Highlights:
Mace Said Raising The Retirement Age For Social Security Benefits “Should Be On The Table.” According to CNN, “Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina said Sunday that raising the retirement age for future Social Security beneficiaries should be ‘on the table’ as long as it doesn’t affect ‘anybody that’s heading into retirement right now.’ ‘I think that’s something that has to be on the table, we have to look at,’ Mace told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on ‘State of the Union’ when asked about Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s call for a higher retirement age for Americans who are now in their 20s. ‘I’m 45 years old. I’m assuming that Social Security will be insolvent, that I won’t have retirement funds from what I put into in my adult life, my working life,’ Mace said. ‘We do have to look at Social Security. We have got to look at our spending in this country, mandatory and discretionary.’ But, the South Carolina Republican said, ‘We do not want to take away (from) those that are in retirement or those that are heading into retirement.’ ‘If we’re talking about younger generations, my kids, for example, if they know what the – what the retirement will look like 40 years from now, 50 years from now, then that should be on the table, and can be,’ she said.” [CNN, 3/12/23]
Mace Said She Supported Increasing The Retirement Age. According to the Charleston County Republican Party Congressional Debate via YouTube, “MACE: I believe that people who are, who have Social Security now or are getting ready to retire, nothing should change. But for those of us that are my generation or maybe the millennials behind me, there should be gradual increases in age over the decades to come in order to address Social Security. I think you have to gradually have to increase it over time, the age.” [Charleston County Republican Party – 1st Congressional District Debate via YouTube, 5/26/20]
Mace Said She Supported Privatizing Medicare, Medicaid, And Social Security, Calling It “A Lot Better Option For All Of Us Going Forward.” According to the Charleston County Republican Party Congressional Debate via YouTube, “MACE: But the biggest issue that I see with Social Security, with health care, Medicare, Medicaid – is that we need to look at really privatizing a lot of these retirement systems. It’s your money and being able to have private savings account and other methods to prepare for retirement – 401(k)s, be able to put more away – and privatize it would be a lot better option for all of us going forward.” [Charleston County Republican Party – 1st Congressional District Debate via YouTube, 5/26/20]
2022: Mace Voted Against The Inflation Reduction Act. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 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]
The Inflation Reduction Act Fulfilled Democrats’ Promise To Lower Prescription Drug Costs For Seniors. According to the Washington Post, “The proposal also would make good on Democrats’ years-old pledge to reduce prescription drug costs for the elderly.” [Washington Post, 8/7/22]
The Bill’s Provisions Reforming Prescription Drug Pricing Included An Authorization For The Federal Government To Negotiate Prescription Prices For A Small List Of Medicines Starting In 2026. According to the Washington Post, “The prescription drug pricing reforms aim to help cut costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. It caps their out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 annually, while allowing the U.S. government to negotiate the price of a small set of medicines beginning in 2026.” [Washington Post, 8/7/22]
The Prescription Drug Pricing Reforms Would Save Seniors Money And Save The Federal Government Billions Over The Next 10 Years. According to the Washington Post, “The landmark proposal is expected to save elderly Americans money and achieve billions in savings for Washington over the next decade.” [Washington Post, 8/7/22]
The Bill’s Fair Negotiation Provision Would Take Effect Only For 10 Drugs Covered Under Medicare By 2026 And Will Increase To 20 Prescriptions In 2029. According to NPR, “The bill includes a historic measure that allows the federal health secretary to negotiate the prices of certain expensive drugs each year for Medicare. But this won’t impact every prescription drug or every patient, and it won’t take effect quickly. The negotiations will take effect for 10 drugs covered by Medicare in 2026, increasing to 20 drugs in 2029.” [NPR, 8/7/22]
The Bill’s Provisions Reforming Prescription Drug Pricing Included A Cap On Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Seniors Enrolled In Medicare At $2,000 Annually. According to the Washington Post, “The prescription drug pricing reforms aim to help cut costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. It caps their out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 annually, while allowing the U.S. government to negotiate the price of a small set of medicines beginning in 2026.” [Washington Post, 8/7/22]
The Cap For Out-Of-Pocket Prescription Costs For Medicare Recipients Would Go Into Effect In 2025. According to NPR, “The bill puts a cap of $2,000 on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for people on Medicare, effective in 2025.” [NPR, 8/7/22]
The Bill Also Directed The Medicare Program To Offer Free Vaccines To Patients. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Additionally, the bill would cap annual out-of-pocket costs for Part D patients at $2,000, and offer free vaccines to seniors in the Medicare program.” [Congressional Quarterly, 8/7/22]
The Inflation Reduction Act Required Pharmaceutical Companies To Pay Rebates To Health And Human Services If They Increase The Medicare Drug Prices Greater Than Inflation. According to the Washington Post, “Pharmaceutical giants, which forcefully opposed the bill, also would be required to pay ‘rebates’ to the federal government if they raise Medicare drug prices beyond the rate of inflation.” [Washington Post, 8/7/22]
2022: Mace Voted Against Capping Insulin Covered Under Medicare At $35 Per Month. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which would “cap cost-sharing for insulin products covered under Medicare at $35 a month.” 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]
2022: Mace 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, Mace 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]
2021: Mace Voted Against Delaying Spending Cuts To Medicare And Other Programs Subject To Sequestration That Would Be Set Off In January 2022. In December 2021, Mace voted against the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require budget year debit for 2022 to be rolled over to the 2033 scorecards under statutory pay-as-you-go requirements, thus delaying spending cuts to Medicare and other mandatory programs subject to sequestration that would otherwise be triggered in January.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 222-212, sent to the Senate and President, and ultimately became law. [House Vote 404, 12/7/21; Congressional Quarterly, 12/7/21; Congressional Actions, S. 610]
2022: Mace Voted Against Increasing Funding Available For The Medicare Improvement Fund To Approximately $9 Billion. In March 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mace voted against the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would “increase funding available for the Medicare Improvement Fund from $5 million to approximately $9 billion. As an offset, it would delay for an additional year, through Jan. 1, 2027, implementation of a November 2020 rule ending a safe harbor provision that protects pharmacy benefit managers from federal anti-kickback laws for prescription drug rebates provided to health insurers under Medicare Part D.” 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 Medicare Improvement Fund Was Formed To Improve The Original Medicare Program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “The purpose of the Medicare Improvement Fund is to generally improve the original Medicare program (the parts that provide hospital and medical insurance, commonly known as Parts A and B), in ways that may include adjusting the amounts that Medicare pays to health care providers and suppliers.” [Congressional Budget Office, 4/27/23]