Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

Where is it increasing taxes?

Mainly the corporate alternative minimum tax at 15%.

And I pay that how? (yes they could pass it on to consumers, but given the BILLIONS most of the affected corporations are taking in each quarter, they can afford to pay something to maintain the infrastructure, education etc they benefit from) And...this is an international standard now, not just the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

I agree that this could end up being very bad for Democrats. The bill should have been called something else. First saying the Covid payments wouldn’t cause inflation, and they did. Then saying this bill will stop inflation, and it won’t. Average Americans aren’t going to trust Democrats with the economy for decades after this.

If the Government spending caused inflation, then why is inflation so much worse in other G7/G20 countries?

First, I don’t believe it is.

Second, we’re the strongest economy in the world and we should have been able to weather this storm much better than other countries. Especially when we saw it coming and our own advisors were warning us that our actions were going to have consequences.

You not believing it doesn't make it so.

And thus, the follow on...our economy IS weathering it much better than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

Where is it increasing taxes?

Mainly the corporate alternative minimum tax at 15%.

Why is that bad?

Gee I don’t know, maybe because those companies are going to pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices which will lead to sustained inflationary pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

Where is it increasing taxes?

Mainly the corporate alternative minimum tax at 15%.

Why is that bad?

Gee I don’t know, maybe because those companies are going to pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices which will lead to sustained inflationary pressure.

So you think we should eliminate all corporate taxes and increase individuals taxes instead?

It's a global minimum tax that is still below the corporate tax rate. It's nothing but a limit on how much depreciation and carry forward losses can be claimed each year. Such limitations are already imposed on individuals by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

Where is it increasing taxes?

Mainly the corporate alternative minimum tax at 15%.

Why is that bad?

Gee I don’t know, maybe because those companies are going to pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices which will lead to sustained inflationary pressure.

So you think we should eliminate all corporate taxes and increase individuals taxes instead?

It's a global minimum tax that is still below the corporate tax rate. It's nothing but a limit on how much depreciation and carry forward losses can be claimed each year. Such limitations are already imposed on individuals by the way.

I think the vast majority of economists would tell you that raining taxes in an inflationary economy is not terribly smart. I'm fairly sure you could sort that out on your own.

[Anonymous]

If it was impacting the bottom line, it would be one thing, but these companies have been soaking record profits this year and the last decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it was impacting the bottom line, it would be one thing, but these companies have been soaking record profits this year and the last decades.

Who are “these companies”? That’s the way a child might assess corporate profitability but regardless of past performance we can expect a significant drop in profitability in the coming years and yes those increased taxes will reliably passed on to you and me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

Where is it increasing taxes?

Mainly the corporate alternative minimum tax at 15%.

Why is that bad?

Gee I don’t know, maybe because those companies are going to pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices which will lead to sustained inflationary pressure.

So you think we should eliminate all corporate taxes and increase individuals taxes instead?

It's a global minimum tax that is still below the corporate tax rate. It's nothing but a limit on how much depreciation and carry forward losses can be claimed each year. Such limitations are already imposed on individuals by the way.

I think the vast majority of economists would tell you that raining taxes in an inflationary economy is not terribly smart. I'm fairly sure you could sort that out on your own.

You'd be wrong. Raising taxes is deflationary. Cutting taxes is inflationary.

It also doesn't raise taxes. The corporate tax rate is still 20%. What it does is limit the amount of accounting gimmicks that can be utilized each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was impacting the bottom line, it would be one thing, but these companies have been soaking record profits this year and the last decades.

Who are “these companies”? That’s the way a child might assess corporate profitability but regardless of past performance we can expect a significant drop in profitability in the coming years and yes those increased taxes will reliably passed on to you and me.

In this case it primarily impacts Amazon which is mostly a platform for third party sellers. This would have no impact on those third party sellers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was impacting the bottom line, it would be one thing, but these companies have been soaking record profits this year and the last decades.

Who are “these companies”? That’s the way a child might assess corporate profitability but regardless of past performance we can expect a significant drop in profitability in the coming years and yes those increased taxes will reliably passed on to you and me.

So, the companies will charge you more, yet they will lose money. That... doesn't add up.

