart News is part of the president’s travel pool this weekend and was aboard Air Force One to capture video and ask questions as he traveled from Joint Base Andrews to Bedminster, New Jersey.

At one point, Breitbart News asked the president for his thoughts on the Senate potentially removing House-passed Medicaid cuts that could hurt Trump supporters who go to hospitals in rural areas.

“We did speak about that. We’re really talking about waste, fraud, and abuse,” Trump said in the sky-set press gaggle.

“And Sen. [Josh] Hawley is a great senator, good guy, and I did speak to him,” Trump added. “And we want to make sure that doesn’t hurt anybody, you know, because it is about waste, fraud, and abuse — that’s the only thing, and everybody wants that.”

Trump also spoke about how Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are cherished in the bill in response to another question from Breitbart News.

“We cut $1.6 trillion … not billion, trillion, out of the budget, and yet we haven’t affected anybody. We’re going to save and totally cherish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Democrats are going to destroy it, and they’ll destroy it. We’re going to save it and make it stronger than ever before,” he said.

“So Medicare, Medicaid — [Democrats] just make statements … We’re not touching it, other than waste, fraud, and abuse,” he added.

Source link

Trump wants drug price caps tied to foreign nations. Here’s why Biden never did it.

Senate Democrats and the Biden administration dropped plans to set drug price caps based on the amount paid in other high-income countries, during talks years ago to push through the law that empowered Medicare to negotiate down the cost of prescription medications.

A version of the idea was revived by President Trump in the executive order signed Monday, which called on the Department of Health and Human Services next month to draw up regulations to impose price restrictions tied to lower amounts paid in other developed nations, if drugmakers did not voluntarily reduce what they were charging in the U.S. 

“Democrats could have done this a long time ago. They have fought like hell, for the drug companies. And they knew they were doing the wrong thing,” Mr. Trump told reporters, speaking at a White House event to announce the move. 

For Democrats on Capitol Hill, this kind of approach to price controls has roots in a bill their own party successfully passed under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019

As part of giving Medicare the ability to negotiate the price of costly drugs it covered, the bill passed by House Democrats wanted the maximum price to be tied to an average based on prices paid in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. 

“We were hoping to get Trump. Trump said, ‘I want to negotiate.’ But then Republicans in Congress got to him,” said Wendell Primus, who served for nearly two decades as Pelosi’s top aide on health policy.

The bill did not make it through the Senate at the time, which was controlled by Mr. Trump’s party. After Democrats flipped control of the Senate, the idea ran into headwinds years later, as Biden aides and lawmakers tried to incorporate the measure into the Inflation Reduction Act.

Multiple Democrats involved in the talks on Capitol Hill at the time blamed a series of meetings in early 2021 with the staff from the Senate Finance Committee and party leadership for scuttling the idea. 

Staff on the committee said that they were worried that moderate Democrats like then-Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona would not support the bill if it included the measure, Primus said. Menendez and Sinema are no longer in the Senate. 

“Members did not want to have something referencing foreign countries. They wanted it to make a function of the manufacturer’s price here, what drug companies were offering to commercial insurers,” Primus said.

One former Biden White House aide involved in the talks said that there were several senators who understood that drug prices were too high, but they worried those price caps could undercut innovation from drugmakers in the U.S. 

Instead, the deal struck by lawmakers and White House aides to pass the law in 2022 ultimately turned to a different formula: capping them using calculations based on the price previously paid by Medicare and a fixed discount off the list price in the private U.S. market.

“President Biden and Democrats in Congress cared about getting something done, and so there was a compromise on the table that wasn’t perfect, but it was going to make a huge amount of difference. And so that’s the law they ultimately enacted,” said Christen Linke-Young, deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under Mr. Biden.

Medicare has gone on to implement the law, resulting in talks that are continuing under the current Trump administration to lower the maximum price that the federal insurance program will pay for a growing list of costly drugs. 

“It’s a good thing for prescription drug costs in this country to be lower, we need to continue to work on that. And one of the ways to do that is actually put a proposal before Congress and get it enacted, so it has the force of law,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Mr. Biden.

Meanwhile, as the White House was working with their allies in Congress to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration moved to formally scrap a bid by Mr. Trump to impose caps tied to lower prices in other high-income countries using executive power during his first term.

Called the “most favored nation” model, Trump officials had directed Medicare to only reimburse hospitals and clinics for some costly drugs based on the lowest price paid for in other high-income countries. 

CMS under Mr. Biden ultimately rescinded that move in 2022, after a legal fight that had blocked the proposal on the grounds that the Trump administration had unlawfully shortcutted the normal rulemaking steps to finalize the policy.

