Republicans block cap on insulin costs for millions of patients

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Sun Aug 7, 2022, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

Republican lawmakers on Sunday successfully stripped a $35 price cap on the cost of insulin for many patients from the ambitious legislative package Democrats are moving through Congress this weekend, invoking arcane Senate rules to jettison the measure. The insulin cap is a long-running ambition of Democrats, who want it to apply to patients on Medicare and private insurance. Republicans left the portion that applies to Medicare patients untouched but stripped the insulin cap for other patients. Bipartisan talks on a broader insulin pricing bill faltered earlier this year.

The Senate parliamentarian earlier in the weekend ruled that part of the Democrats’ cap, included in the Inflation Reduction Act, did not comply with the rules that allow them to advance a bill under the process known as reconciliation — a tactic that helps them avert a GOP filibuster. That gave the Republicans an opening to jettison it. “Republicans have just gone on the record in favor of expensive insulin,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

“After years of tough talk about taking on insulin makers, Republicans have once against wilted in the face of heat from Big Pharma." Some Republicans did support the price cap in the 57-43 vote for the measure, but not enough joined Democrats in support of it to meet the threshold for passage. More than 1 in 5 insulin users on private medical insurance pay more than $35 per month for the medicine, according to a recent analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Some 7 million Americans require insulin daily. A Yale University study found that 14 percent of those insulin users are spending more than 40 percent of their income after food and housing costs on the medicine. Despite an adverse ruling from the chamber’s parliamentarian, Democrats opted to keep the full price cap provision in the bill anyway. That gave Republicans, led in debate by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), an opening for a challenge on the Senate floor. Democrats would have needed 60 votes — their entire caucus plus the support of 10 GOP members — to beat back that challenge. They came up short.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/07/insulin-cap-budget-congress/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

---

No paywall link

Short article.

The REAL headline should be - "The Parliamentarian stripped..." although i suppose it might help to blame the GOP for stopping the Democrats' efforts and some kind of price control.

The cap remains (so far) for Medicare recipients.

Article now updated. Original article and headline -

Republicans block cap on millions of patients' insulin costs

Republican lawmakers on Sunday successfully stripped a $35 price cap on the cost of insulin for many patients from the ambitious legislative package Democrats are moving through Congress this weekend, invoking arcane Senate rules to jettison the measure.

The insulin cap is a long-running ambition of Democrats, who want it to apply to patients on Medicare and private insurance. Republicans left untouched the portion that applies to Medicare patients but stripped the insulin cap for other patients. Bipartisan talks on a broader insulin pricing bill faltered earlier this year.

The Senate parliamentarian ruled that the Democrats’ cap, included in the Inflation Reduction Act, did not comply with the rules that allow them to advance a bill under the process known as reconciliation — a tactic that helps them avert a GOP filibuster. That gave the Republicans an opening to jettison it.

[moonshinegnomie]

1. introduce a $35 cap on insulin prices as a seperate bill.

force teh GOP to vote up or down on it
or else have harris just overrule the parliamentarian

[TeamProg]

5. +1

[EmmaLee E]

7. You're playing with the filibuster now

A separate bill won't be allowed in reconciliation.
The GOP would filibuster a separate bill.

Ergo, no go

[BumRushDaShow]

15. They already did and

H.R.6833 - Affordable Insulin Now Act

House passes bill to cap insulin prices


March 31, 20225:57 PM ET


Barbara Sprunt

Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., flanked by Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., and House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., speaks to reporters about a bill to cap the price of insulin at the Capitol on Thursday.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve legislation that would limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and Medicare. The vote was 232-193, with 12 Republican members joining their Democratic colleagues to pass the measure.

The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan's negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation would take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear. "This is a kitchen-table issue," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said to reporters ahead of the bill's passage on Thursday.

(snip)

House Democrats passed legislation in November as part of a broader spending package that would have enabled Medicare to negotiate lower prices for various prescription drugs. Because that package remains stalled in the Senate, Democrats are working to more narrowly tackle making common drugs like insulin more affordable.

