¶ Overview
- Wilson voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs and capping the cost of insulin. Over the course of his time in Congress, Wilson has accepted $161,643 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical/health products industry.
- In May and July 2025, Wilson voted for Republicans’ reconciliation bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would trigger more than $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.
- Wilson was a member of the Republican Study Committee, which staunchly advocated for raising the age at which seniors would be eligible to collect Social Security. The Committee claimed that 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 switching to a “premium support” healthcare system, which would raise health care costs for most beneficiaries.
¶ Wilson Voted Against Lowering Prescription Drug Costs For Seniors And Capping The Cost Of Insulin
2022: Wilson VOTED AGAINST THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, WHICH INCLUDED PROVISIONS TO NEGOTIATE DRUG PRICES AND CAP THE COST OF INSULIN
August 2022: Wilson Voted Against The Inflation Reduction Act. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Wilson voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, “comprising a package of climate, tax and health care provisions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
¶ During His Time In Congress, Wilson Has Accepted More Than $161,000 In Campaign Contributions From The Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry
2002-2024: Wilson Accepted $161,643 In Campaign Contributions From The Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry. According to Open Secrets, from 2002-2024, Rep. Joe Wilson’s campaign has received $161,643 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health products industry. [Open Secrets, Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Money to Congress, Viewed 6/22/26]
¶ The Inflation Reduction Act Lowered Prescription Drug Costs For South Carolina Seniors
The Inflation Reduction Act Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Prices For Certain Prescription Drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Negotiations are underway between HHS and the participating drug companies of the first 10 prescription drugs selected for negotiation in the first cycle of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. The first 10 drugs selected treat conditions such as blood clots, diabetes, heart disease, heart failure, autoimmune diseases, and chronic kidney disease." [U.S. Health and Human Services, Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022, Viewed 7/1/24]
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. Department of Health and Human Services, "Allowing Medicare to negotiate with participating drug companies to get lower drug prices for certain drugs covered under Medicare Beginning negotiations with the participating drug companies that manufacture all 10 drugs selected for the first cycle of negotiations" [U.S. Health and Human Services, Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022, Viewed 7/1/24]
The Inflation Reduction Act Capped Insulin Prices At $35 Per Monthly Prescription. According to Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation, “Effective January 1, 2023, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are capped at $35 per monthly prescription among Medicare Part D enrollees under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). A similar cap takes effect in Medicare Part B on July 1, 2023. An estimated 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who use insulin would have saved $734 million in Part D and $27 million in Part B if these caps had been in effect in 2020.” [Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation, 1/24/23]
- University Of Wisconsin-Madison School Of Public Health: “The Inflation Reduction Act $35 Cap On Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Insulin Led To Increases In The Total Number Of Filled Insulin Prescriptions For Medicare Beneficiaries.” According to University of Wisconsin-Madison School Of Public Health, “The Inflation Reduction Act $35 cap on out-of-pocket costs for insulin led to increases in the total number of filled insulin prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics.” [University of Wisconsin-Madison School Of Public Health, 7/24/23]
¶ The Inflation Reduction Act Benefited More Than 170,000 South Carolina Medicare Enrollees Who Took Prescription Drugs Selected For Price Negotiation
More Than 170,000 South Carolina Medicare Enrollees Took Prescription Drugs That Had Been Selected For Price Negotiation Made Possible By The Inflation Reduction Act.
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for South Carolina, Viewed 6/22/26]
¶ 2022: Wilson voted against capping the cost of insulin
2022: Wilson 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, Wilson 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]
¶ 2019: Wilson voted against allowing medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs
2019: Wilson Voted Against The House Drug Price Negotiation Bill For Medicare Programs. In December 2019, Wilson 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]
¶ 2025: Wilson Voted In Favor Of The House Republican budget Bill That Included Major Cuts To Medicare
July 2025: Wilson 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, Wilson 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]
May 2025: Wilson 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, Wilson 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]
- The 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]
¶ Wilson Applauded The Passage Of The Republican Budget Bill
July 2025: Wilson Praised The Passage Of The Republican Budget Bill And Claimed It Protected Medicare And Guarded Medicaid From “Waste, Fraud, And Abuse.” According to a press release from Rep. Joe Wilson, “Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) made the following statement upon the final Congressional passage of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill:’ ’Voters made their mandate clear in November for a Republican House and Senate to now deliver the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ to Republican President Donald Trump for his signature, making it law on behalf of the American people. ’Limited government prevails over big government. ’Passage of this single, comprehensive bill delivers on President Trump’s America First agenda by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful government spending, making government work more effectively for South Carolinians and all Americans. ’This bill provides a framework for Congress to secure the border, unleash American energy dominance, extend the Trump Tax Cuts, create jobs, and bring common sense back to the government. ’Medicare and Social Security will be protected, while Medicaid will be guarded against waste, fraud, and abuse, ensuring it is available to the most vulnerable Americans. ’Promises Made, Promises Kept.’” [Press Release – Rep. Joe Wilson, 7/3/25]
Wilson Claimed The American People Wanted Republicans To Pass The Republican Budget Bill And Supported The Bill’s Agenda. Rep. Joe Wilson tweeted, “I spoke on the House floor about how voters made their mandate clear in November for a Republican House and a Republican Senate to deliver the One Big Beautiful Bill to @POTUS behalf of American families. This law provides a framework to secure the border, unleash American energy dominance, extend the Trump tax cuts, create jobs, bring common sense to government, and more.”
[Twitter, @RepJoeWilson, 7/15/25]
¶ The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Trigger Nearly $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare
HEADLINE: "Trump And GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts To Medicare, CBO Says" [Washington Post, 5/21/25]
The 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]
¶ Wilson Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee, Which Advocated For Raising The Retirement Age And Reforming medicare
Wilson Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee Steering Committee. According to the Republican Study Committee website leadership page,
[Republican Leadership Committee Website via Wayback Machine, “Membership,” 1/24/25]
¶ The Republican Study Committee Advocated For Raising The Retirement Age
2020: 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]
2021: 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]
2022: 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]
2023: 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]
2024: 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 Center For American Progress Estimated That Raising The Retirement Age Would Cost Future Retirees Thousands In Benefits Every Year
According To The Center For American Progress, Raising The Retirement Age Would Cost The Median-Wage Retiree Thousands 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. 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]
The Republican Study Committee Budget Proposed Raising Health Care Costs For Seniors By Switching To A “Premium Support” System
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]
2024: 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]
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]