¶ Overview
- Murphy, who claimed government intervention in health care was “destroying it,” voted for Republicans’ reconciliation bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would trigger more than $500 billion in cuts to Medicare absent future congressional action. Muphy has also advocated for “substantial reform” to Medicare.
- Murphy was also a member of the Republican Study Committee, which staunchly advocated for raising the age at which seniors are eligible to collect Social Security. The Committee claimed the age increase was essential for keeping Social Security solvent, ignoring that a higher retirement age would cut the median-wage retiree’s benefits by thousands of dollars every year. The Committee also advocated for turning Medicare into a voucher system, which would raise health care costs for most beneficiaries.
- Murphy called the Inflation Reduction Act, which lowered prescription drug costs and capped the cost of insulin at $35 per month for seniors, an “egregious proposal.” He specifically sought to abolish the IRA’s drug price negotiation program that more than300,000 North Carolinians who took prescription drugs were set to benefit from. Murphy previously voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs in 2019 and voted against a different bill in 2022 that sought to cap the cost of insulin at $35 per month.
¶ Murphy Voted To Make Major Cuts To Medicare And Was Part Of A Group That Supported Turning It Into A Voucher System
¶ Murphy Claimed government intervention in health care was “destroying it”
Murphy Claimed Government Intervention In Healthcare Was “Destroying It.” According to an interview Rep. Greg Murphy gave with Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, “MUPRHY: Tony, I've been in medicine for over 30 years. I've run practices with, with my surgical practice. I actually still take care of patients. I operated yesterday and took care of some patients this morning. I have seen the meteoric rise in health, in government intervention in health care, which is destroying it. This is the reason it costs so much today is because of so much government intervention.” [Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, 9/17/22] (video) 220927_MM_163765_A
¶ Murphy claimed medicare needed “substantial reform”
12/6/24: Murphy Said “The Medicare System Needs Substantial Reform.” Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “It was a pleasure meeting with Ascension Health to discuss the significant reductions in physician reimbursement. The Medicare system needs substantial reform, and I will continue advocating for our physicians and access to high-quality affordable care for patients.” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 12/6/24]
- Murphy Called Medicare A “Fiscal Behemoth” With An “Unsustainable Growth Trajectory.” According to an opinion by Rep. Greg Murphy published in the Washington Times, “Despite their differences, both have become fiscal behemoths with unsustainable growth trajectories. The ratio of the number of individuals paying into Medicare relative to beneficiaries continues to shrink, and according to the latest Medicare Trustees Report, the program will reach insolvency in 2033. Prior to the passage of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), Medicaid expenditures were projected to grow approximately 5% annually through 2032. The reconciliation bill curbed this growth with modest and reasonable eligibility requirements designed to encourage work for able-bodied adults and protect benefits for vulnerable Americans rather than illegal immigrants and those who are not actually eligible for the program.” [Rep. Greg Murphy Opinion – Washington Times, 7/29/25]
¶ 2025: Murphy Voted In Favor Of The House Republican budget Bill That Would Trigger Major Cuts To Medicare, absent future congressional action
May 2025: Murphy Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Murphy voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "Trump And GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts To Medicare, CBO Says" [Washington Post, 5/21/25]
- Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The House Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Trigger Nearly $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare. According to a letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to Rep. Brendan Boyle, "Today the Congressional Budget Office transmitted an estimate of the budgetary effects of the 2025 reconciliation bill, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on May 18, 2025. 1 CBO has not yet completed estimates of the effects of interactions among the titles of the legislation. This letter responds to your questions concerning the sequestration (the cancellation of budgetary resources) in accordance with the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 (S-PAYGO) that would occur if an enacted bill raised deficits by $2.3 trillion over 10 years. Under S-PAYGO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to maintain 5- and 10-year scorecards that it updates with the estimated cumulative changes in revenues and outlays generated by newly enacted legislation. […] The 4 percent maximum reduction in Medicare spending would apply to sequestration orders for years after 2026. If OMB ordered a sequestration of $230 billion for each year through 2034, the ordered reductions in Medicare spending would increase to about $75 billion in 2034 and would total roughly $490 billion over the 2027–2034 period." [Letter to Rep. Brendan Boyle – Congressional Budget Office, 5/20/25]
July 2025: Murphy Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Billion In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Murphy voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
¶ Murphy Said He Was “Proud” To Support The Passage Of The Republican Budget Bill
7/3/25: Murphy Said He Was “Proud” To Support The Republican Budget Bill. According to a press release from Rep. Greg Murphy, “Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D., applauds the passage of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act: ‘After over a year of diligent work crafting a budget reconciliation package that extends the successful 2017 tax cuts, strengthens border security and our military, and cuts waste, fraud, and abuse, I was proud to support the final passage of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,’ said Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. ’As a physician of over 30 years serving rural Eastern North Carolina, and as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I vigorously advocated for a package that protects hardworking families, helps our country flourish, and preserves the fiscal viability of the United States. We achieved this and more while delivering on President Trump's and Republicans' vision to put the American people first.” [Press Release – Rep. Greg Murphy, 7/3/25]
¶ Murphy Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee, Which Advocated For turning Medicare into a voucher system
As Of January 2025, Murphy Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee.
