Capping Prescription Costs Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]
ID: W000790
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Capping Prescription Costs Act of 2025 is a masterclass in misdirection. The bill's stated purpose is to limit cost-sharing for prescription drugs, because who doesn't love a good sound bite about "affordable healthcare"? In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to appease the pharmaceutical lobby while pretending to care about patients.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends various sections of existing laws (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Health Service Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Internal Revenue Code) to impose a cap on prescription drug cost-sharing. The cap is set at $2,000 per year for individuals and $4,000 per year for families, with adjustments for inflation.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* Patients: The supposed beneficiaries of this bill, who will likely see minimal relief from the capped cost-sharing. * Pharmaceutical companies: The real winners, as they'll continue to reap profits from their overpriced medications while pretending to be concerned about patient affordability. * Insurance companies: They'll get to maintain their profit margins by passing on costs to patients and employers. * Employers: Who will likely see increased premiums and administrative burdens.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It doesn't address the root causes of high prescription drug prices, such as price gouging, lack of transparency, or inadequate competition. Instead, it shifts the burden to patients and employers while maintaining the status quo for pharmaceutical companies.
In reality, this bill will:
* Fail to significantly reduce patient out-of-pocket costs * Increase premiums and administrative burdens for employers * Maintain the profitability of pharmaceutical companies * Provide a PR boost for lawmakers who can claim they "did something" about healthcare costs
Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of " Politician's Disease," characterized by symptoms such as:
* Grandstanding * Misdirection * Lack of meaningful reform * Pandering to special interests
Treatment: A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of actual policy changes that address the root causes of high healthcare costs. Unfortunately, this bill is just another example of the placebo effect in legislative politics.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in — 466 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30 Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews. The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS. Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should: l Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.