How Medicare Drug Price Negotiations Work and What It Means for Your Prescription Costs

alt
How Medicare Drug Price Negotiations Work and What It Means for Your Prescription Costs
13 Comments

For years, Medicare couldn’t negotiate drug prices at all. That changed in 2022, when the Inflation Reduction Act gave the government the power to step in and cut prices for the most expensive single-source medications. Starting January 1, 2026, the first 10 drugs - including blood thinners like Eliquis and diabetes meds like Jardiance - will see price drops of 38% to 79% compared to what they cost in 2022. This isn’t a small tweak. It’s the biggest shift in how Medicare pays for drugs since Part D launched in 2006.

What Exactly Is Being Negotiated?

The new program doesn’t touch every drug. Only ones that meet three strict rules: they’re single-source (no generics or biosimilars), they cost Medicare more than $100 million a year, and they’ve been on the market for at least 7 years (or 11 for biologics). That means newer, high-cost drugs like those for rare diseases won’t be touched yet. But the big ones - the ones millions of seniors rely on - are now fair game.

CMS, the agency that runs Medicare, picks the drugs each year. In 2026, it’s 10 drugs. In 2027, it jumps to 15. By 2029, it’s 20 drugs annually. Each one has to be a top spender. Eliquis alone cost Medicare $6.3 billion in 2022. That’s why it was first on the list.

The goal isn’t to make drugs cheap. It’s to make them fair. Before this law, Medicare paid whatever drugmakers asked. Private insurers got discounts through rebates, but Medicare didn’t. Now, CMS sets a “Maximum Fair Price” - a number based on what the drug actually sells for in the market, after rebates, and how much it costs compared to similar treatments. If the manufacturer doesn’t agree, they can walk away - but then Medicare won’t cover their drug at all.

How the Negotiation Process Actually Works

It’s not a back-and-forth over coffee. It’s a tightly timed, legally defined process.

On February 1, 2024, CMS sent its first offer to each of the 10 drugmakers. That offer wasn’t random. It was built using real data: how many people use the drug, what alternatives exist, how much it costs in other countries, and how much Medicare spent on it last year. Manufacturers had exactly 30 days to respond with a counteroffer.

Then came three formal negotiation meetings - held between April and July 2024. CMS didn’t budge wildly. They stuck to their numbers, but they listened. Five of the 10 companies agreed during these meetings. The other five submitted final written offers by August 1, 2024. No more back-and-forth. No extensions. Deadline was absolute.

The final prices? They’re not just lower. They’re capped. The new price can’t be higher than either:

  • The average price Medicare paid last year, after all rebates and discounts, or
  • A percentage of the drug’s average price to hospitals and pharmacies (called non-FAMP), adjusted for inflation.

That’s why discounts ranged from 38% to 79%. For some drugs, the old price was wildly inflated. For others, it was closer to fair. The system forces manufacturers to justify their pricing - or lose access to 65 million Medicare beneficiaries.

What This Means for You as a Beneficiary

If you’re on Medicare and take one of these 10 drugs, you’ll see lower out-of-pocket costs starting January 1, 2026. But it’s not automatic.

First, your Part D plan must update its formulary by October 15, 2025. If your drug is on the list, your plan will replace the old price with the new, lower one. You won’t get a letter saying, “Your insulin is now cheaper.” But your co-pay will drop. For some, that could mean saving $200 to $600 a year.

People in the “donut hole” - the coverage gap where you pay 25% of the drug’s cost - will benefit the most. Before, they paid the full list price. Now, they pay the new, negotiated price. That’s a huge win.

Those in the catastrophic phase - where you pay 5% or a small copay - might not see as big a change. But even small savings add up over time. And if you take more than one of these drugs? The savings stack.

A pharmacist giving a lower-priced pill bottle to an elderly person as a price chart drops from 0 to 0.

What About Private Insurance?

You might wonder: “Does this affect me if I’m not on Medicare?”

Yes, it does - indirectly.

Drugmakers don’t want to charge Medicare one price and private insurers another. That’s messy and risky. So, many companies are already lowering prices for commercial plans to match the Medicare rate. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association estimates private insurers could save $200-250 billion over 10 years because of this.

It’s called the “spillover effect.” When the biggest buyer in the country - Medicare - gets a better deal, everyone else gets pulled down with it. That’s why pharmacies and insurers are already updating their pricing systems ahead of 2026.

Why Some Companies Are Fighting Back

Not everyone’s happy. Four of the 10 drugmakers sued the government, claiming the negotiation process violates the Constitution. They argued the government is “taking” their property without fair compensation.

On August 2, 2024, a federal judge dismissed all four lawsuits. The ruling said Congress has the right to set drug prices for public programs. The companies are appealing. But even if they win on appeal, the new prices still take effect January 1, 2026 - unless a higher court blocks it.

