The Trump administration is rolling back more health benefits for citizens as they plan to terminate Medicare Part D – the government health insurance program’s prescription drug benefit used by tens of millions of older or disabled beneficiaries. This subsidy program aimed to keep premiums for seniors’ prescription drug plans in check, but now, they should expect prices to rise at the beginning of next year.
“We are stabilizing the market so this bailout is no longer needed,” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz wrote in a post on X. “Premiums will go up by less than $10 for most Medicare recipients, with many even seeing LOWER premiums,” he wrote.
“Every Medicare beneficiary still has access to low-cost plans, and we will continue to lower prescription drug prices for every American patient, from more MFN[Most Favored Nation] deals to our policy giving seniors access to GLP-1s for $50 a month,” he added, referring to “most favored nation” deals under which pharmaceutical companies charge U.S. patients the same rate as they charge in other countries.
Currently, the government pays billions of dollars in subsidies to insurance companies to keep prescription drug insurance at an average of $36 per person per month, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. Ending the subsidies may increase premiums for some by as much as $20 a month.
In the midst of other health programs not being renewed next year, transgender federal workers have filed a lawsuit against the agency, accusing it of unlawfully stripping gender-affirming care from health plans covering federal and Postal Service workers, retirees and their families.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: We’ll see you in court,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson said. HRC is bringing the case on behalf of trans federal employees.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the exclusion amounts to sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“This categorical denial of treatment for those who require continuing gender-affirming care is akin to denying continuing insulin treatment for someone with diabetes,” the lawsuit states.
