Trump's first-term policies helped lower some insulin costs: HHS report ⁠68%

7/20/2026, 5:24:26 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Optimism Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 1,080 faulty-reasoning hits from 455 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (7,158 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.

A new study from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that policies in President Donald Trump's first administration helped lower some patients’ insulin costs below $35 for a 30-day supply. 
FOX Business obtained a copy of the new report set to be released as early as Monday. 
It shows the executive orders signed by Trump in his first term helped push the price of insulin lower. 
Trump signed four executive orders aimed at lowering costs of the life-saving treatment on July 24, 2020. 
The first ordered federally qualified health centers to pass along discounts received by drugmakers, instead of pocketing the benefit. 
The second allowed state health plans to import "safe" insulin and create a pathway for personal importation waivers at authorized pharmacies. 
The third banned secret deals with healthcare middlemen so drug manufacturing discounts go directly to customers. 
The fourth mandated that U.S. consumers pay the lowest price paid by other countries and opened the door for Medicare to negotiate terms of insulin payments. 
US SHOULDERS DISPROPORTIONATE COST OF NEW MEDICATIONS, REPORT FINDS 
A chart tracking the commercial and Medicare cost of insulin doses shows the policies contributed and almost immediately started lowering the cost of the medication. 
In fact, well before former President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law in 2022, the price of a 30-day dose had fallen well below $35. 
The Act placed a cap on insulin at $35, and the former president often took credit for lowering the cost of the medications. 
MERCK, SANOFI ARE LATEST COMPANIES TO ADD MEDICATIONS TO TRUMPRX 
"While Joe Biden tried taking credit for $35 insulin, the data is clear: this was President Trump’s success alone, and the second Trump administration continues to harness competition and consumer empowerment with TrumpRx to deliver more relief for everyday Americans," White House senior deputy press secretary Kush Desai said in a statement. 
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB ADDING 3 MEDICATIONS ON TRUMPRX 
Adam Gluck, the head of U.S. corporate affairs at Sanofi, said during an announcement of $35 insulin doses in September 2025 that "We will continue to work with policymakers and stakeholders across the healthcare system on additional sustainable, long-term solutions to improve access to medicines." 
Novo Nordisk, in January 2024, said: "Novo Nordisk recognizes that some patients find it difficult to pay for healthcare, including insulin. 
As such, the Company remains committed to reducing the burden of out-of-pocket costs, helping transform the complex pricing system, and fostering better pricing predictability." 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
The Trump administration believes the introduction of TrumpRx.gov and use of its tariff policies will further reduce the cost of insulin in the future. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias24.8%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.2%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect13.6%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.4%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias10.5%This article: 22.6%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem5.1%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.5%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority18.5%This article: 11.4%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma11.4%This article: 5.3%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope5.3%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 6.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring6.2%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.3%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 11.4%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question11.4%This article: 18.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.9%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 11.4%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection11.4%This article: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 11.4%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination11.4%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.5%

455 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers37%attributed speech287writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageFOX Business • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageKush Desai • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Gluck • 45 words • 0.0% coverageNovo Nordisk • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNovo Nordisk • 24 words • 100.0% coverageFOX Business • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kush Desai

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words31% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kush Desai: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kush Desai: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Kush Desai: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Kush Desai: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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