(snip)

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/31/1090085513/house-passes-bill-to-cap-insulin-prices

[moonshinegnomie]

26. schmer needs to bring it up for a vote in the senate

they the gop go on record opposing it. have the bill strictly address insulin. no extras.
and then let teh GOP explain to their sheeple that they blocked it

[BumRushDaShow]

34. Warnock attempted to bring up his version (pretty much identical to the House one)

and was running into the same damn 60-vote thing. From the OP article link -

"The only way it doesn’t pass is if folks on the other side of the aisle decide to block it,” said Sen. Raphael G. Warnock (D-Ga.), who had previously put forward legislation calling for a price cap.

GOP lawmakers had earlier tried to offer their own, more scaled-back version of an insulin price limit, but Democrats rejected it as too narrow.

The thing is, although I agree that we should put them on record, whenever we have, people promptly "forget" that we did, where dozens of bills have passed the House and were blocked by the Senate, and then they still blame Democrats for it.

[Bayard]

2. Paywall

What is her reasoning for this? It would certainly reduce inflation for diabetics.

[edhopper]

3. There are rules to what is allowed in a reconciliation bill

And the Parliamentarian ruled legislation that affects private insurers doesn't fit. An amendment, approved by 60+ votes would have been allowed, but not enough Repugs would agree to it.

They can bring up a separate, non-reconciliation bill the Repukes can stop.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

6. Some Republicans did agree to it

It was 57-43, but needed 60.

[edhopper]

9. Thanks

I'll amend

[BumRushDaShow]

18. That's alll there was at the original post time but here is a no paywall link (will add to OP)

https://archive.ph/kNQFM

Am also updating the OP with more info that has now been added.

[iluvtennis]

4. Wow, just doesn't make sense @Parliamentarian

[Igel]

35. It makes perfect sense.

https://budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheet/budget-reconciliation-basics

Reconciliation bills involve spending or revenues. Capping private expenses for citizens isn't federal revenue or spending.

Because reconciliation bills are considered using expedited procedures in the Senate, the Byrd rule is aimed at preventing the use of reconciliation to move a legislative agenda unrelated to spending or taxes, and to some extent it limits Congress’ ability to use reconciliation to increase deficits – at least over the long-term. The Byrd rule prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation, defining “extraneous” as follows:

measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);
measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target;
measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;
measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental to the non-budgetary policy change;

[iluvtennis]

50. Thanks for clarifying- what's in/ out for reconciliation needs changing.

[Frustratedlady]

8. They seem to be committing political suicide, this election. Good for them!

The group of diabetics is nothing to mess with and the proof that the prices are out of sight, compared to a few years ago, had a lot of diabetics excited relief was on the way.

Abortion, book banning, contraception, prison for miscarriages, same sex marriage, etc. was enough to knock the Repukes down in Nov., but they keep performing like the idiots they are.

I'm terrified of the upcoming election/post-election, but am enjoying the self-demolition of the party, for now.

[Justice matters.]

10. Bingo. Put it on the ballot in Roevember. n/t

[usonian]

11. Someone asked about allowing meds to be imported. Why? see below.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country
Cost of Insulin by Country 2022

Very short: (emphasis mine)

The price of insulin in the United States compared to other countries

A landmark study published by the RAND Corporation in 2020 analyzed the average price of several different forms of insulin (human, analog, rapid, rapid-intermediate, short, short-intermediate, intermediate, and long-acting) in 33 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes most of the world's developed countries and high-income countries. The study revealed that the manufacturer price for any given type of insulin averaged five to ten times higher in the U.S. ($98.70 USD) than in all other OECD countries ($8.81 on average). Even when using net prices, which incorporate possible rebates, U.S. prices would be roughly four times higher than in other countries.


Uncle Pennybags wins again!

[PatSeg]

19. I've ordered prescription drugs

from other countries and for the most part the prices were dramatically cheaper. The companies that processed my orders were in Canada, but the medications came from several different countries. The only downsides are it can take weeks for the medications to arrive and some drugs may not be available.

[Desert_Leslie]

12. I take insulin

I've had type 1 diabetes for 51 years ... I've seen insulin skyrocket in price.

