This week, Health Affairs released a report finding that, increasingly, middle-income seniors will have not enough money to cover the cost of housing and healthcare. The authors project that by 2029, 14.4 million people over age 75 will be “middle income.” Around 60% of these older adults will have mobility limitations and 20% of whom will have high health care needs, but their incomes will put them at risk of not being able to afford health care or housing. Unfortunately, middle-income seniors are not served by the private seniors housing industry nor by the supportive housing available to lower income individuals. This means that 54% of these individuals will not have sufficient resources to pay for the level of care provided in senor housing.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation report highlights the dramatic increase in Medicare spending on insulin products from 2007 to 2017. When taking into account payments made by plans, beneficiaries, and the federal government, spending increased by 840% from $1.4 to $13.3 billion.

Although there are an increasing number of Part D enrollees and an increase in the percentage of enrollees who have diabetes—with one third (33%) of people with Medicare diagnosed with diabetes in 2016, up from 18% in 2000—these trends do not account for the steep growth in overall spending. Indeed, the study notes that the average total Medicare Part D spending per user on insulin products increased by 358% between 2007 and 2016 (from $862 to $3,949).

A new report from the AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) examines trends in prices for 390 generic prescription drugs widely used by older adults. The report found that retail prices for these drugs fell by an average of 9.3% between 2016 and 2017; the general inflation rate rose by 2.1% during the same period. This follows two consecutive years of substantial generic drug price decreases; the previous two years saw prices increase.

This week, the Medicare Rights Center responded to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed rule that

This week, the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms highlighted an important new study about short-term

The President’s budget is a powerful document, as it represents the Trump administration’s vision for the country—a roadmap for where it would like lawmakers to go. It reflects the administration’s fiscal and programmatic priorities, which again this year do not include people with Medicare.

Further, because many older adults and people with disabilities look to a constellation of programs to stay healthy as they age, the budget’s Medicare cuts alone don’t tell the full story of how the administration’s vision for the future would impact beneficiaries.

The Medicare Rights Center applauds Congresswoman Katie Hill (D-CA-25) and Congressman Brian Babin (R-TX-36) for introducing The Medicare Part B Fairness Act (H.R. 1788) in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill would improve the health and economic security of people with Medicare by limiting the amount and duration of the Part B Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP) and by expanding Special Enrollment Periods (SEPs) to include people with pre-Medicare coverage other than employer-sponsored group health plans.

Yesterday, a federal judge blocked efforts by two states to impose onerous paperwork and employment requirements on Medicaid recipients as a condition of maintaining coverage. For the second time, the judge found that Kentucky’s plan was not permissible under the Medicaid statute, and that similar rules in Arkansas — that have already led to thousands of Arkansans losing coverage — could not stand. The rulings are a set back for the Trump Administration, which has sought to reshape the Medicaid program by allowing states to implement such restrictions.

This week, the Department of Justice surprised observers by filing a short letter with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals indicating the Trump Administration’s agreement with a district court decision invalidating the entirety of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This new, more extreme position is a departure from previously stated Administration policy, which sought to strike some of the law while preserving its more popular provisions, like protections for people with pre-existing conditions, the ability for people under 26 to remain on a parent’s insurance, and prohibitions on charging older adults exorbitant amounts for coverage.