You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
Welcome to the Civic Media Spotlight.
I'm Dominic Lee and we are thrilled you're tuning in today.
Health insurance costs are climbing and millions of Americans could be paying more for coverage in the coming year from higher premiums and deductibles to changes in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
What does all of this mean for families who are struggling already with everyday expenses?
Joining us to break it all down is Kyle Moore.
He is the chief economist at the Sentry Foundation.
Kyle, thank you so much for joining us today.
Of course, glad to be here.
This is a really important question and an important conversation I should say, so we're going to just jump right into it.
Millions of Americans are already struggling with the cost of everyday things, groceries, housing, other necessities, and now health insurance is getting more expensive too.
So how much more can families realistically absorb and what happens when they just simply can't afford all of it?
Yeah, so it's really unfortunate that we're seeing health care prices increase to the extent they are health insurance prices.
Because unfortunately what happens with lots of families is that they end up delaying getting access to needed care and quality care or foregoing that care entirely.
And that has a ton of knock on effects throughout the economy.
Folks end up waiting too long to get the health care that they need.
and end up with worse health conditions, excess mortality can happen as a result of this.
And so, and that really comes because people are trying to purchase their necessities.
Healthcare is necessary, but many families look at it as a nice to have, unfortunately, particularly when budgets get really tight.
They have to make a decision between keeping that health insurance or waiting out whatever health problem they might have.
So for example, someone
might have a chronic illness or a pain in their back or a cough that's lingering.
And these are conditions that you really want to go get that addressed.
But if money's tight, health insurance has gotten out of reach, you might say, maybe I'll hold off on addressing this.
And then you end up with a worse problem down the line than what you would have dealt with earlier on.
And obviously we are heading into open enrollment and employers are expecting some of the largest increases in health insurance costs in more than two decades.
So what does that mean for workers?
And are we talking about higher premiums?
Are we talking bigger deductibles, smaller raises, or potentially all of the above?
Yeah, I would say all of the above.
One of the things that can happen is, you know, particularly when the price of the insurance plan that you had goes up,
folks may move down to a lower quality plan, right?
So moving from maybe thinking about the ACA marketplace, moving from a silver plan to a bronze plan.
Bronze plans might have higher deductibles, right?
And so you're trying to save money, but then when something happens, you end up increasing the healthcare costs, your pain, because now you're, you gotta meet the eye deductible that you wouldn't have otherwise had, had the insurance plan you had remained at an affordable rate.
And again, from the employer side, yeah, you're dealing with, you know, this is, they're thinking about
total compensation.
And so it's okay.
So like, where am I going to put that compensation towards?
If my health insurance costs are increasing for every employee that I have, that's money that I won't be able to pass on in the form of a raise, right?
Now, it would be lovely to say that if health insurance costs weren't going up and more employers would be giving out wages, I mean, raises in their wages,
That has a lot more to do with what marketing power workers is right now and whether they're going to be able to like negotiate to get those higher wages.
But having health care costs increase and having health insurance costs increase on the employer side is certainly a card in their deck to be able to say, hey, we can't give that raises this quarter because health care costs are mounting.
And so it really holds back the entire economy.
And it puts people in a position where they can't
look for another job in the same way, right?
If they know they're getting health care from their employer, health insurance from their employer, they might experience what's called job lock where they can't really afford to purchase individual insurance and they know they're getting it from their employer and so they're much less likely to be in the midst of a job search or able to quit, right?
And so that also contributes to what we see now in the labor market.
People are saying,
low, higher, low-fire environment because everyone's kind of like stuck, you know, costs are so high, it's hard to make a move in another direction that's going to be a short one.
I'm going to have you explain that to us a little bit further because a lot of times we hear that the economy is doing well based on jobs or other indicators.
But if people are spending more of their paychecks just to stay insured,
Do those numbers accurately reflect their financial well-being?
Yeah, I think there's a ton about top line statistics that don't really accurately represent where American families are, or how American families are feeling about their finances right now.
I think rising health care costs are one of those things.
Again, like that's compensation that could have been going towards your wage and I was going towards your health insurance costs.
And you feel like you need to have that.
Unless you're at that margin, then you just drop it off.
And then you're in a whole other world of risk.
But the other thing that's happening for folks is debt, right?
More and more of Americans' wages are being eaten up by debt obligations.
And that comes from credit cards.
It comes from revolving debt.
It's not necessarily mortgages in the same way because people aren't necessarily getting access to those in the same ways.
But it can be student loans.
It can be, again, like,
credit card debt could be card notes And you know, there's even a phenomenon where folks are using their credit cards to purchase health care, you know And so that's not even gonna show up in what's traditionally considered medical debt.
And so there are a lot of ways that even though you might see say Consuming consumption is still high, right?
And so people might point at the market and say or people are still buying things, right?
But if you're buying things on credit
It really sets up a timer as far as like how long that's going to be able to last.
And then the real financial burden that American families are facing under these debt obligations on top of rising prices.
So yeah, people are not, I mean, that's why consumer sentiment is so low right now, right?
People are not feeling good about where they are in the economy.
The Trump administration says that it's going to start removing hundreds of thousands of people from affordable care act coverage so that they can combat fraud and save taxpayers money.
Of course, there's a lot of people who are questioning how those decisions were made.
From an economic standpoint, how do we balance preventing fraud with making sure eligible people aren't going to lose their health insurance?
Yeah, I mean, this is a tough one, right?
Because there's
very clearly an effort by this administration to try to characterize the problem with the American healthcare system as it being too generous and that too many people are able to access it.
And on its face, that's just not true, right?
We know that there are gaps in access that really matter.
We know there are gaps in affordability that really matter.
We know the problem with our healthcare system isn't that it's too generous.
It's that
not enough people have access to high quality, affordable health care.
And so this is part and parcel with their direction they're moving, which, you know, their next step is to, you know, implement work requirements to try to make it even less accessible, try to make, again, the Affordable Care Act less accessible, try to make health insurance less accessible.
accessible in general unless you're purchasing it from the private market.
So again, they're adding these work requirements to Medicaid.
And this is happening at the same time.
You're seeing private firms take a step back from Medicare Advantage plans.
And so a lot of what's happening in the health care space can really get pointed towards the fact that we have these private public partnerships in the way that we deliver health care in the United States.
And this administration has really been focused on improving things on that private side and making sure that corporations have the most say and who gets access to the benefits that they need.
And so it only happens on their terms, right?
And so this idea that our healthcare system's biggest problem is too many people having access to healthcare is, again, it's on its face.
pretty ridiculous.
We're talking with Kyle Moore.
He is the chief economist at the Sentry Foundation.
We're discussing rising health insurance costs, changes to Medicaid, as well as the Affordable Care Act and what that could mean for families.
Kyle, there are going to be new Medicaid work reporting requirements scheduled to take effect in January.
And we've heard that these requirements are going to promote accountability,
There's a lot of people who also warned that eligible people could lose coverage because of all of the paperwork.
Is there any research that tells us anything we should know about these policies and what the consequences could be for families, hospitals, and even local economies?
Well, largely that they don't work, right?
Like work requirements do not do what they say on the 10th.
They are purported to make it more likely that people are working instead of just sitting at home.
and getting access to the benefits that they need, as if that would be a huge issue in and of itself.
But the reality is they simply don't work, right?
They don't increase labor force participation.
What they end up doing is, again, making it more difficult for people to access the benefits that they're eligible for.
You know, you talk about the paperwork.
There are situations where when work requirements get implemented and there's a set hour amount that a person has to have
on the books in order to be able to qualify for benefits.
Well, that person works at occupation where their hours might change from, you know, you might get 20 hours one week, you might get 30 hours another week, right?
If you're fluctuating there, not being able to meet that criteria from one week ends up with you losing access to your benefits.
And that, again, that says nothing for whether or not a person is working or wants to work.
So they don't do what they're purported to do.
What they do is they make accessing benefits onerous.
They make accessing benefits shameful even.
They make it a longer process.
And what they're designed to do, I would argue, is to make it
make people less likely to try to apply for benefits.
And so it's a way to sneakily shrink the program and eventually be able to point to it and say, well, see, this isn't benefiting folks.
We should just get rid of it all together, which is, again, this is their long-term strategy to try to remove these social safety net programs, such that people are fully at the mercy of the market and corporations and have to kind of shape their lives according to what those places say is acceptable.
And in Wisconsin and in many parts of the country, there's a lot of rural communities and hospitals and clinics are already struggling financially.
Could these changes have consequences beyond people just losing insurance?
Oh, absolutely.
Right.
When you see federal support for, you know, state-based healthcare get pulled away in the way that the administration has been doing as a result of the one day beautiful bill that passed last year.
A lot of these rural hospitals rely on those Medicaid dollars to stay open, right, to operate.
And so the result is going to be when, again, when these dollars get pulled, when these work requirements get implemented, when fewer people are able to access these benefits, those hospitals are going to lose really critical funding streams.
And you're going to be in a situation where rural areas who only maybe even have one hospital will have zero hospitals.
and that's going to severely limit the extent that people are going to be able to get access again to the health care that they need in a timely manner and in a high quality way such that again health conditions are going to last are going to go longer without being treated and you're going to start to see again excess mortality in some of these places and you never really want to see that in a way that we could have done something about.
And if all of these trends continue with the higher costs for the workers, with employer-sponsored plans, changes to Medicaid, people having to buy their own coverage, if all of that continues, what does healthcare look like for the average American family in, say, five years?
And is there anything that can be done that makes a meaningful difference right now?
Yeah, I mean it's tough to imagine, you know, five years from now if further federal support for health care goes away and people have access to again that affordable care when they need it.
Want to dive deeper into what we were discussing today?
Find out more at civicmedia.us or connect with us on Facebook, Instagram and all of our social media.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
Welcome to the Civic Media Spotlight.
Millions of dollars are pouring into Wisconsin's elections, with some of the largest contributions coming from just a handful of wealthy donors.
But how do Wisconsin's campaign finance laws allow that kind of spending, and what can voters actually find out about who's funding political campaigns?
Joining us to break down the laws, the role of big money in Wisconsin elections, and what changes may be possible is Elizabeth Schimmick.
She is the Managing Legal Counsel for Campaign Finance at the Campaign Legal Center.
Can we call you Beth?
Is that okay?
Would you
prefer that?
Beth is great.
Thank you so much.
Okay, all
right.
Thank you so much for joining us and helping us go through what seems like a very complicated subject.
So we're gonna jump in because there's some recent reports that found that three billionaires with Wisconsin ties have contributed more than $73 million to Republican campaigns and committees just this year alone.
From a campaign finance law perspective, what stands out to you about those numbers and how does Wisconsin compare with other states?
Thank you so much for having me today, Jamie.
I think it's helpful to step back and talk a little bit about what campaign finance law is.
So it's this complex set of limits and restrictions and requirements for money and other things of value that are spent or contributed.
in the election context.
So to support or oppose a candidate.
And there are lots of pieces that go into that and where we're starting is contribution limits.
So this maximum amount that a person can give to a candidate, a political party, a PAC, a super PAC, these outside groups, then that can be cash or items of value or services.
And this is a really foundational piece of any part of our campaign finance system at the federal or the state level is that we can have these limits on what you can give.
So for example, in Wisconsin, we have a $20,000 individual limit for giving to a gubernatorial candidate directly.
So you or I, if we were making a donation, could give up to $20,000, which I think to the average person, to me, certainly that would be an incredible amount of money to give to a single candidate.
Political parties, because they play a special role in our system, don't have limits on what they can give.
to their own candidates.
So the Republican Party can give unlimited money, unlimited assistance to their own gubernatorial candidate as can the Democratic Party.
And in Wisconsin, unlike at the federal level,
our political parties don't have contribution limits.
You can give unlimited money to the political party even if you're limited in what you can give directly to a candidate.
So that creates this big loophole in Wisconsin specifically where these political parties can fundraise unlimited money from a huge array of people in state, out of state.
And then we see situations like this where
It looks like three billionaires are providing the majority of funds that have made their way to support a single candidate.
That's not something we see at the federal level, but it is a special quirk of Wisconsin law since the laws were changed in 2015 under Governor Walker.
How did we and you mentioned Walker and you mentioned some of the laws?
How did we get to this point legally and what what rules were changed or what rules now allow these kinds of contributions and transfers?
Well, in 2015, like I said, the legislature, along with the governor, were controlled by a Republican trifecta, and they made a lot of different changes to Wisconsin's campaign finance laws that made it much easier for parties to raise money, to coordinate with candidates, and for outside spenders to communicate and coordinate with candidates and political parties.
This followed after Citizens United, which looked not at
the direct spending of candidates or of parties, but at these outside groups, PACS, what became super PACS, we often call them independent expenditure committees, depending on the state.
Whereas many people know in Citizens United and the cases that followed, the Supreme Court and other courts held that you can't limit what these outside groups who are spending independently, not in communication with candidates or with parties.
you can't limit how much they can spend.
So you see this huge influx of spending to places like Wisconsin where races are really competitive.
We often are a leading indicator for the entire country.
And that really impacts the messages we're all seeing.
It impacts the amount of ads.
I know certainly it's been an interesting experience watching the Brewers games lately, much less anything else on TV or streaming.
and it also impacts the political environment outside of the election space.
And you mentioned Citizens United and I know that gets brought up in conversation a lot because that really dictated what we saw for limits and spending across the country.
Are there examples from other states that really illustrate though how different Wisconsin is from what's happening in other parts of the country in their elections?
Absolutely.
Other states have been experimenting with lots of different ways to do things for their state and local elections.
That's what we have control over.
And there are solutions big and small that we could be looking at in Wisconsin to make the system better and more functional, more transparent for the public.
Because the fact is, in Citizens United, the part that everybody is familiar with is that corporations can spend this unlimited money independently in elections.
There's a second part of the decision.
That second part
is an eight to one portion.
So eight of the justices agreed on something, which is pretty rare in this day and age.
And what they agreed on is that while these spenders can spend unlimited money, voters have a corresponding right to know who is spending.
You have a right to engage in discussion about the messages you're receiving.
You have a right to engage in kind of this robust political,
conversation that we're having, and you can't do that without information.
So states have been experimenting with lots of ways to vindicate that right, and lots of upgrades that Wisconsin could be making.
One is
Really simple, we could just add contribution limits onto donations to political parties.
We don't currently limit that, but that limit exists at the federal level for federal races.
If we can't stop billionaires from spending, we can close the loopholes that make it so easy to funnel money to parties and then directly to candidates.
And when candidates don't have those billionaire mega donors to rely on to fund their campaigns, it changes the conversation.
They have to go and talk with their constituents, the people of Wisconsin.
They have to ask for those small dollar donations that would actually fuel their race.
They're more connected to the people and their needs and their lives.
And we can think about what this behavior might change in their
perspective.
Welcome to the Civic Media Spotlight.
more than 73 million dollars.
That is how much just three billionaires with Wisconsin ties have contributed to Republican campaigns and committees this year, at least according to reports.
But big money in Wisconsin politics is absolutely nothing new.
So the question is, how did we get here?
And what do the state's campaign finance laws actually allow?
Joining us to break all of this down is Nick Ramos.
He is the executive director at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
Nick, thank you so much for joining us and having what is
Again, a very important discussion.
So we're gonna, let's just jump right into this, okay?
Because I mentioned some of that recent reporting and it does show that three billionaires with Wisconsin ties have contributed that $73 million to Republican campaigns and committees just this year.
How does that compare with previous Wisconsin elections and are we seeing a new level of political spending in the state?
Wow.
Jamie, I just want to thank you so much for really not just taking the time, but giving the proper attention to an issue that my organization, Wisconsin Moxie Campaign, we have been working on since our inception, which was 1995, and now we're in 2026.
and we are still grappling with this behemoth in the room, and it is our broken campaign finance system.
And when we're watching these extraordinary amounts, I think it's natural to at first ask, all right, so just in terms of like the history and the past precedent of campaign spending, where do we line up?
And I can say like,
The last record-breaking gubernatorial year that we had it's not a shocker.
It's 2022 And you know it was around 120 million plus As of today, I mean we're looking at 60 70 million with a week to go and you know There's gonna be a lot more money that gets dropped.
I think what's really fascinating is
The mega millionaires or billionaires, I mean, I don't know what to call them properly, the ultra wealthy that have been contributing in this race.
What's really unprecedented is that, you know, because of our broken campaign finance laws, it's really easy if you max out to the candidate of your choice.
Rest assured, you're not out of the game entirely.
You can go directly to the party of your choice and the party can do unlimited transfers between them and the coalition or like the candidate, the campaign.
And so, you know, we're watching right now a very unprecedented amount of like direct spending to the party.
I think the last check I saw for like the U lines and I think even, you know, Ms.
Hendricks is included in this.
It's at to like 31.6 million.
I think the biggest number before that was about like 2 million.
That's 11.6% increase in terms of just this dedicated amount of high spending for a campaign.
And so, you know, we're seeing some really wonky stuff and I would not be surprised if we end up breaking the 2022 record in terms of
a campaign spending just because there's so much happening and a lot of independent expenditures and a lot of vested interests in state and a lot out of the state that are trying to decide who's going to be the next governor of Wisconsin.
And let's go stay with that for just a minute because Wisconsin does have some limits on how much individuals can contribute directly to the candidates.
But as you rightly pointed out, millions of dollars still move through the political parties and through those committees.
So can you explain how that works and what Wisconsin law allows and who is making the decision as to where that money actually gets distributed?
Great, great, great.
These are great questions to be asking.
So in terms of just the you and I number, like if you wanted to directly support Tom Tiffany or David Crowley, you as an individual can do $20,000, right?
And that is a change among a lot of other changes that happened back in 2015 during the governor, during the Walker administration.
We change not just the limits that folks can directly reach their candidate of their choice, but it also created this Wild West echo chamber that we see now where it made it legal for individuals that have unlimited money.
You can go to the political party of your choice.
That party can transfer unlimited amounts to the candidates.
It's like a glorified like money laundering scheme that's all kosher, all legit.
And at the end of the day, you have to look.
I mean, people think that it's just Citizens United.
But Citizens United is about one of these, you know, very fine cuts to, you know, these infinite cuts to our democracy and to campaign finance spending, where it makes it really hard for the average everyday person to feel like they have a space in this.
But I just want people to
Really just remember and know this that money can't vote but you can and like you're seeing this Unlove like this unprecedented amount of spending that is happening and folks you should be asking questions like you know What's the point of having contribution limits if somebody can simply route their money through the political party and
That's why it's like that's why we call it this billionaire loophole and it's exactly what we're witnessing right now in Wisconsin and it's not just that but then like when I mentioned independent expenditures you know people see a bunch of ads and it might not necessarily be from the Tom Tiffany campaign or the David Crowley campaign but it might be friends of them or it might be like.
you know so some type of just name that's out there doing hit pieces and attack ads and they can run up the score and do as many of them as they want as long as they are not coordinating with the
the political candidate and like they have these different rules that they apply by where they don't have to necessarily like if it's a super PAC or if it's a C4 tax you know for organization then you don't have to like disclose your donors and folks you know they have all different types of reasons as to why they don't want the world knowing that they want to contribute to Wisconsin governor's race but like all that is to say and that's a lot of information it's like
The people have shown especially after the 2025 Supreme Court race where we yet again broke, you know
not just a state record, but a national record for state Supreme Court spending on an election.
People in Wisconsin are smart and they don't like to feel like somebody is trying to put their thumb on the scale, especially if it's somebody from out of state.
And so I want people to really dial in in this last, we can some change to make sure that you're getting educated on the issues, you're paying attention to this money, because we've got a lot to work to do to try and fix the system, but in real time, it should not make you feel small.
or should not make you feel like your voice or your vote doesn't matter because it does.
And that will be the ultimate deciding factor when it comes down to this election.
We're talking with Nick Ramos.
He's the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
We're discussing the millions of dollars that the flows into Wisconsin elections, how the campaign finance laws work in the state, and what that spending means for voters.
Now, Nick, if we took out those multi-million dollar contributions from this year's governor's race,
How would these campaigns look different?
And how much of the advertising and other campaign activity that we're seeing is made possible because of those contributions?
It would look radically different.
I mean, it's hard.
It's hard as Wisconsinites to really appreciate such a utopian idea.
But I mean, that's what
That's when you're trying to watch the game and shout out to the Brewers for being in the World Series.
I mean, 44 years.
We're back, baby.
I like, you know...
the commercials, your mailbox, your phone and the text messages that you receive every day.
I mean, I don't know about you, but it feels like every year we just kind of get more numb to the fact that this is just what life is like in Wisconsin.
And I don't want people to become numb to that prospect.
Just like, you know, with voter ID, people have become numb to the prospect.
They're like, oh man, voter ID, we need it to go vote, but it's such an unnecessary like barrier and like a disenfranchised so many people.
So you shouldn't just get numb.
you know to the things that really are bad for us and like in this case like we're so used to you know breaking records when it comes to spending we're so used to our elections being the epicenter of the universe and like right now if you took all their money away I mean look like we'd be talking about still millions of dollars but we would not be you know
playing chicken with a hundred million dollar price tag and think about all the things that that money could actually be going towards.
Think if your elected officials didn't have to be glorified telemarketers and have to do their best dance and sing in front of you know the richest people in the room.
to go try and win these races but actually take that time spending it trying to talk with you the constituent to try and actually work to fix our problems it's like people have become so jaded and apathetic not just in wisconsin but across the country with their politicians because it's all this loud talk everybody's doing everything you know
to get your vote then they go you know to their office and then what you don't get to really hear from them until things are really going sideways I mean that's not the way that our republic or our democracy ought to work and so like I like to think about what the future can be and like right now we have really some great opportunities to think about fixing this problem and creating systems like public campaign finance reform where
There can be a set of money that is state money that incentivizes these candidates to start speaking with as many constituents.
receiving small dollar donations from these constituents and hitting a certain threshold to show that you're actually getting, you know, community support.
And this isn't just some kind of flash in the pan and you're just trying to take money, but you actually are building something and make it so that you incentivize folks to spend time with the people and they get to open up this chest of money that they can use for their campaigns.
And it's not going to be the millions and the millions that you see here, but it'd be enough to be able to go try and win an election.
And like it would make our system
better.
in the long haul.
And you see great example of this all around the country, all around the world.
And like, we want to make sure that the power is truly in the people's hands, and not in the billionaires hands who get the right, the biggest checks and get to command these folks to do whatever they want, because they get to send them money that we can't even do unless we're playing Monopoly.
And so there's a lot of work to be done.
But like, I'm telling you, it can be, it can be different here in the next couple of years.
If we continue to show up, we continue to vote our values and we
continue to show these rich people that they don't control us and that our voices actually matter kind of day.
Are there any major changes on the horizon to Wisconsin's campaign finance laws?
I know this is something that your organization, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, has worked on, but is there anything that's currently being proposed for Wisconsin right now?
I mean, it's been really difficult, you know, when a
Political party gets to control as long as like the Republicans have under the gerrymandered maps that have existed for over 15 years.
It's hard to have a good faith conversations with people when they don't have to listen to you.
They have the numbers in the majority.
They don't need to play fair or even try and have anything in the in the lane of bipartisanship, but
This this problem is one that Democrats Republicans independence they all take advantage of I mean at this point like the Republicans might have been the ones at the time that like rewrote our raw rewrote our laws but like you know the Democrats using the same system have been able to out raise and and and spend more money than the Republicans at times and I think like people getting really comfortable with the uncomfortable and I think you know
We need to be thinking about solutions that are actually going to be politician and elected official proof that, you know, the political pendulum swings, you know, left and right, you know, consistently.
And we need to really start thinking about what is going to be healthy and good for the people of Wisconsin.
And I think a couple of the really good ideas that I see get presented and like you said, our organization with a coalition of other folks that are really concerned about this.
Want to dive deeper into what we were discussing today?
Find out more at civicmedia.us or connect with us on Facebook, Instagram, and all of our socials.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
Welcome to the Civic Media spotlight.
Imagine paying $50 for prescription one month and then hundreds of dollars for that very same medication the next month.