[Republican Study Committee Website via Wayback Machine, “Membership,” 1/2/25]
¶ The Republican Study Committee Budget Proposed Raising Health Care Costs For Seniors By Switching Medicare To A “Premium Support” System
The Republican Study Committee’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposed A “Premium Support” Model For Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, "The RSC budget would implement a premium support model where private, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans would compete with a federal Medicare plan (the ‘Fed Plan’) that would offer the traditional Medicare benefits received through Part A, B, and D. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans provide the same services as Medicare but are administered by private health insurance providers. Under this plan, Medicare’s trust funds would be merged into a singular fund that would be responsible for paying premium support subsidies to cover the vast majority of their premium costs. This new singular trust fund would be funded with revenues from existing payroll taxes, Part B premiums, and Part B and D cost sharing—which would help ensure continued traditional Medicare benefits remain available. This framework would ensure seniors, whether they choose a private plan or the Fed Plan, receive more affordable, high-quality coverage." [Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget Proposal, 3/20/24]
The Republican Study Committee’s Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Proposed A “Premium Support” Model For Medicare Beneficiaries. According to Roll Call, "The plan offered by the 175-member Republican Study Committee would gradually raise the age at which future retirees can start claiming full Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, a politically fraught proposal that’s all but certain to appear in Democratic campaign ads. The document also proposes a ‘premium support’ plan that would subsidize private insurance options that compete with traditional Medicare. That would be similar to budget plans proposed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., during his tenure in Congress that were panned by Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump." [Roll Call, 6/14/23]
Republicans’ Proposal To Switch To A Medicare “Premium Support” System Would Result In Most Beneficiaries Paying More For Health Care Than They Do Under Current Laws. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priority, "Under premium support, Medicare would make a fixed-dollar payment (often called a voucher) for each beneficiary to defray part of the cost of health insurance — either through a private plan or a form of traditional Medicare. The beneficiary’s premium would equal the difference between the voucher amount and the cost of the plan that he or she selected. Premium support would apply to all new beneficiaries starting in 2024 and to any other beneficiaries who chose to participate. Unlike the current system, in which Part B premiums are generally the same for all beneficiaries, premiums under the House GOP plan would vary by region and by plan. Although the GOP plan lacks the details to assess its impact on beneficiaries, most beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare would pay more than under current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office." [Center on Budget and Policy Priority, 7/26/16]
¶ Murphy Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee, Which Advocated For Raising The Social Security Retirement Age
¶ Murphy Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee, Which Advocated For raising the social security retirement age
As Of January 2025, Murphy Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee.