This is such a losing issue for the GOP. Stories of diabetics DYING because they couldn't afford high-priced insulin has been splashed across the news. It's now a widely known problem that generates much sympathy.

Mitch couldn't find 4 more GOP senators? "Vote for this bill ... having it fail makes us look uncaring and heartless."

Get ready for upcoming Democrat advertisements. They will eviscerate the GOP.

[pnwmom]

13. No, the REAL headline is correct. If the R's hadn't blocked it, it wouldn't have had

to go to the Parliamentarian.

[Scruffy1]

16. The parliamentarian cn be overruled with 60 votes.

[3825-87867]

22. I'm Confused

According to this article, a presiding officer has the power to overrule the parlimentarian.

MacDonough was a non-partisan appointment. She was named to that position by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after serving in the Parliamentarian’s office since 1999. The Parliamentarian serves at the request of the leader of the majority faction in the House or Senate. In MacDonough’s case, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would have the ability to dismiss a Parliamentarian if he felt that was an appropriate action. That does happen rarely. In 2001, Trent Lott dismissed Robert Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian, after Republicans were angry that Dove, also a Republican appointee, disallowed spending measures as violating the Byrd Rule.

And on rare occasions, a presiding officer will overrule the Parliamentarian. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored advice from Senate Parliamentarian Floyd Riddick about the proper procedure for handing a vote about changing the Senate’s filibuster rules.

Maybe it can be done? Anyone?

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/who-is-the-senate-parliamentarian-and-what-does-she-do

[grantcart]

33. It can be done but both sides avoid doing it except in rare cases

If we do it here then the Republicans would do it a million times.

Both sides want to protect the integrity of the Parliamentarian.

[pnwmom]

23. That requires R votes. The D's were onboard. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

25. True and that goes back even before this effort with this that languishes in the Senate

passed by the House back in March.

H.R.6833 - Affordable Insulin Now Act

Senate companion bill here -

S.3700 - Affordable Insulin Now Act

[Vinca]

14. This needs to go in every single ad run against the GQP forever and ever and ever.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. The pharma portion of the bill has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness

It only covers a handful of drugs, for Medicare only and doesn’t kick in until 2026, and now the one provision that would have benefited everyone taking insulin has been watered down as well.

While some may say it’s better than nothing, the benefits for most Americans is exactly that, nothing.

[ColinC]

21. We need to fight like hell to win full control of the legislature.

Anything in-between is unacceptable.

[kirby]

29. Even the Dems should be ashamed...

This bill is a joke with respect to medicare negotiation. As you say, it doesn't even allow negotiation to start until 2026. And then in 2026 it is only for 10 drugs! Finally in 2029 it is up to a whopping 20 drugs.

[oldsoftie]

32. Its amazing how often these things don't go into effect until someone ELSE is in office.

Or how they give us some grand number for "revenue" or "savings" and forget to mention the "over the next ten years" part.

[moose65]

57. I wonder why they delayed it until 2026?

Is there ever a reason given for stuff like this? Why should this take FOUR YEARS to implement??

[Hestia]

58. Because it has always been thus; or they do run future projections

and are laying the foundation(s) now for next 3-4 years FY projections.

That's my conjecture until corrected or confirmed...

[ColinC]

20. How many of the assholes who made this happen are running this year?

[bucolic_frolic]

24. I guess Republicans figure this won't lose them any more votes in November

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

27. The mid-term campaign ads write themselves

[Martin68]

28. Barbarians. I hope we exploit this for votes.

[louis-t]

30. Every Dem ad should contain this headline

and a photo of repugs high-fiving each other after blocking benefits for veterans. That's how you win elections.

[Ferrets are Cool]

31. They, repugs, are so damned arrogant that they believe this shit doesn't resonate with voters.

And the sad thing is, they are correct in many cases.

[mwooldri]

36. Okay, which Republicans voted to block this?

Or simply put- which Republicans voted with the Dems (as that list is obviously shorter)???

[BumRushDaShow]

38. Had to dig but here is roll call for that amendment

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00314.htm

The GOP nays -

NAYs ---43

Barrasso (R-WY)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Braun (R-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Romney (R-UT)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

But here is what is somewhat shocking for the 7 GOPers who voted FOR it -

YEAs ---57

Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Sullivan (R-AK)

Hawley? Really?