[Anonymous]

Over 230 economists have written a letter to sound the alarm.

Dear Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader McCarthy,

The U.S. economy is at a dangerous crossroads. Forty-year high inflation is causing immense strain for households and small businesses, and it is prompting steep interest rate hikes that, while necessary to counter fiscal policy excesses, increase the chance of a deepening recession.

As such, taming inflation must be the top short-term economic priority to avoid further economic decline and hardship. Unfortunately, the inaptly named “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” would do nothing to the sort and instead would perpetuate the same fiscal policy errors that have helped precipitate the current troubling economic climate.

At a time when the economy already faces supply/demand imbalances, the residual effects of stimulus, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions, this bill would compound rather than alleviate many of these problems.

In particular, its $433 billion in proposed government spending would create immediate inflation pressures by boosting demand, which the supply-side tax hikes would constrain supply by discouraging investment draining the private sector of much-need resources.

Of particular concern, the corporate minimum tax would fall heavily on capital-intensive manufacturing, thereby undercutting efforts to shore up the resilience of America’s supply chains.

In addition, the prescription drug provisions would impose price controls that threaten healthcare innovation, creating a human health toll that would add to the financial woes that Americans are already experiencing. Even the one superficially appealing aspect of the bill–deficit reduction–is likely to prove illusory due to implausible spending phaseouts.

In summary we agree with the urgent need to reduce inflation, but the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” is a misleading label applied to a bill that would likely achieve the exact opposite effect.

https://www.masterresource.org/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/economists-letter-inflation-reduction-act-2022/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over 230 economists have written a letter to sound the alarm.

Dear Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader McCarthy,

The U.S. economy is at a dangerous crossroads. Forty-year high inflation is causing immense strain for households and small businesses, and it is prompting steep interest rate hikes that, while necessary to counter fiscal policy excesses, increase the chance of a deepening recession.

As such, taming inflation must be the top short-term economic priority to avoid further economic decline and hardship. Unfortunately, the inaptly named “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” would do nothing to the sort and instead would perpetuate the same fiscal policy errors that have helped precipitate the current troubling economic climate.

At a time when the economy already faces supply/demand imbalances, the residual effects of stimulus, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions, this bill would compound rather than alleviate many of these problems.

In particular, its $433 billion in proposed government spending would create immediate inflation pressures by boosting demand, which the supply-side tax hikes would constrain supply by discouraging investment draining the private sector of much-need resources.

Of particular concern, the corporate minimum tax would fall heavily on capital-intensive manufacturing, thereby undercutting efforts to shore up the resilience of America’s supply chains.

In addition, the prescription drug provisions would impose price controls that threaten healthcare innovation, creating a human health toll that would add to the financial woes that Americans are already experiencing. Even the one superficially appealing aspect of the bill–deficit reduction–is likely to prove illusory due to implausible spending phaseouts.

In summary we agree with the urgent need to reduce inflation, but the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” is a misleading label applied to a bill that would likely achieve the exact opposite effect.

https://www.masterresource.org/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/economists-letter-inflation-reduction-act-2022/

Yes , and not just any economists. Look at the list of the signers. Wow. Schumer is an idiot to say he knows more than they do about economics. This bill is just BS. It’s a climate bill to please AOC and a bill to hire 60k more IRS agents and a tax increase. It’s total BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus of the bill is reducing RX costs, investing in the green economy and beefing up the IRS.

It is a win all around, no matter how much the GOP wants to balk.

A vote against it write their own ads: Sen XX voted against cheap insulin.

Hmmm.... the pharmaceutical provisions in this bill will not occur anytime in the immediate future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2022/08/02/critics-decry-drug-pricing-provisions-in-inflation-reduction-act-say-they-will-stifle-innovation/?sh=42ac3805222d

As for the specific drug pricing provisions, a small number of single-source branded pharmaceuticals - 10 Part D drugs in 2026; 15 Part D drugs in 2027; 15 Part B and Part D drugs in 2028; and 20 Part B and Part D drugs in 2029 and later years - would be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest aggregate Medicare Part D spending, and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B expenditures.

