The National Committee endorses the "PRICED Act," introduced by U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Angie Craig (MN-02), Lloyd Doggett (TX-35), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08) and 11 other cosponsors, which would allow generic versions of brand name biologic drugs to enter the market sooner. This would encourage competition and drive down costs. Seniors depend on drugs derived from living organisms — known as "biologics" — to treat a number of health conditions, including multiple sclerosis, asthma, arthritis and cancer. Yet for many older Americans these drugs are simply out of reach because they cost too much.

The "PRICED Act" limits "one of Big Pharma's most effective price gouging tools" by reducing the period during which drug companies have exclusive marketing rights for biologics. The legislation would cut the exclusivity period from the current twelve years to five. Such a change could save Medicare upwards of $7 billion over ten years.

Congress should pass the "PRICED Act" as soon as they return from summer recess, as well as allow Medicare to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers and end other kinds of anti-competitive behaviors that keep brand drug prices exorbitantly high. It's past time for Congress to show Big Pharma that patients must always come before profits!

National Committee members and supporters have told us they support boosting Social Security benefits. And in poll after poll, the American public has affirmed their support for strengthening this program. The "Social Security 2100 Act" would improve current and future benefits and strengthen this program's solvency for decades in the future. Yet, it's up to Congress to put this bill on the floor for a vote.

That's why I asked our readers in the last issue of Benefits Watch: Should the U.S. House of Representatives bring the "Social Security 2100 Act" to the floor for an up or down vote — and go on the record with voters about where they stand on boosting Social Security benefits?

96% of respondents answered "YES." It's clear that a large majority of our readers understand the critical importance of Social Security for current and future generations of Americans. With your help, we will convince members of Congress to protect and strengthen the benefits that workers and retirees are counting on for a secure retirement now and in the future.

Did you know that a team of experts in the field of Social Security policy is available to answer your questions about benefits? For 36 years, the National Committee has been helping thousands of our members and supporters with a broad range of concerns on Social Security.

Whether you're currently retired or approaching retirement, the National Committee's "Ask Us" section can help answer your questions about Social Security. You can either search our archives for valuable advice on a broad range of concerns at www.ncpssm.org/ask-us-recent/ or email your question to [email protected].

This week's question is: I am a teacher in Texas and am ready to retire. I have the option of my husband receiving my full benefit or half of my benefit if I should die. How would this affect his Social Security benefits when he is eligible? Would you advise this? He does not have this type of pension, and I don't want our kids to be burdened when they need to take care of us.

Click here to read the answer.

Social Security Q&A with Web Phillips (August 1, 2019, WMKV, Audio Clip with Web Phillips)

7 of Your Most Burning Questions on Social Security (With Answers) (August 2, 2019, New York Times, Mark Miller)

A surge in risky, expensive drug prescriptions: What's behind it? Millions from drugmakers. (August 7, 2019, USA Today, John Fauber)

Top Senate Republican Pushes Forward With Drug Bill That Divides GOP (August 9, 2019, NPR, Susan Davis)

Bringing Together Young And Old To Ease The Isolation Of Rural Life (August 7, 2019, NPR, Rhitu Chatterjee)