Insulin Cost Cap – Trump Attacks a Biden Signature Achievement With a Trump Signature Deception

A week ago, Trump took to his Truth Social safe space to make a specious claim about a problem vexing millions of diabetic Americans on Medicare, the out-of-pocket/copay cost of insulin, one of the more contentious political issues of the day, especially since Medicare beneficiaries comprise a population with higher prevalence of diabetes (33%, 22 million) than the general population (11%, 37 million). More than three million people with Medicare coverage use insulin.

So, let us ask of the man who spent much of his administration trying to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, “What would a serious and informed policy disagreement about Medicare and insulin coverage be without Donald Trump?” Asked and answered last Saturday:

“Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it. It was all done long before he so sadly entered office. All he does is try to take credit for things done by others, in this case, ME!” Truth Social, June 8, 2024

This is firstly, stupid, and secondly, nonresponsive, simultaneously both false and true, a hallmark of Trump & Company. It’s a technique that confuses those who do not follow the ins-and-outs of government policy, and many who do follow it. Trump’s Truth Social post conflates outright lying with some actual facts that, on analysis, are, indeed, truthful, but that don’t advance Trump’s argument. Given that, his argument is iconically specious, i.e., apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible. So, let’s dig in and deconstruct.

Trump Administration’s Half-Baked Accomplishment

“I don’t use insulin, Should I be? Huh? I never thought about it.
But I know a lot of people are very badly affected, right? Unbelievable.”
Donald Trump, a nondiabetic, displaying
his advanced knowledge of the subject
USA Today, May 26, 2020

The above crackpot quote was served up by then President Trump at a May 26, 2020 formal White House Rose Garden speech about, among other things, an executive action reducing the copay cost of insulin to $35 for Medicare recipients. Here’s the summary excerpt from the White House (ironically named) Fact Sheet released during that Rose Garden speech:

LOWERING COST OF INSULIN FOR SENIORS: President Donald J. Trump and his Administration are lowering out-of-pocket insulin costs for Medicare’s seniors.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is announcing that many Medicare Part D plans and Medicare Advantage plans have applied to offer lower out-of-pocket insulin costs to seniors for the 2021 plan year.

Across the Nation, participating enhanced Part D plans will provide many seniors with Medicare access to a broad set of insulins at a maximum $35 copay for a month’s supply of each type of insulin.

And,

Lowering out-of-pocket insulin costs will provide the many Medicare beneficiaries who rely on one or more common forms of insulin with plan options that will deliver critical relief.

And,

No effort will be spared to give America’s seniors the care and support and devotion and love they have earned and that they deserve. President Donald J. Trump, March 26, 2020

In fact, rather than sparing no efforts, Trump administration’s policy spared many efforts. Unrevealed was that the cost cap would apply to only a small subset of 3.5 million insulin-dependent Medicare beneficiaries, and they were still stuck with a yearly deductible. That’s a big “unreveal” that affected many. Nonetheless, the Fact Sheet excerpt reads as if all insulin-dependent Medicare beneficiaries would receive the new copay cost cap. So, factually, Trump’s policy did lower insulin costs, but despite being presented as a cure-all for Medicare patients, it was misleadingly presented, ergo, factual but largely false since so many on Medicare were left out.

For Trump, even this half-baked policy was something he didn’t want to establish, nor did the pharmaceutical CEOs, or insulin suppliers who colluded with him design it as anything more than a sop to the Medicare voting bloc. Trump had been suffering some blowback on the issue and needed something that he knew he could sell as a major accomplishment to his diabetic MAGA Medicare recipients (many of whom were excluded from the insulin cap). Nonetheless, at a 2020 presidential debate Trump boasted that lowered insulin prices that vials were “so cheap, it’s like water”, despite insulin prices remaining fixed at about $300 per vial. And that wasn’t misleading, that was 100% false.

The Biden Administration’s Meaningful Accomplishment

Jump forward from the Trump administration’s weak insulin copay cost policy to today. President Biden achieved much when he signed the August 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Among those achievements was a new insulin copay cap program (effective date January 1, 2023 for Medicare Part D, and July 1, 2023 for Medicare Part B). Also, as of January 1, 2024, eligibility for the Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS) expanded from 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 150 percent of FPL, which allows these enrollees to further reduce their out-of-pocket costs for insulin. Also, under the Inflation Reduction Act, beginning in plan year 2023 (Jan-Dec), Medicare Part D enrollees no longer may have a deductible for insulin and must have a maximum $35 monthly co-payment. These are broad and meaningful benefits, rather than – as Trump’s 2020 executive action was – a simply cynical political expedient to attempt to silence critics by, basically, confusing them. (Note, however, as always, Senate Republicans tried to block the $35 cap on price of insulin from the Inflation Reduction Act.)

