The Dems’ Plan B for Medicare

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Democrats have walloped the Republicans mercilessly for supporting Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to roll back Medicare. Republicans have shot back by accusing the Dems of having no ideas or plans to save the entitlement from insolvency. Now the Dems now seem determined to show the public that they can find ways to cut Medicare costs without jeopardizing the well-being of the nation’s senior citizens.

On Thursday, House Democrats introduced a new bill that would reduce payments to drug companies for covering low-income Americans who are enrolled in the Medicare Part D program, which was passed in 2006 to subsidize drugs for seniors. The new bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), and others, promises that it will “eliminate a sweetheart deal for brand-name drug manufacturers,” according to a news release, allowing them to charge higher rates for patients enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. The House Dems explain why the drug prices the government pays went up—and why the GOP is responsible:

Prior to 2006, the government received substantial rebates on drugs used by “dual eligible” Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. However, beginning in 2006, the Republicans’ Medicare Part D law eliminated these rebates, dramatically raising prices for the government and profits for manufacturers. The Part D deal resulted in a substantial drug manufacturer windfall. The bill eliminates the windfall and requires that manufacturers pay the rebates for dual eligible and low-income Part D enrollees, ensuring that taxpayers and the Medicare program do not overpay for Part D drugs.  

In other words, the 2006 Medicare Part D deal gave Big Pharma a break by forcing the government to pay higher, Medicare-level payments for prescription drugs, and Democrats now want to eliminate that deal. House Dems claim their proposal would save more than $100 billion, citing an evaluation from the Congressional Budget Office. President Obama made similar noises about saving money by forcing drug companies to take the hit, proposing earlier this year that the government negotiate directly with drug companies to set prices for drugs under Medicare.

Neither proposal will be an easy sell. Drug companies were one of the few industry allies to stay on board with federal health reform—partly because they were able to fend off Democratic proposals that would slash Medicare drug payments. But Democrats are hoping that the new bill, which was also introduced in the Senate, will help cast them as both fiscally responsible and compassionate—and not just the new “Party of No.”

“Instead of making devastating cuts to programs that help low-income and middle-income Americans, as Republicans keep putting on the table, we should do what every other industrialized country does and ask the pharmaceutical industry, one of the wealthiest in the world, to chip in,” Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said in the statement.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate