Were there state-level insulin affordability programs supported by Trump allies and what were their outcomes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
State- and federal-level efforts to lower insulin costs included a voluntary Trump-era Medicare Part D model and later mandatory caps under the Inflation Reduction Act; the Trump model covered 2,159 Part D plans (38% of plans in 2022) while the IRA’s $35 cap applied to all ~6,000 Part D plans by 2024 [1]. Trump allies and his administration promoted voluntary deals, executive actions and manufacturer agreements after 2024, but reporting shows those efforts differed materially from Biden-era, statutory reforms in scope and enforceability [2] [1] [3].
1. Trump’s voluntary Part D “Senior Savings” model: what it was and who backed it
The Trump administration launched the Part D Senior Savings Model as a voluntary program that encouraged Medicare Part D plans to cap insulin copays at $35 a month; in 2022, 2,159 plans enrolled — roughly 38% of Part D plans — and CMS framed this as a White House achievement involving partnerships with manufacturers and plans [4] [1]. KFF and other analysts note the program was time-limited and depended on private plan participation, which limited its reach compared with later statutory changes [2] [1].
2. Outcomes of the voluntary program: partial reach, measurable but limited impact
Available reporting shows the Part D model delivered lower insulin costs for beneficiaries enrolled in participating plans, but did not guarantee $35 copays across all Medicare Part D coverage; participation reached many plans but left a majority unbound until later law [1]. KFF and Reuters emphasize this produced some savings for people on Medicare but the model’s voluntary nature meant it did not institutionalize universal protections [2] [5].
3. The Inflation Reduction Act’s mandatory cap and how it changed the landscape
The IRA established a statutory $35 cap for insulin under certain Medicare plans and expanded protections — a mandatory, across-the-board change that applied to all Part D plans by 2024 and removed deductibles for some insulin under Part D and Part B in 2023 [1]. Fact-check reporting and health-policy analysis stress that the IRA’s mandatory approach went “significantly further” than the Trump-era voluntary model [2] [5].
4. Trump allies’ later actions and public claims vs. independent fact checks
After January 2025 the Trump White House announced executive actions and fact sheets claiming broad insulin savings — including press language about 3-cent vials for the uninsured and $35 copays — and sought manufacturer commitments on MFN pricing for insulin products [3] [6] [7]. Independent outlets and fact-checkers note that some claims conflated voluntary, administrative steps and negotiated manufacturer announcements with the statutory protections created by the IRA, and that the IRA cap remained in force despite executive reversals [5] [2] [8].
5. Enforcement, legal actions and competing priorities that shaped outcomes
Reporting shows the administration’s rollback of some Biden policies and personnel moves affected ongoing enforcement actions — for example, the FTC’s insulin-related suit was stayed amid disputes over commissioner firings, raising questions among state observers whether enforcement priorities shifted [9]. At the same time, media and health-policy outlets highlight that executive orders and voluntary deals can be fragile compared with Congressional law, and that statutory protections remain decisive for broad, sustained access [10] [9].
6. Two different mechanisms, two different political incentives
The Trump-era model relied on voluntary cooperation from insurers and manufacturers and offered political cover by touting private-sector deals; the IRA used legislative leverage to mandate caps and broader out-of-pocket protections, which House Democrats say would be undone by repeal efforts in Project 2025 [1] [11]. Sources present competing political narratives: the administration framed its moves as delivering savings, while fact-checkers and policy analysts argue the IRA produced more durable, universal benefits [3] [2].
7. Limitations of available reporting and open questions
Available sources document plan counts, program designs and public claims but do not offer comprehensive, peer-reviewed outcomes data on long-term patient adherence, statewide utilization shifts, or how insurer formularies changed in every state — those specifics are not found in current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting). Observers also disagree about motive and effect when voluntary enforcement gives way to executive action; sources note both stated intentions to curb middlemen profits and criticism that some policy reversals risk undermining enforcement [9] [10].
Bottom line: Trump-era allies and the administration sponsored voluntary, plan-level insulin affordability efforts that produced real savings for many Medicare enrollees but were narrower and less durable than the Inflation Reduction Act’s mandatory $35 copay cap, which applied across all Part D plans and is repeatedly cited by fact-checkers and policy analysts as the more consequential reform [1] [2] [5].