As the copay cap program became effective in January 2023, an October HHS report, Insulin Affordability and the Inflation Reduction Act: Medicare Beneficiary Savings by State and Demographics, disclosed:

KEY POINTS
• The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) caps insulin out-of-pocket spending at $35 per month’s supply of each insulin product covered under a Medicare Part D plan, with similar limits for out-of-pocket costs for insulin supplied under Part B, and reduces out-of-pocket drug spending in Medicare in other ways.
. . . [Omitted — States that the study used data below based upon analysis of 2019 data]
• Nationally, [during 2019, Trump administration] the average out-of-pocket cost was $58 per insulin fill, typically for a 30-day supply. The average cost per fill among people who were uninsured for the entire year was $123, more than double the national average. Patients with private insurance or Medicare paid about $63 per fill on average.
• [During 2019] About 37 percent of insulin fills for Medicare enrollees (Part B and Part D) required cost-sharing exceeding $35 per fill, including 24 percent that exceeded $70 per fill. About 36 percent of insulin fills for people without insurance and 35 percent for people with private insurance had cost sharing above $35 per fill. These estimates are only for enrollees who filled an insulin prescription and do not include potential costs for patients who did not fill their insulin due to cost or other reasons.
• We estimate that 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries would have benefited from the new [Inflation Reduction Act] insulin cost-sharing limits if they had been in effect [during] 2020, [rather than Trump’s policy] with savings to those beneficiaries of about $734 million in Part D and $27 million in Part B – or approximately $500 in average annual savings per person among those benefiting from the provision. [Emphasis added]

The Trump plan lacked coverage for millions of Medicare insulin users. The Inflation Reduction Act remedied that.

Jump Forward to . . . Last Saturday & Donald Trump

Yes, this again:

“Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it. It was all done long before he so sadly entered office. All he does is try to take credit for things done by others, in this case, ME!” Truth Social post, June 8, 2024

Why now, why this spirited defense? The closeness of the 2024 election, in time and in winning margin, sespite Trump’s overwhelming confidence, he may have been alerted to the fact that today’s seniors, particularly baby boomers over 64, are not majority GOP voters seniors as we’ve assumed. And Trump relies on them, and trusts them to support him, and boomers now represent 60+% of the senior vote. More conservative or radical voters have died since the 2016 and 2020 elections at a greater number than baby boomers have joined the senior voting bloc. An April 26 NYT article succinctly summed it up:

“Mr. Biden’s strength among seniors might be surprising, but the likeliest explanation is deceptively simple: At every stage earlier in their lives, many of today’s seniors voted Democratic. They just got older.”

As a 74 year-old baby boomer I unanimously agree. (I’m also a diabetic who once used insulin and now use Ozempic exclusively: O! O! O! Ozempic!) Given the millions of Medicare insulin-dependent patients, insulin costs – Trump may have learned is a salient issue in the presidential race and as the chart below suggests, the blue seniors still retain their leftie reputation:

And since the 2012 election, much has changed. Baby boomers could decide the 2024 election, although Gen Z voters appear to be trending more conservative/MAGA, older voters vote in greater percentage terms than younger ones. Therefore, if not Trump himself, then it’s likely someone in the Trump campaign alerted him that the Medicare voting bloc was at risk, not only on general issues, but on pocketbook issues like the Medicare insulin cap. It’s unlikely, however, that many approved of his outlandish June 8th tweet and the blowback that established how cynical and untrue it was. We baby boomers aren’t babies anymore and we are still predominantly hippies . . .

What’s The Difference Between Economist Robert J. Samuelson and a Bucket of Spit?

July 29, 2011

Older Americans do not intend to ruin America,
but as a group, that’s what they’re about.
Robert J. Samuelson
Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.
Washington Post, July 28, 2011

Answer: The Bucket.  Mr. Samuelson, a right-wing economist, in yesterday’s Washington Post POSTOPINIONS column didn’t bury the lede: Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid.  This (unfortunately) memorable title tells you where this is going, and Samuelson does not disappoint, except one does walk away from his screed a bit more disappointed than usual in how right-wingers think. They relish attacking those who live one crisis away from poverty. Samuelson gives those weakened geriatric gray hairs a good beatdown, like Seinfeld‘s Kramer when he thrashed those prepubescent youngsters in the karate dojo, “I’m dominating the dojo. I’m class champion!” Or the man who plotted to throw his mother off a train, but in that case, decided against it. Samuelson did not.