[mwooldri]

53. Thank you! Seems like I got some writing to do. NT

[JT45242]

37. Which 7 rethugs did the right thing?

It wod seem those up for reelection should have voted for it...but Paul, Johnson, Grassley, and Rubio rarely do the right thing

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Just posted above

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2952834

The lunatic white supremacist insurrectionist Hawley actually voted FOR it! Maybe it was a mistake or maybe he is getting shit from MO. Something!

[mpcamb]

55. New, caring version of Hawley... caused by his recent publicity.

(barfing sound)

[ZonkerHarris]

39. When they do things like this we need to respond with ads on TV and the Internet immediately

[BumRushDaShow]

42. Mandela Barnes, Lt. Gov of Wisconsin running against Ron Johnson, who gets barely noticed on DU

tweeted this -

Link to tweet

Mandela Barnes
@TheOtherMandela
·
Follow
Ron Johnson just blocked a bill to cap insulin costs at $35 a month.

No one should have to choose between a medication their life depends on and putting food on the table. But Ron Johnson doesn’t care—he’s bought and paid for by the pharma lobby.
11:53 AM · Aug 7, 2022

Cheri Beasley, another Democrat running for Senate, but in NC who gets little or no attention on DU tweeted this -

Link to tweet

Cheri Beasley
@CheriBeasleyNC
·
Follow
When given the opportunity to cap insulin costs at $35 a month, both North Carolina senators voted against lowering costs for the 1.3 million North Carolinians living with diabetes.
Cheri Beasley
@CheriBeasleyNC
🌎: $16
🇺🇸: $220

That's the average cost a month for insulin. Politicians had the chance to make insulin affordable, and Ted Budd voted against it.

1.3 million North Carolinians living with diabetes deserve a Senator who will make insulin more affordable. Watch our latest ad:
Embedded video
1:00 PM · Aug 7, 2022

And the one running in my state, John Fetterman, who is still alive, despite many on DU predicting his demise, tweeted this -

Link to tweet

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
·
Follow
US Senate candidate, PA
Dr. Oz + his Republican allies want you to pay outrageous prices for lifesaving medications.

They don’t give a sh*t if people are struggling.

Oz won’t stand up to Big Pharma but I WILL
Bill Pascrell, Jr. 🇺🇸🇺🇦
@BillPascrell
Here are the mcconnell republican senators who just killed capping insulin at $35. Republicans told millions of Americans who use insulin to go to hell. Remember their names.
Image
1:43 PM · Aug 7, 2022

[KS Toronado]

44. This close to midterms...HELL YES

[Novara]

41. With gerrymandering and voter suppression this won't hurt them.

They won't pay a political cost.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. It'll hurt 'em in the Senate

and holding the Senate at least allows nominees (especially tot he judiciary) to continue to move forward.

Many of the seats that the pollsters are looking at are (D) swing seats and assuming losses, but based on Roe and just a panoply of other ridiculous extremist moves by the GOP the past couple months, may help to solidify those.

[IronLionZion]

43. Plenty of GOP voters need insulin

Those voters may want to rethink their votes this November

[bahboo]

46. Democrats..."For the People," hammer them with this....

[LudwigPastorius]

47. The Canny Kenyan strikes again!

Obama is obviously using a Muslim Mind Ray to make those Republicans vote to bolster his death panels.

[jerseyjim]

48. MEAN!

I keep on asking myself "What the hell is the matter with them?"
They seem to be dead against anything that will be good for America. I think a lot of it is just for spite.
I just read that people like Cruz and Bannon are calling for more violence. Lunatics!

[Snackshack]

49. Again, this person is not elected.

How is she being allowed to add or take away anything from legislation.

None the less VP Harris as President of the Senate could have stepped up and overruled her but that would have ruffled feathers and...can't do that even though the GOP would have no problem doing that remember the SCOTUS vote, which is why Dems will always being

Thanks

[dalton99a]

51. Kick

[sakabatou]

52. Republicans are sick MOFOs.

[Beartracks]

56. It's sad that this is how Republicans define "success."