[Republican Study Committee Website via Wayback Machine, “Membership,” 1/2/25]
¶ The Republican Study Committee Has Long Advocated For Raising The Retirement Age
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal Included “Modest Adjustments To The Retirement Age For Future Retirees To Account For Increases In Life Expectancy.” According to the Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, “For instance, the RSC Budget would make modest changes to the primary insurance amount (PIA) benefit formula for individuals who are not near retirement and earn more than the wealthiest PIA benefit factor. It would also make modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy. Finally, for these individuals, it would limit and phase out auxiliary benefits for high income earners.” [Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget Proposal, 3/20/24]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Plan Included Raising The Age Of Eligibility For Social Security Benefits To 69. According to Roll Call, “The largest bloc of House conservatives offered up a fiscal blueprint Wednesday that promises to balance the federal budget in seven years, make GOP tax cuts permanent, and slash domestic spending. The plan offered by the 175-member Republican Study Committee would gradually raise the age at which future retirees can start claiming full Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, a politically fraught proposal that’s all but certain to appear in Democratic campaign ads. The document also proposes a ‘premium support’ plan that would subsidize private insurance options that compete with traditional Medicare. That would be similar to budget plans proposed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., during his tenure in Congress that were panned by Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump.” [Roll Call, 6/14/23]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Proposal Called For The “Gradual Increase Of The Normal Retirement Age.” According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2023 Budget, “This trend, which will continue to increase financial pressure on Social Security, is a result of the aging U.S. population. To partially address this issue, the full retirement was raised to 67 in 2022 for those born in 1960 and later. The Social Security Reform Act would simply continue the gradual increase of the normal retirement age that current law has set in motion at a rate of three months per year until it is increased by three years for those reaching age 62 in 2040, 18 years from now.” [Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2023 Budget via Wayback Machine, 8/5/22]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Proposal Called To “Reform The Full Retirement Age To Track Life Expectancy.” According to a press release from the Republican Study Committee, “The RSC Budget puts Social Security on a permanent path to solvency without adjusting benefits for any Americans in or near retirement. It would: Increase the minimum benefit up to 40% of average wages for those that worked 40 years or more. • Reform the full retirement age to track life expectancy.” [Press Release – Republican Study Committee, Viewed 11/25/25]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Proposal Included Phasing In “An Increase In Eligibility Age To 70” For Social Security. According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2020 Executive Summary, “MAKING SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENT - without reform, will be depleted by 2035, cutting benefits by 25 percent • implements the Social Security Reform Act to achieve long-term sustainable solvency • phases in an increase of the eligibility age to 70 and indexes life expectancy to keep up with increases in longevity ” [Republican Study Committee, “RSC Budget FY 2020: Preserving American Freedom,” Viewed 11/25/25]
¶ The Center For American Progress Estimated That Raising The Retirement Age Would Cost Future Retirees Thousands Of Dollars In Benefits Every Year
The Center For American Progress Said Raising The Retirement Age Would Cost The Median-Wage Retiree Thousands Of Dollars In Benefits Every Year. According to the Center for American Progress, “One policy that has continually been included in RSC budget proposals for years is an increase to Social Security’s full retirement age (FRA), the age at which seniors become eligible to access Social Security retirement benefits without a financial penalty for retiring early. The FRA is 67 under current law, but the RSC plan would push it back to 69, leading to drastic benefit cuts for a large majority of Americans. […] This higher FRA would cut Social Security benefits. According to Center for American Progress analysis, an FRA of 69 would cut benefits for all new retirees between roughly 12.5 percent and 14.3 percent by the time it is fully phased in. In addition, it would cost a median-wage retiree who earned $70,000 in 2022 and turns 62 in 2034 thousands of dollars every year.” [Center for American Progress, 7/31/24]
