Medicare enrollees to pay 50% less for some drugs in 2025, report says88%

By Ahmed Aboulenein0%

12/18/2025, 8:57:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 58.3% saturation with 228 hits. Analysis detected 550 faulty-reasoning hits from 402 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.1% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,620 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.00% of the article peer group.

By Ahmed Aboulenein 
December 18, 2025  8:05 AM PST 
REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo 
WASHINGTON (Reuters)  Americans enrolled in Medicare will pay about 50% less out of pocket in 2026 for some drugs including Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb's blood thinner Eliquis and Merck & Co.'s diabetes drug Januvia, a study in the five most populous U.S. states suggested. 
Medicare negotiated prices kick in next month for 10 drugs, a first for former President Joe Biden's signature Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 
Medicare covers over 67 million people aged 65 and older or with disabilities. 
The report estimates that out-of-pocket costs for the 10 drugs will fall nearly 50% in 2026 versus 2025 in all 56 stand-alone prescription drug plans in California, Florida, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania, the analysis of public Medicare spending data found. 
Seven of the drugs are expected to cost below $100 per month by 2026, up from two under that amount in 2025. 
However, patients taking the three priciest drugs  Amgen's rheumatoid arthritis treatment Enbrel, AbbVie's leukemia therapy Imbruvica, and Johnson & Johnson's Crohn's disease medicine Stelara  will still face higher out-of-pocket costs ranging from around $600 to $2,800 a month. 
The law also has a new lower Medicare out-of-pocket drug spending cap, set at $2,100 per year in 2026. 
Out-of-pocket costs include co-pays, flat fees, and coinsurance, which is a percentage of the drug price. 
Savings stem mainly from lower coinsurance tied to negotiated prices, and some co-pay changes related in particular to lower insulin prices. 
AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans, said further research is needed to determine whether the findings extend to the broader Medicare market. 
The study noted considerable variation in savings between plans. 
The other drugs included in the first round of negotiations are J&J's Eliquis rival Xarelto, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly's diabetes drug Jardiance, and insulin from Novo Nordisk. 
The drugs are used by nearly 9 million people on Medicare prescription drug plans who paid as much as $6,500 per year for these prescriptions before the IRA's passage. 
Four of the drugs were not covered by all Medicare drug plans in 2025 but will be universally covered in 2026 under IRA mandates. 
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimates the negotiated prices could save enrollees a collective $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket expenses in 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 46.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 20.1%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias46.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 2.6%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.7%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 58.3%Ahmed Aboulenein: 26.1%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect58.3%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 3.6%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.4%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 2.1%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.5%Ahmed Aboulenein: 9.3%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 6.2%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 2.1%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 2.2%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Ahmed Aboulenein: 2.7%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.3%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 1.4%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 12.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 9.0%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority12.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.9%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 2.6%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 1.8%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ahmed Aboulenein: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%

391 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.