| The Trump administration is ending a temporary subsidy that helped keep Medicare prescription drug premiums in check, arguing that insurers have had enough time to adapt to the program’s sweeping redesign, implemented as part of Democrats’ sweeping domestic policy law passed in 2022. The program, run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, lowered stand-alone Medicare Part D premiums by an average of about $16 per month. What this means: Insurance companies say they’re still evaluating how they’ll respond to the move. Experts say some Medicare patients could be looking at much higher monthly premiums next year. - The subsidy was created as a bridge after the Inflation Reduction Act, a signature Biden-era domestic policy law, overhauled Medicare’s drug benefit by capping beneficiaries’ annual out-of-pocket prescription drug costs and shifting substantially more financial risk to insurers.
- But CMS said on Tuesday that plans now have “sufficient experience” under the redesigned benefit to accurately price coverage without additional federal support.
Read the full story: “The Trump administration is halting a Medicare drug subsidy. Will premiums rise?” The backdrop: The announcement came a day before new projections from congressional budget experts showed that the overhaul of Medicare’s drug benefit has been far costlier than originally anticipated. - In a letter Wednesday to key House Republican committee leaders, the Congressional Budget Office said it’s raising its estimate of Medicare Part D spending by about $700 billion from 2026 to 2035 compared with its previous baseline.
- An estimated $550 billion of that increase stems from newer information and higher-than-expected spending projected by Medicare drug plans, the CBO said.
The Part D redesign was a primary driver of the higher plan projections, though greater use of prescription drugs after beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs fell also contributed to the jump. The announcements handed both parties fresh political ammunition over one of the Inflation Reduction Act’s marquee health care provisions. - In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) pointed the finger at President Donald Trump for the cuts, saying the cut will raise prescription drug costs for millions of older Americans.
In a social media post, Schumer called the decision to end the subsidies “heartless, cruel, and completely by choice.” - Meanwhile, congressional Republicans quickly pounced on the CBO’s findings.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason T. Smith (R-Missouri) said Democrats have increased costs for taxpayers, and argued that the Inflation Reduction Act “was yet another costly promise that failed to deliver lower prices for seniors.” “Because of these misguided policies, Americans are paying more for health care than ever before while facing fewer choices and less access to care in return,” Smith said in a statement. → The number of standalone Part D plans have decreased exponentially, from 766 in 2022 to 360 in 2026, according to CMS data analyzed by nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Why it matters: Health care affordability remains one of Washington’s biggest political liabilities ahead of November’s midterm elections, and Medicare drug costs could emerge as an especially salient messaging point for both parties. “We are stabilizing the market so this bailout is no longer needed,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz wrote in a social media post Tuesday evening, adding that monthly premiums “will go up by less than $10 for most Medicare recipients, with many even seeing LOWER premiums.” Exactly how much premiums will increase remains unclear because insurers weigh several factors when setting rates. The subsidies cost the federal government $3.6 billion in 2026, according to KFF. What to watch: Final Medicare Part D premiums will be released in September, offering the first look at how insurers priced the redesigned drug benefit without the subsidy. Another interesting finding from the CBO’s report: Medicare’s negotiation program, also established by the Inflation Reduction Act, has returned less savings than the budget office had originally projected. Here’s a timeline: - The initial projection: Net prices for medications selected for negotiation would decline, on average, by 50 percent.
- Actual first-round reductions: In 2024, CMS completed the first round of negotiations, and negotiated costs for those selected drugs were 22 percent below the average net prices for the same medications the year prior.
- CBO revised its calculation: The office went back to the drawing board, arguing that Medicare negotiation could reduce prices by about 25 percent to 50 percent, using a midpoint of 37.5 percent.
- Second-round reductions: The prices for drugs selected for the second round of negotiations in 2025 were 44 percent lower than the average net prices for those same drugs in 2024.
Still, the CBO says it’s boosted expected savings from the negotiated price reductions going forward. While Medicare is spending more on expensive prescription drugs than expected, many of those drugs will eventually be subject to Medicare price negotiations. And CBO now expects both higher overall spending and larger dollar savings from Medicare’s negotiation program — even though the discounts on each drug won’t be as large as originally projected. Inflation rebates also deflate: CBO also lowered its projected savings for the law’s inflationary rebate provision because inflation rose faster than expected. That made it easier for drugmakers to increase prices without triggering rebate penalties, which reduced both the rebates paid to Medicare and the savings from the policy. The bottom line: The Inflation Reduction Act’s key drug pricing policies haven’t haven’t saved as much money as CBO had projected, and the Part D redesign is costing more. A federally funded study published this month found that replacing gas stoves with electric ones significantly improved asthma symptoms among participants, despite being scaled back after the Trump administration terminated its $18 million Environmental Protection Agency grant, reports The Post’s Jake Spring. - Researchers at Case Western Reserve University had planned to replace gas stoves in 1,200 homes of asthma patients in Ohio through an EPA environmental justice grant. But the agency canceled the award after only 85 households had participated — as part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to eliminate climate and environmental justice programs.
- Researchers released the study anyway. Even with the much smaller sample, they found participants experienced fewer asthma attacks, emergency room visits and missed work days, while nitrogen dioxide levels in kitchens fell by 70 percent.
- Lead investigator Ash Sehgal said the improvement in asthma symptoms was comparable to — or greater than — the benefits reported in clinical trials of commonly used asthma medications.
Why it matters: The study adds new data to an ongoing political and regulatory debate over the health effects of gas stoves and indoor air pollution. Republican policymakers have championed gas stoves and pushed back against a move by the Biden administration to evaluate whether to issue regulations on new stoves. Rob Jackson, a Stanford University scientist who was not involved in the study, said the research provides stronger evidence than many previous studies, because it tracked real-world health outcomes after gas stoves were replaced rather than estimating impacts through modeling. “It’s important because the extent to which indoor air pollution from stoves harms people’s health is still debated in state houses, federally [and] in courtrooms. And so every piece of the puzzle, even if it’s only 85 individuals, strengthens that story,” Jackson told The Post. | 