- After Receiving Social Security For 10 Years, The Median-Wage Retiree Would Lose Up To Nearly $100,000 In Retirement Benefits If The Retirement Age Was Raised. According to the Center for American Progress, “However, the dollar amount of the cut would not be static each year. To account for inflation, Social Security benefits are updated with cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), which the Social Security Administration expects to equal 2.4 percent each year after 2025, according to its intermediate cost projections. After accounting for these COLAs, the median-wage retiree would lose between $46,104 and $99,252 after 10 years of receiving Social Security.” [Center for American Progress, 7/31/24]
¶ More Than 187,000 North Carolinians In The 3rd Congressional District Relied On Social Security Benefits
2024: 187,641 North Carolinians In The 3rd Congressional District Relied On Social Security Benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, in 2024, 187,641 North Carolinians in the 3rd congressional district received Social Security benefits. [Social Security Administration, North Carolina, 2024]
¶ Murphy, A Doctor, Voted Against Lowering Prescription Drug Costs For Seniors And Capping The Cost Of Insulin
¶ Murphy Called The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) An “Egregious Proposal”
Murphy Called The IRA An “Egregious Proposal” And Claimed It Would Result In The “Largest Heist Of Medicare Dollars Since The Program's Inception.” According to an opinion by Rep. Greg Murphy published in Newsweek, “Under the guise of the deceptively named ‘Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’, Congressional Democrats are poised to conduct the largest heist of Medicare dollars since the program's inception. Although claiming to lower prescription drugs prices and extend affordable health care insurance to low-income families, Democrats' myopic and partisan reconciliation package will stifle competition, significantly hamper the development of new cures, and redirect hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to insurance companies and Green New Deal policies. All Americans should reject this egregious proposal.” [Rep. Greg Murphy Opinion – Newsweek, 8/11/22]
- OPINION: “The Great Medicare Heist” [Rep. Greg Murphy Opinion – Newsweek, 8/11/22]
- Murphy Criticized The IRA’s Provisions That Would Reduce Add-On Payments For Medicare Part B Drugs, Claiming The Reduction In Physician Reimbursements Would Drive Physicians Out Of Business. According to an opinion by Rep. Greg Murphy published in Newsweek, “Second, the proposal would do significant harm to patients and independent physicians, particularly in the oncology and rheumatology spaces. According to an Avalere analysis, the partisan reconciliation package would ‘lead to a total reduction of 39.8% in add-on payments across all providers administering top Medicare Part B drugs.’ For rheumatologists and medical oncologists, these specialists will see 48.5% and 42.9% reductions, respectively, in reimbursement. It is perverse to maintain that physician reimbursements are the main cause of why medicine in the U.S. is so costly. Physicians in recent years have often been in angst because of perpetually looming threats to cut their Medicare payments, as well as the general impact of inflation.” [Rep. Greg Murphy Opinion – Newsweek, 8/11/22]
Murphy Claimed The IRA Would Have “Long-Lasting Catastrophic Impacts On Patients, Physicians, And The Solvency Of Medicare.” According to an opinion by Rep. Greg Murphy published in Newsweek, “Instead of hurting patients, we should be pursuing common-sense, market-based solutions to lower the cost of prescription drugs, cap seniors' out-of-pocket spending, and increase competition and new drug innovation. Republicans have put forward a collection of bipartisan policy ideas that would do all those things, but Democrats have once again rejected bipartisanship in pursuit of their extreme agenda. The classic smoke-and-mirrors trick Democrats are using to ram reconciliation through Congress will have long-lasting catastrophic impacts on patients, physicians, and the solvency of Medicare.” [Rep. Greg Murphy Opinion – Newsweek, 8/11/22]
Murphy Called The IRA “Another Deceptive Biden Failure.” Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “👇FACT CHECK👇 The @USCBO estimated the so-called Inflation ‘Reduction’ Act would have a ‘negligible effect on inflation.’ The Penn @Wharton Budget Model reported the IRA would have ‘NO meaningful effect on inflation.’ Another deceptive Biden failure.” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 11/3/22]
¶ Murphy Made Abolishing The IRA’s Durg Price Negotiation Program Part Of HIs “2025 Health Agenda”
Murphy Said Abolishing The IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program Was Part Of His “2025 Health Agenda.” Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “2025 Health Agenda: Fix Physician Fee Schedule. No Medical Sch DEI. Reform (or gut) Med Advantage. Rectify PBM abuse. Abolish IRA 9/13 Rule. Correct 340B misuse. No DTC advertising. VA HBOT for PTSD. Slash Pre-Auth Denials. Streamline CMS. @realDonaldTrump @DrOz” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 1/6/25]