“The proposal was always pretty transparently illegal. The statute says that Medicare has to pay for prescription drugs in one particular way, and the Trump administration proposal was that we are going to ignore the statute and pay for drugs in an entirely different way. If the statute allowed that, a president before Donald Trump would have done it,” Linke-Young said.

A White House official under Mr. Trump disagreed with the accusation that their initial proposal was unlawful, arguing that the initial authority they used for the “demonstration” model in Medicare used powers that were broadly written by Democrats. 

While they are not planning to go down the exact same path, the official said, saying that they “learned certain things from that first demonstration,” the Trump administration believes they “absolutely have that authority in our pocket.” 

“We are confident that we have authorities within our government programs to do this. And any dispute from the Biden administration is an intentional misinterpretation of the statute for political reasons, because they are the ones that walked away,” the White House official said. 

Trump administration officials have painted their second run at the “most favored nation” idea as even broader in scope than their first term, which had been limited to only some costly drugs administered by healthcare providers through Medicare Part B. 

The White House official said Wednesday that they “firmly believe” they have the ability to pursue wider actions to push drugmakers to lower their prices within Medicare. They cited other authorities in the law being considered like section 402, which affords HHS powers to “develop and engage in experiments” which could affect payment rates in Medicaid as well. 

Asked this week on Fox Business Network whether the president’s promise of steep drug price cuts would also extend to Medicare Part D, which covers the broad swath of prescriptions filled at drug store pharmacies, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said “they absolutely will.”

“They’ll apply to Medicare, and they’ll apply in the private market as well,” Kennedy said.

Asked Tuesday whether he supported the president’s plan, Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he thought “it’ll be the subject of probably multiple lawsuits, and I think the courts will probably have something to say about it.”

Source link

Trump says he will order that the U.S. pay only the price other nations do for some drugs

President Trump says he’ll sign an executive order on Monday that, if implemented, he says could bring down the costs of some medications. It is an attempt to revive a program he tried and failed to implement during his first term.

The order Mr. Trump is promising will direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to tie what Medicare pays for medications administered in a doctor’s office to the lowest price paid by other countries. 

“I will be instituting a MOST FAVORED NATION’S POLICY whereby the United States will pay the same price as the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World,” the president posted Sunday on his social media site, pledging to sign the order on Monday morning at the White House.

“Our Country will finally be treated fairly, and our citizens Healthcare Costs will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before,” Mr. Trump added.

The president last week teased a “very big announcement” in the Oval Office, and sources confirmed to CBS News on Friday it would be the so-called “most favored nation” plan to cut Medicare drug prices.

Mr. Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also hinted at the policy on Tuesday, pointing to higher prices in Europe for the blockbuster diabetes drug Ozempic.

“Right now, the big impediment is really price,” Kennedy said in an interview with Newsmax. “And we’re negotiating that with the drug companies and seeing if we can at least launch some pilot programs, or if we can get the price low enough, we can make it available at government cost to everybody.”

“If we made that so that Medicaid, Medicare paid for it, and that private insurance companies had to pay for it, we would double the cost of health insurance to most employers in this country. And that would really be destructive,” Kennedy said.

The proposal would likely only impact certain drugs covered by Medicare and given in an office — think infusions that treat cancer, and other injectables. Mr. Trump boasted that the plan would save the government “TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS,” but the real figure is unclear.

Medicare provides health insurance for roughly 70 million older Americans. Complaints about U.S. drug prices being notoriously high, even when compared with other large and wealthy countries, have long drawn the ire of lawmakers from both parties, but a lasting fix has never cleared Congress.

Under the planned order, the federal government would tie what it pays pharmaceutical companies for those drugs to the price paid by a group of other, economically advanced countries.

The proposal will likely face fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry.

It was a rule that Mr. Trump tried to adopt during his first term, but could never get through. He signed a similar executive order in the final weeks of his presidency, but a court order later blocked the rule from going into effect citing procedural issues during rulemaking, and under the Biden administration later declined to pursue it.

The pharmaceutical industry argued that Mr. Trump’s 2020 attempt would give foreign governments the “upper hand” in deciding the value of medicines in the U.S.. The industry has long argued that forcing lower prices will hurt profits, and ultimately affect innovation and its efforts to develop new medicines.

Court orders sought by the drug industry and others blocked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, from implementing the proposal in Mr. Trump’s first term, saying that the government failed to go through the proper rulemaking steps to create and implement the policy.

The Biden administration abandoned the proposal in 2022, blaming court orders blocking the model and concerns raised by stakeholders, including fears that it could cut off some Medicare beneficiaries from drugs and strain providers.