Jihad Grandpas & Grammas

You may not have known that your seemingly sweet Granny and Gramps were on a jihad bent on burying you and their other children and grandkids under mountains of nationalized debt. I would’ve never suspected my own grandparents, they were always good for a hug and a cookie. (There are exceptions, however. My Aunt Ruth, for example, for my ninth birthday, gave me the 670 page 1955 edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage. Obviously, by that act alone, she proved that she’d do anything to anyone. Thus, she, now at 89 years, remains suspect of burying us all under mountains of public debt.) 

Samuelson’s point is obvious, a lot of those rampaging elders are gaming the system, many do not need the benefits they receive, especially from Social Security and Medicare. He ignores the fact that a national social welfare program ought to embrace all the elderly; after all, well-off elders may, during their retirement, lose everything. (And don’t be fooled, Samuelson believes that poor Americans in any age group don’t deserve their benefits either.) Statistics show that the majority of elders need social security to live any kind of decent life at all. Medicare to live a healthy life at all.

Of course, Obama and the Democrats are Samuelson’s villains de jour, but he includes his own companions:

“the shunning [of even discussing entitlement cuts] is bipartisan. Tea Party advocates broadly deplore government spending without acknowledging that most of it goes for popular Social Security and Medicare.”

Thus he proves that he is worse than Tea Partiers. He forgets that the vast majority of retirement aged Tea Partiers collect Social Security and Medicare, (rightfully) believe they earned it, are therefore “entitled” to it, and would smack you with their canes should you try to even discuss cutting benefits. Of course, they also believe that other groups of elderly persons do not deserve what they have; funny how that works, eh? Samuelson doesn’t understand politics very well, doe he?

It’s the Social Contract

The social contract which we have includes income and health security, and yet does not eviscerate free enterprise. It’s benefits are for all citizens. Samuelson is no friend of our social contract:

“By now, it’s obvious that we need to rewrite the social contract that, over the past half-century, has transformed the federal government’s main task into transferring income from workers to retirees.”

To him, and the GOP/TP when it suits them, the federal government ought to have few mandates, i.e., foreign relations, border protection, building a national armed forces, and, most of all, cutting taxes paid by those who, by and large, are already doing quite well. For people like Samuelson, doing well is always the best revenge on those whose paths through life are rocky and dangerous. Tea Partiers, in particular, detest those they consider lazy welfare queens and kings, despite the fact that many Tea Partiers collect what the call “welfare,” within which they have been known to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. When this wrongheaded enmity is pressed against the elderly, especially those who rely upon those programs, on those who have lived long enough to achieve old age, it’s akin to saying to them, “Thanks for your hard work, and drop dead.”

Robert Samuelson’s Why are we in this debt fix? It’s the elderly, stupid proves he’s comfortable warring on the nation’s elderly. Period. Paragraph. Throw him off a train . . .

White House Debt Summit Tomorrow – Will Obama Cave or Pave?

July 6, 2011

Tomorrow morning President Obama hosts some friends and enemies at his big white house. They’ll powwow about bills for this and bills for that. Who will pay for them?  Will we pay for them at all? Can we even afford a weekend summer vacation in Arlington, Virginia, just across the Potomac River? The big question, though, suggested by an unsettling report by WaPo tonight, is whether President Obama is ready to sell the ranch, lock, stock, and barrel.

Cave Or Pave?  The Washington Post reported tonight that “President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue. . . As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.”

My fondest hope is that he doesn’t really want to put much of Medicare or Social Security on the table, if at all.  I can’t believe – I must not believe – he’d cave again as he did last December.  Or will he pave the way to GOP humiliation?

My gentler angels suggest that the Medicare/Social Security talk is a political gambit designed to highlight the GOP anti-tax jihad, and to further isolate them as the stumbling block to a budget (and debt ceiling) agreement. The President may be betting all-in that he can win on his home field when he meets congressional leaders at the White House tomorrow. 

There, afterwards, he can roll out the bully pulpit and go directly to the American people. Tomorrow, if the GOP resists even the slightest amount of tax revenue increases, he can herald it to a nation where many cannot understand why the wealthiest among them should not pay a fair share. GOP stickiness on taxes is well-known, of course. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example, agreed to discuss the elimination of tax breaks like the one for corporate jets, yet – remarkably – he refused to do so if an eliminated tax break resulted in any increase whatever to federal revenues. Here’s how much he’s willing to budge on increasing tax revenue: “If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes . . . we’re not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

How generous of him.  In any event, even that “concession” – worthless as it is – was kiboshed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch “We look a lot like Greece already” McConnell (R-KY). 

