This week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the agency that oversees the Medicare program—announced that premiums for Medicare Part D, an optional benefit that provides prescription drug coverage, will be slightly lower for 2019. The average 2018 premium for basic coverage is $33.59, and the projected average for 2019 will be $32.50.

CMS suggests that increased competition and changes in cost sharing are the main reasons for the reduction. However, the drop may more likely reflect changes that Congress made earlier this year that shifted some of the costs for medications in the “donut hole”—a coverage gap in the program where costs for beneficiaries historically increased sharply—away from drug plans and onto manufacturers.

Last week, the Medicare Rights Center submitted comments on a Request for Information (RFI) from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This RFI asked for feedback on a host of potential changes that touted as ways to lower prescription drug costs for people with Medicare and Medicaid.

In May, the Trump Administration released a “blueprint” of various proposals in an attempt to bring down drug costs. Medicare Rights supports efforts to make prescription drugs more affordable. Many people with Medicare struggle to afford their medications, and Medicare affordability is one of the top issues on our national helpline every year. Something must be done to ensure the millions of people with Medicare have access to needed prescriptions.

To launch our new series, we begin with “Medicare: Strong and Built to Last.” This fact sheet gives some basic statistics about the Medicare program, including who uses it, why it’s important, and its financial footing.

In January, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved a Medicaid waiver in Kentucky that would allow the state to make participation in a work or “community engagement” program a condition for Medicaid eligibility. A group of advocates sued on behalf of Kentuckians who would be at risk of losing Medicaid coverage, and last month a federal judge put Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirement on hold. His decision called into question CMS’s attention to vital details about the Kentucky Medicaid waiver, including whether the waiver violates one of the primary purposes of the Medicaid statute—to provide health coverage.

This week, the Health Policy Consensus Group—a consortium of think tanks and former and current lawmakers—put forward a new plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would end Medicaid expansion and eliminate the ACA’s robust consumer protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, adults over 50, and women. If this sounds familiar, it should. Last year saw several plans to end the ACA’s Medicaid funding and consumer protections, often couched in language promising states more “flexibility.” These proposals would have caused millions of Americans to lose access to critical services, pay more for care, or even lose health coverage entirely.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked a federal court in Texas to end the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The underlying legal challenge was filed earlier this year by 20 state attorneys general, who argue that without the individual mandate—which was eliminated in December’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—the entire is ACA unconstitutional. In an unexpected move, the DOJ declined to defend the ACA in this case, and instead asked the court to invalidate only the law’s provisions that prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging higher rates based on health status.

Last week, the Medicare Rights Center submitted comments to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in response to a request for information on a potential new Medicare model. CMMI—an offshoot of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which is the agency that oversees the Medicare program—was created to develop and test new ideas in health care delivery. Most of these ideas involve different ways of paying providers such as doctors or hospitals.

In this request for information, CMMI asked interested parties to provide input on ways to design and test a model for Direct Provider Contracting (DPC). In a DPC model, a beneficiary could choose to join a primary care or specialty provider’s practice and potentially gain certain benefits such as reduced cost sharing or increased services that Medicare does not generally pay for. While this idea may be intriguing, CMMI did not provide any detail on how such a model would work, which leaves some dangerous options on the table.

This week, Avalere Health, a Washington DC-based consulting firm that specializes in strategy, policy, and data analysis, released a study on the impact of moving the coverage of some drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D. While most drugs are covered under the Part D prescription drug program, Part B, the part of the Medicare program that covers outpatient medical services like office visits, covers a few. The drugs covered by Part B are usually ones that beneficiaries would not give to themselves. For example, if a provider administers the drug during an office visit, Part B instead of Part D, might cover that drug.

Earlier this month, the Trump Administration announced it would consider transitioning certain Part B drugs into Part D as part of a larger strategy to lower drug prices and out-of-pocket costs. This makes it essential to understand what effects the switch could have on people with Medicare.

This week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released new data and a new tool on prescription medication: the Drug Spending Dashboard. The Dashboard allows users to see list prices of various medications, how many manufacturers supply the drug, what they have been paid by Medicare—both Part B and Part D—and Medicaid, total and per beneficiary spending on the drug, and comparisons of spending from 2015 to 2016. Such data show trends in both drug pricing and program spending, and CMS offers additional data for use outside of the Dashboard.

This week, several health care programs appeared in legislation that does not normally address health care. Two of the surprise provisions are embedded in draft Farm Bill legislation and in cuts, or rescissions, requested by the White House. While these measures may gain traction in the U.S. House of Representatives, they face a more uncertain future in the Senate.