Murphy Called The IRA’s Prescription Drug Price Controls A “Horrendous Approach” To Drug Pricing That Would “Set American Drug Manufacturers Back Decades.” According to an opinion by Rep. Greg Murphy published in Newsweek, “First, the bill would grant the secretary of Health and Human Services sole authority to set drug price controls for Medicare Part B and D. While all Americans see lowering drug prices as a top priority, this is a horrendous approach. There is no statutory price floor, meaning manufacturers must comply with whatever arbitrary price the secretary sets or be subject to a tax of up to 95%. The University of Chicago estimates that this scheme will prevent up to 342 new drugs from coming to market over the next 20 years. The Democrats' reconciliation package would penalize our health care system and set American drug manufacturers back decades as they work to combat the world's most significant health care challenges—from Alzheimer's and cancer to COVID-19 and other diseases.” [Rep. Greg Murphy Opinion – Newsweek, 8/11/22]
Murphy Claimed The IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program Would “Crush” Medicare Part B Drug Reimbursements And Cause Patient Access To Drugs To “Dry Up.” Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “Under the Inflation Reduction Act's Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, Part B drug reimbursements will be crushed and patient access to life-saving drugs will dry up. That's why I introduced the Protecting Patient Access to Cancer and Complex Therapies Act 🧵” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 9/3/25]
Murphy On The IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program: “The Democrats’ Socialist Drug Pricing Scheme Would Stifle Innovation And Hurt Patient Care.” Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “The Democrats’ Socialist drug pricing scheme would stifle innovation and hurt patient care. As a physician, I will oppose any effort to deprive Americans of live-saving cures.” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 8/3/22]
¶ Murphy Introduced Legislation To Reform The IRA’s Price Negotiation Program, Which He Claimed “Stifled” Drug Research And Development
2/21/25: Murphy Introduced The “Ensuring Pathways To Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act,” Which Sought To Reform The IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program. Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “Small molecule drugs, more commonly known as pills, play an essential role in treating Americans battling severe illnesses. Unfortunately, the IRA's price-fixing scheme stifles R&D, reducing treatment options for patients. I am proud to introduce the EPIC Act to fight for patients waiting for a cure.” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 2/25/25]
- Murphy Claimed The IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program Was “Harmful” And “Stifled Vaccine Development.” Rep. Greg Murphy tweeted, “The IRA has stifled vaccine development for innovators like @GSK . Congress must reverse its harmful price-fixing schemes through common-sense legislation, like my EPIC Act, so our nation can continue leading the world in life-saving vaccines, medicines, and research.” [Twitter, @RepGregMurphy, 5/21/25]
¶ The IRA Capped Prescription Drug Costs Under Medicare, Which Benefited More Than 300,000 North Carolinians
¶ The IRA’s Prescription Drug Negotiation Program Required Drug Companies To Pay A Rebate If They Raised The Price Of Their Drugs Faster Than The Rate Of Inflation
The Inflation Reduction Act Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Prices For Certain Prescription Drugs. According to the KFF, "Under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is required to negotiate prices with drug companies for certain high-cost drugs covered under Medicare. This requirement, a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), was the culmination of years of debate among lawmakers over whether to grant the federal government the authority to negotiate drug prices in Medicare." [KFF, 3/11/26]
- The Inflation Reduction Act Required Drug Companies To Pay A Rebate To Medicare If They Raised Prices Faster Than The Rate Of Inflation. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has begun implementing the Medicare drug price negotiation program (negotiation program) and Medicare prescription drug inflation rebate program (inflation rebate program), as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) requires. The negotiation program requires CMS to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs. The inflation rebate program requires drug manufacturers to pay CMS a rebate if the prices of certain Medicare-covered drugs increase faster than the rate of inflation." [U.S. Government Accountability Office, 4/28/25]
March 2026: The Centers For Medicare And Medicaid Services Estimated That Drug Price Negotiating For Part D Drugs Has Saved Medicare Several Billions Of Dollars. According to KFF, “Total Medicare spending on the 40 drug products that have been selected for negotiation to date accounted for more than one-third (36%) of total Medicare spending on all drugs covered under Part B and Part D in 2024, or $125 billion out of $350 billion (not accounting for rebates in Part D and excluding spending on Part B drugs under Medicare Advantage since data are unavailable). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has estimated several billion dollars in net savings to Medicare for round one and round two Part D drugs based on Medicare’s negotiated prices relative to existing net prices paid by Part D plans.” [KFF, 3/11/26]
¶ The IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program Was Set To Save Over 660,000 North Carolina Seniors $406 Per Year On Prescription Drugs