The legislation exempts from negotiation drugs which are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for large-molecule biologics) from their FDA-approval date. What’s important to add is that the selected drugs would have to lack generic or biosimilar competitors. And, orphan drugs would not be subject to Medicare negotiations.

Medicare would establish so-called maximum “fair prices” for the selected drugs. Here, the amount of a minimum discount off of the average manufacturer’s price is based on how long the drug has been on the market. For drugs marketed more than 9 years, a minimum 25% discount is required; greater than 12 years, 35%; and greater than 16 years, 60%. The discounts negotiated could be higher. This would depend on a number of factors, including clinical effectiveness indicators which drug manufacturers may explicitly call attention to in the negotiation process to mitigate the discounts.

As readers reflect on the possible long-term implications of the bill, it’s vital that they are cognizant of the limited scope of the Medicare price negotiations (often called “price controls”), especially those placed on non-insulin products. First, the price setting of new drugs would not be affected by the legislation, except indirectly through the shifting of cost management in the Part D benefit. Where in the current situation branded drug manufacturers are responsible for 70% of costs in the coverage gap phase, that would change to 10% in the initial coverage phase and 20% in the catastrophic phase.

Second, besides insulin, there aren’t many drugs that would even qualify to be selected for negotiation. Frankly, it’s probably going to be difficult to find 20 eligible drugs in, say, 2028. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) carried out a simulation of how drug price negotiations would work in practice. In the hypothetical scenario - as stipulated in the House bill which passed in 2021 - the study found that at most 20 non-insulin drugs and biologics (18 Part D and two Part B products) would qualify to be possibly selected for Medicare negotiations in 2022.

That is because it takes time to get computer systems, codes and rules aligned.

Did you think the new pricing would be in effect by Labor Day?

4+ years.
I do think the Dems are overselling this. It will not lower inflation, it will increase taxes, and the so-called "benefits" will not be realized for years, if at all.

Where is it increasing taxes?

Mainly the corporate alternative minimum tax at 15%.

Good. This 15% corporate tax needs to happen and is in line with what's going on with the rest of the world. A 15% corporate tax rate will help significantly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/07/01/130-countries-agree-to-biden-backed-15-global-minimum-tax/?sh=2fa78c945958

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over 230 economists have written a letter to sound the alarm.

Dear Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader McCarthy,

The U.S. economy is at a dangerous crossroads. Forty-year high inflation is causing immense strain for households and small businesses, and it is prompting steep interest rate hikes that, while necessary to counter fiscal policy excesses, increase the chance of a deepening recession.

As such, taming inflation must be the top short-term economic priority to avoid further economic decline and hardship. Unfortunately, the inaptly named “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” would do nothing to the sort and instead would perpetuate the same fiscal policy errors that have helped precipitate the current troubling economic climate.

At a time when the economy already faces supply/demand imbalances, the residual effects of stimulus, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions, this bill would compound rather than alleviate many of these problems.

In particular, its $433 billion in proposed government spending would create immediate inflation pressures by boosting demand, which the supply-side tax hikes would constrain supply by discouraging investment draining the private sector of much-need resources.

Of particular concern, the corporate minimum tax would fall heavily on capital-intensive manufacturing, thereby undercutting efforts to shore up the resilience of America’s supply chains.

In addition, the prescription drug provisions would impose price controls that threaten healthcare innovation, creating a human health toll that would add to the financial woes that Americans are already experiencing. Even the one superficially appealing aspect of the bill–deficit reduction–is likely to prove illusory due to implausible spending phaseouts.

In summary we agree with the urgent need to reduce inflation, but the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” is a misleading label applied to a bill that would likely achieve the exact opposite effect.

https://www.masterresource.org/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022/economists-letter-inflation-reduction-act-2022/

Yes , and not just any economists. Look at the list of the signers. Wow. Schumer is an idiot to say he knows more than they do about economics. This bill is just BS. It’s a climate bill to please AOC and a bill to hire 60k more IRS agents and a tax increase. It’s total BS.

Why is this a bad thing? Tax cheats are raping our treasury. Or do you like it when you illegally pay less in taxes?

[Anonymous]

NP

This isn’t going to work effectively when there are innumerable legal loopholes for a skilled accountant to exploit! Congress should have acted years ago on tax reform.