Meanwhile, PhRMA, the drug industry’s main lobby, claims the program will hurt innovation. They say drugmakers will cut R&D spending because profits will drop. But the Office of Management and Budget says those claims are exaggerated. Real-world data from the VA - which has negotiated prices for decades - shows innovation didn’t slow down. In fact, the VA gets the same new drugs as private insurers, just at lower prices.

A line of dominoes falling, each labeled with the impact of Medicare drug price negotiations on patients and insurers.

What’s Coming Next

The 2027 list of 15 drugs was announced in January 2024. That includes Farxiga, Stelara, and others used for arthritis, heart failure, and autoimmune diseases. Negotiations for those will end in November 2025, with prices taking effect January 1, 2027.

By 2028, the program expands to Part B drugs - the ones you get in a doctor’s office, like infusions and injections. That’s a bigger challenge. Doctors get paid a percentage of the drug’s cost. If the drug price drops, so does their reimbursement. That’s why the American Medical Association is pushing for adjustments to how doctors are paid under the new system.

There’s also talk of lowering the eligibility window. Right now, a drug must be 7 years old. Some lawmakers want to cut that to 5 years. That would open up dozens more high-cost drugs to negotiation sooner.

What You Should Do Now

If you take a high-cost medication:

  • Check if it’s on the 2026 list: Eliquis, Jardiance, Xarelto, Farxiga, Metformin, Synthroid, Lantus, Humira, Enbrel, and Repatha.
  • Call your pharmacy or Part D plan after October 1, 2025, and ask if your drug’s price has been updated.
  • Don’t assume your co-pay won’t change. Even if your plan says “no change,” the negotiated price might lower it anyway.
  • If you’re on a high-deductible plan, those savings could mean the difference between affording your meds or skipping doses.

And if you’re not on Medicare yet? This sets a precedent. If the government can negotiate prices for seniors, why not for everyone? That’s the next conversation - and it’s already starting.

Will my Medicare Part D premiums go down because of drug price negotiations?

Not directly. Premiums are set by your plan and based on overall costs, not just drug prices. But lower drug spending means plans may raise premiums more slowly in future years. The biggest immediate benefit is lower out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy, not lower monthly premiums.

Can I get these lower prices before January 1, 2026?

No. The negotiated prices only take effect on January 1, 2026. Any pharmacy or insurer offering a discount before then is likely running a separate promotion, not the official Medicare price. Don’t trust unofficial claims - wait for your plan’s official notice.

What if my drug is not on the list but still costs too much?

You can ask your plan for a formulary exception. If your doctor says a non-negotiated drug is medically necessary, your plan must review it. You can also look into patient assistance programs from drugmakers or nonprofit organizations like NeedyMeds. Some states also have prescription assistance programs.

Will this affect my access to my current medication?

No. The law requires Medicare to continue covering all drugs on the list - just at a lower price. Your plan can’t drop your drug just because the price changed. If your plan tries to replace your drug with a cheaper alternative without your doctor’s approval, you can file an appeal.

Are biosimilars affected by this program?

Not directly. The program only applies to drugs with no generic or biosimilar competition. But biosimilars are growing. As more of them enter the market, fewer drugs will be eligible for negotiation - which is why the government is also encouraging biosimilar use. If a biosimilar exists, the original drug won’t be selected for negotiation.

13 Comments

Aliza Efraimov
Aliza Efraimov
December 28, 2025 AT 21:45

This is HUGE. I’ve been paying $500 a month for Eliquis and I cried when I read this. My grandma’s on Jardiance too-she’s been skipping doses to make it last. This isn’t just policy, it’s life-saving. Thank you, Congress, for finally listening.

I’m not political, but I’m telling everyone I know: vote for people who support this.

Nisha Marwaha
Nisha Marwaha
December 29, 2025 AT 04:25

The structural arbitrage embedded in the Maximum Fair Price (MFP) algorithm leverages non-FAMP benchmarks and rebated utilization data to recalibrate price elasticity curves for single-source biologics. This is a paradigm shift in risk-adjusted reimbursement architecture, effectively internalizing the externalities of monopoly pricing within the Medicare Part D benefit design.

Notably, the 7-year exclusivity threshold aligns with the average lifecycle of patent protection in the U.S., creating a temporal equilibrium between innovation incentives and public cost containment.

Paige Shipe
Paige Shipe
December 30, 2025 AT 02:42

Let me be clear: this is socialism. The government has no right to tell private companies what to charge. These are brilliant scientists who spent billions developing these drugs. Now they’re being punished for success. And you wonder why innovation is slowing down?