Only drugs on Medicare Part B — the insurance for doctor’s office visits — are likely to be covered under the plan. Medicare beneficiaries are responsible for picking up some of the costs to get those medications during doctor’s visits, and for traditional Medicare enrollees, there is no annual out-of-pocket cap on what they pay.

report by the Trump administration during its first term found that the U.S. spends twice as much as some other countries in covering those drugs. Medicare Part B drug spending topped $33 billion in 2021.

More common prescription drugs filled at a pharmacy would probably not be covered by the new order.

Mr. Trump came into his first term accusing pharmaceutical companies of “getting away with murder” and complaining that other countries whose governments set drug prices were taking advantage of Americans.

On Sunday, the president took aim at the industry again, writing that the “Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the ‘suckers’ of America, ALONE.”

Referring to drug companies’ powerful lobbying efforts, he said that campaign contributions “can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party.”

“We are going to do the right thing,” he wrote.

and

contributed to this report.

Source link

House Republicans face dilemma over Medicaid cuts as they vow to protect benefits

Washington — House Republicans are facing the difficult task of slashing $1.5 trillion — with hundreds of billions likely in Medicaid spending — to help offset the cost of President Trump’s tax cuts. 

House leadership has denied that Medicaid — a joint federal-state health insurance program that provides care for more than 70 million low-income adults, children and people with disabilities — will be gutted. But it’s unclear how Republicans plan to reach the level of spending cuts laid out in the budget resolution that Congress adopted earlier this month without drastically trimming the program.  

The resolution directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, to find at least $880 billion in savings over 10 years as part of the package central to Mr. Trump’s domestic agenda. Cuts to Medicare, which provides health coverage for seniors, are off the table, leaving Medicaid funding as the most likely way to reach that target. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently calculated that achieving those savings would not be possible without cuts to Medicaid, which accounts for 93% of non-Medicare mandatory spending under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Projected spending for programs other than Medicare and Medicaid totals $581 billion, meaning that even if the committee eliminated all other non-mandatory spending, which is highly unlikely, it would still come up short of the $880 billion goal. 

Republicans have vowed to protect benefits for eligible recipients, and some have suggested that overhauling the program could help them reach their target instead of cutting benefits. 

“We’re going to protect the benefits that everyone is legally entitled to, the beneficiaries who have a legal right to that, it will be preserved. Those are essential safety net programs that Republicans support. The president has made clear: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will not take a hit. So you can count on that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said on April 10. 

Johnson argued that there’s billions in waste, fraud and abuse and said Republicans are considering Medicaid work requirements. 

“We can find well more than $800 billion in savings, and we will,” Johnson pledged. 

Rep. Jodey Arrington of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, estimated at least $160 billion could be saved by kicking ineligible recipients off of Medicaid. 

But Joan Alker, the executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, said “there’s no way to achieve those savings without cutting health care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, children, parents, veterans, caregivers, people with cancer or disabilities.” 

“Nobody gets a Medicaid check in the mail, and there are already processes in place to go after bad actors like fake labs or unscrupulous providers filing false Medicaid claims,” she said. “Proposals to cut fraud would fund more prosecutors and investigators to ferret out criminal activity but that is not what Congress is doing — these are just proposals to cut Medicaid.” 

Another proposal under consideration is moving more of the cost sharing to the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Forty states have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and under that provision, the federal government pays 90% of the costs for expansion enrollees while the states are responsible for 10%. The federal government’s portion for those covered through traditional Medicaid can range from 50% to 83%. 

Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican, said there are discussions about cutting the federal match for Medicaid expansion back to the traditional level. 

“Nobody would be kicked off Medicaid as long as the governors decided that they wanted to continue to fund the program,” Scott said in an interview with Fox Business on Monday. “We are going to ask the states to pick up and pay some of the additional percentage.” 

The federal government would save $626 billion over a decade if states assumed more of the expansion costs, according to a KFF analysis. If states are unable to shoulder the costs and eliminate the expansion, federal Medicaid spending would decrease by $1.7 trillion, the analysis found. The Medicaid expansion covers more than 20 million low-income adults, who would lose coverage if states are unable to pick up the expansion costs. 

Last week, a dozen House Republicans in battleground districts wrote a letter to leadership and Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, a Kentucky Republican, that warned they would not support a final reconciliation bill that includes “any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.” 

“Balancing the federal budget must not come at the expense of those who depend on these benefits for their health and economic security,” they wrote. “Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers nationwide. Many hospitals—particularly in rural and underserved areas—rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone. Providers in these areas are especially at risk of closure, with many unable to recover. When hospitals close, it affects all constituents, regardless of healthcare coverage.” 

The issue will come to a head in the coming weeks. The Energy and Commerce Committee plans to mark up its portion of the reconciliation package on May 7. 

contributed to this report.

Source link