The IRA Was Set To Save An Estimated 662,600 North Carolinian Seniors $406 Per Year by Capping Our-Of-Pocket Prescription Drug Costs. According to Cardinal & Pine, “For example, beginning last year, all vaccines covered under Medicare Part D are free, and the bill implemented a $35 monthly cap on insulin for Medicare recipients. As a result, nearly 57,000 North Carolina seniors on Medicare who use insulin are now charged no more than $35 per month for an insulin prescription. The IRA will also implement a $2,000 cap on Medicare recipients’ annual out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, beginning in 2025. In North Carolina, an estimated 662,600 seniors are expected to save $406 a year each due to this provision, according to an analysis by the US Department of Health and Human Services.” [Cardinal & Pine, 8/16/24]
More Than 300,000 North Carolinians Were Prescribed Drugs Selected For Price Negotiation Under The Inflation Reduction Act. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
[U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Lowering Prescription Drug Costs For North Carolina, Viewed 4/29/26]
¶ 2019: Murphy voted against allowing medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs
2019: Murphy Voted Against The House Drug Price Negotiation Bill For Medicare Programs. In December 2019, Murphy voted against a motion that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “allow the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate prices for certain drugs under Medicare programs and would make a number of modifications to Medicare programs related to drug costs and plan benefits.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230-192. [House Vote 682, 12/12/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.3]
- The Bill Allowed HHS To Negotiate The Prices Of Prescription Drugs Covered By Medicare And Penalize Companies That Don’t Comply. According to Vox, “Under current law, the Health and Human Services secretary is barred from engaging in negotiations for prescription drugs covered by Medicare […] The final bill enables the HHS secretary to negotiate the prices of as many as 250 drugs annually. Additionally, it would penalize companies that do not negotiate with HHS with a fine starting at 65 percent of a drug’s gross sales from the prior year. For every quarter that the company does not engage, the penalty goes up by 10 percentage points, until it hits 95 percent of a drug’s gross sales.” [Vox, 12/12/19]
- The Bill Required Drugmakers To Issue Rebates To The Treasury If They Raised The Prices For Medicare Drugs Faster Than The Rate Of Inflation. According to Vox, “The proposal would also address pricing hikes that have been applied to different drugs covered by Medicare Parts B and D, requiring companies to either undo any increases that surpass the rate of inflation, or rebate the entirety of those hikes since 2016 to the Treasury. An amendment from Jayapal would also make sure that people covered by private plans could obtain rebates as well. Additionally, the bill would cap out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for those covered by Medicare Part D to $2,000 annually. Currently, there is no cap.” [Vox, 12/12/19]
¶ Murphy, a doctor, also voted against capping the cost of insulin
2022: Murphy Voted Against The Affordable Insulin Now Act, Which Required Private Insurances And Medicare To Cover Certain Insulin Products, Prohibit Deductibles For Insulin, And Cap Cost-Sharing For Such Insulin Products Beginning In 2023. In March 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Murphy voted against the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would “require private health insurance and Medicare to cover certain insulin products and limit cost-sharing requirements for such products for plans beginning in 2023. Specifically, it would require private insurance plans to cover at least one of each dosage form of each type of insulin, such as short-acting, long-acting and premixed insulin; prohibit the plans from applying a deductible for the insulin products; and cap cost-sharing for the insulin products at the lesser of $35 or 25 percent of the plan's negotiated price for the product per 30-day supply. For Medicare plans, it would similarly prohibit the application of a deductible for covered insulin products and cap copayments at $35 per 30-day supply.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 232-193, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The bill was passed by the Senate and both chambers are resolving differences. The bill was turned into the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 and that version ultimately became law. [House Vote 102, 3/31/22; Congressional Quarterly, 3/31/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6833]
- The Measure Would Cap Insulin Costs At Either $35 Per Month Or 25% Of A Health Insurance Plan’s Negotiated Costs Beginning In 2023. According to NPR, “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.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
- According To The Health Care Cost Institute, Insulin Prices Doubled Between 2012 And 2016. According to NPR, “Advocates of the legislation point to data from the Health Care Cost Institute, an independent nonprofit that studies health care prices, which shows prices for insulin doubled between 2012 and 2016.” [NPR, 3/31/22]