Next they’ll be telling you how much to pay for your Tesla. Or your iPhone. Or your coffee. It’s a slippery slope, folks. And it’s already here.

Tamar Dunlop
Tamar Dunlop
December 31, 2025 AT 19:03

As a Canadian who has witnessed our pharmacare system in action for over two decades, I can say with absolute certainty that this move is not only just, but long overdue. In Canada, we negotiate drug prices at the federal level-and we have access to the same medications, at a fraction of the cost, without any erosion of innovation.

It is not a question of whether we can afford to negotiate-it is a question of whether we can afford not to. The moral imperative here transcends politics. It is a matter of human dignity.

David Chase
David Chase
January 1, 2026 AT 13:20

THEY DID IT!!! 💥🔥🇺🇸 This is the most American thing to happen since the moon landing. Big Pharma has been laughing at us for 20 years-charging $1,000 for a pill that costs $3 to make. Now? They’re getting their butts kicked by the people’s government. 🎉

Let the lawsuits fly-I don’t care. 65 million seniors just got their power back. Who’s with me? #MedicareWins #DrugPriceJustice

Manan Pandya
Manan Pandya
January 1, 2026 AT 23:03

One point often overlooked: the negotiation process includes a transparency requirement where manufacturers must disclose their R&D and manufacturing cost structures. This is not price-fixing-it’s market correction based on empirical data. The VA has been doing this since the 1970s, and their drug pipeline remains robust.

Also, the 7-year eligibility window is actually conservative. Many drugs are profitable for far longer than that. This is a measured, evidence-based approach.

Joe Kwon
Joe Kwon
January 2, 2026 AT 09:27

I used to be skeptical-thought it was government overreach. But after seeing my mom’s out-of-pocket drop from $420 to $89 for her diabetes med? I’m all in.

Big Pharma’s lobbying money is scary, but this proves democracy still works when enough people care. Let’s keep pushing for this to expand to private insurance next. We’re not done yet.

Nicole K.
Nicole K.
January 3, 2026 AT 02:51

You people are so naive. These companies are evil. They’re making billions while old people choose between insulin and groceries. If you’re not outraged, you’re part of the problem. Stop being polite and start yelling at your reps. This isn’t a debate-it’s a moral emergency.

Fabian Riewe
Fabian Riewe
January 4, 2026 AT 10:07

Man, I didn’t think I’d live to see this. I’ve been on Metformin since 2018 and always assumed the price was just how it was.

Now I’m telling my friends who are still paying $300/month for insulin: hang tight. January 2026 is coming. And it’s gonna feel like Christmas.

Also, if you’re on Medicare, check your plan’s formulary update in October. Don’t wait for them to tell you-ask.

Amy Cannon
Amy Cannon
January 6, 2026 AT 05:59

It is, indeed, a most remarkable development in the realm of pharmaceutical policy, one which may, in due course, be regarded as a watershed moment in the evolution of public health infrastructure within the United States.

One must consider, however, the potential for unintended consequences-particularly in the realm of supply chain logistics and formulary management-when such sweeping price adjustments are implemented simultaneously across multiple therapeutic classes.

Moreover, the administrative burden placed upon Part D sponsors to reconfigure pricing algorithms and update formularies by October 15, 2025, may prove to be a formidable challenge, especially for smaller, regional plans with limited IT resources.

Nevertheless, the ethical imperative to ensure equitable access to essential therapeutics cannot be overstated, and thus, the benefits, I believe, substantially outweigh the logistical complexities.

Himanshu Singh
Himanshu Singh
January 8, 2026 AT 01:15

OMG this is so cool! I didn't even know this was happening! My dad takes Humira and he's been stressing about the cost. This is gonna change his life. Thank you to whoever made this happen!! 🙏❤️

Jasmine Yule
Jasmine Yule
January 9, 2026 AT 00:21

I’m so proud of this country right now. We finally did something right for the people who need it most.

To the companies suing: you’re not being robbed-you’re being held accountable. You had 20 years to make a profit. Now it’s time to share.

If you think this hurts innovation, look at the VA. They’ve been doing this for decades. They get the same drugs. Same quality. Just not the same price gouging.

And yes-I’m still mad you made us wait this long.

Greg Quinn
Greg Quinn
January 10, 2026 AT 14:01

This moment reflects a quiet revolution in the social contract between the state and its citizens. For decades, the market was allowed to operate as if health were a commodity rather than a right. The negotiation framework doesn’t merely adjust prices-it redefines value.

What is the true cost of a drug? Is it the R&D? The patent? Or the life it saves? The answer, finally, is being written in dollars-and it’s no longer dictated by shareholders.

Perhaps this is the beginning of a new era: one where medicine is measured not by profit margins, but by human outcomes.

Write a comment