The hypocrisy stuns, as always. Remember – as a commenter at Political Animal did:

“John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Kyle, etc.all voted for multiple debt limit increases and multiple budgets that included deficit spending (before we had a Democrat in the White House). If Mitch thinks we are like Greece, then he can look in a mirror and see the reason.”

Mirror, mirror, on the wall . . .

Cheney Love – House Congressloon Paul Ryan’s Worst Endorsement EVER!

May 22, 2011

Yesterday, Ex VP Dick Cheney revealed that he “worships the ground that Paul Ryan walks on.” Mr. Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and champion of the embattled “Kill Medicare” budget provision, had no immediate comment. In fact, Mr. Ryan has made no comment on any topic whatever since Cheney’s endorsement. Or was Cheney intimating not so much a political endorsement as a declaration of romantic interest? 

The Cheney Effect.  At a KPMG Global Energy Institute event at the InterContinental Hotel in Houston, Mr. Cheney expressed his devout admiration for the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, whose budget plan created a hornets nest of ill will among nearly 75% of the country’s citizens. Mr. Cheney, however, and nearly the entire GOP, Libertarians, and Tea Partiers embraced the plan warmly. The former VP under President Bush (“Dubya”) obviously embraced it more thoroughly than others, and was seen by reliable sources drooling and panting slightly as he spoke of Mr. Ryan. Mrs. Cheney later told reporters, “I didn’t see it coming. He can barely pull his pants on in the morning to shoot out the bedroom window at some tiny birds and neighbors. I’m mystified; really, totally stunned.”     

Speculation began immediately whether Congressman Ryan, who occasionally expresses interest in a 2012 presidential run, could survive Cheney’s endorsement. Efforts to reach Mr. Ryan for comment were unsuccessful. His Chief of Staff indicated that Ryan’s doctors were with the disconsolate congressional firebrand, and administering intravenous Lexapro, Haldol, Ambien, Cialis, buffalo relaxant, and an experimental tranquilizer dart designed to safely bring rabid monkeys out of trees. “No success thus far,” according to an anonymous source, his wife, Janna Ryan.

Arizona – No Taxation Without – Or With – Representation!

January 12, 2011

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the taxes.”
A (mild) paraphrase of Shakespeare’s “let’s kill all the lawyers”
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

Ken Silverstein’s July 2010 Harper’s Magazine article, Tea party in the Sonora: For the future of G.O.P. governance, look to Arizona, surveys the political landscape of that Tea Party dominion. It’s relevant today as the GOP has seized control of the House and maintains its unofficial “filibuster majority” in the Senate.

Below are some excerpts:

Since the days of Barry Goldwater, an axiom of Arizona politics, particularly among Republicans, has been that tax cuts generate economic growth in all circumstances. Hence total state taxation has declined during fifteen of the past seventeen years; the individual income tax has taken the biggest hit, but sales, property, and corporate-income taxes have also come down substantially. The legislature has created tax exemptions for everything from country-club memberships to pedicures to food purchases by airlines (the latter at the behest of local airline lobbyists). None of this has produced the hoped-for effect. Although tax cuts “have lowered government revenues,” they “have not had any perceptible effect on the state’s economic growth,” concluded an Arizona State University business-school study, published last November, that examined the past three decades of fiscal policy.

Instead, to raise cash, the legislature has pursued a series of wild sell-offs and budget cuts. It privatized the capitol building and leased it back from its new owner, an arrangement that brought in substantial revenue but over time will cost Arizona far more. The legislature has sold off numerous other state properties at bargain prices, and has put up future lottery revenues as collateral on a $450 million loan. Meanwhile, Arizona removed more than 300,000 adults from state health coverage and terminated one health-care program for 47,000 poor children. Funding was slashed at the agency that deals with reports of child abuse and neglect, and also at Children’s Rehabilitative Services, so that parents of children with cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, and a number of other conditions are now required to pay 100 percent of treatment costs. 

The anti-government attitude in Arizona is now reflexive, especially because of its entanglement with the issue of immigration. As one local resident, who didn’t want to be identified because she has a government job, told me: “People who have swimming pools don’t need state parks. If you buy your books at Borders you don’t need libraries. If your kids are in private school, you don’t need K-12. The people here, or at least those who vote, don’t see the need for government. Since a lot of the population are not citizens, the message is that government exists to help the undeserving, so we shouldn’t have it at all. People think it’s OK to cut spending, because ESL is about people who refuse to assimilate, and health care pays for illegals.”

There’s a lot to think about. And not just in Arizona . . .