Well, that's what some Americans could face when new U.S.
customs requirements take effect on October 22nd, potentially making it much harder to get lower cost prescription drugs from Canada.
Ken Hunter is the executive director of the campaign for personal prescription importation.
He is going to join us today to explain what's changing, who's at risk,
and what it could mean for people already struggling to afford their medications.
Ken, thank you so much for being here today.
We really do appreciate it.
Well, thanks for having me.
So let's just jump into this very important conversation.
Millions of Americans have turned to Canadian pharmacies because they can't afford their prescriptions here in the United States.
So what is exactly changing on October 22nd and why could that option become much harder to access?
On October 22nd, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency is implementing a brand new rule that will effectively eliminate the ability of consumers to buy their prescription medications from other countries.
And the reason why this is important, people buy
from different countries because the price can be significantly lower versus what they would pay at a U.S.
pharmacy.
So you have many people such as senior citizens, people on fixed incomes, people that also have high deductible health insurance plans,
or uninsured that will now be priced out of the market of buying, being able to buy their pharmaceuticals.
And the cost can be significant.
You know, this is in just a, you know, $15, $20 a month increase.
We're talking hundreds of dollars, maybe thousands of dollars a month.
So for somebody
let's say senior citizen that may take four prescription medications, you multiply that $700 price increase that they're about to face over those four or five prescriptions, they won't be able to afford that.
Now, your organization found that 10 commonly prescribed brand name medications cost an average of about 65% less at Canadian pharmacies.
Why are Americans paying so much more for the same medications here in the United States?
In other countries, there are typically policies where the pharmaceutical company, if they want access to the customers in that country, will have price limitations of what they can charge.
So in Canada, there will be limitations on
Drugs for instance like eliquids, which is commonly used to help prevent blood clots That'll be a product that people could get in Canada for Roughly about half the cost of what it would you know be if they went to a US pharmacy to purchase it And so when you look at that you're talking for a three-month supply for a typical patient They may pay like five hundred sixty dollars
for that from Canada and from the US, it's going to be over $1,000.
And that's one of the common ones, but you can also see for a drug that prevents blood clots, it is pretty much necessary for that person's health.
If these medications are coming from licensed Canadian pharmacies, what's the actual concern about allowing them into the country?
Is it about the safety?
Is it customs enforcement?
Or are we talking about something completely different than any of that?
I am not sure what the purpose of this rule is for.
Now, when you read through the code, it's purportedly to help prevent the flow of illegal narcotics into the US like fentanyl, but also to collect more accurate tariffs on what people are buying from other countries.
So when a person in the US buys a drug from Canada, they're going to
not just get a lower price, but they're also going to have a tariff that they'll have to pay on it.
And even with that, it's going to be a much less expensive price than them buying it in the US.
So this rule is not only going to prevent the country from collecting additional tariff fees, but it's going to put people's health at risk.
And that's why we've been asking the administration to either pause this rule or to exempt personal pharmaceuticals from it.
Now, members of Congress from both parties have actually raised concern about this change.
Is there a realistic chance that this policy could be delayed or modified?
And what needs to happen between now and October 22nd?
Yes, Mark Polkan, a representative from Wisconsin, was one of the leaders of creating a letter that 71 Democrat members of the House signed asking for this rule.
specifically to be paused or dropped.
On the Republican side, there were three Florida House members that signed a similar kind of bill.
And what we're asking consumers to do is put pressure on Congress, who can then put pressure on the administration to pause this rule.
One of the best things that somebody could do is, you know, write to their senators, Ron Johnson, Tammy Baldwin, and ask them to participate in this effort to stop this damaging rule from taking effect.
Ken Hunter is our guest today.
He is the executive director of the campaign for personal prescription importation.
Ken, thank you so much for joining us and shedding some light on what this new rule change could actually mean coming up on October 22nd.
It's approaching.
We're going to keep an eye on it.
We're going to see what happens next.
And for people who depend on these medications, this is about a lot more than just saving money.
It's about being able to afford prescriptions that they absolutely need.
For more stories and issues from all around Wisconsin, visit civicmedia.us.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.