“Lower medicine costs by letting the government negotiate the prices of all prescription drugs.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
The promise is to let the government negotiate the prices of ALL prescription drugs. Schiff voted for and helped pass the Inflation Reduction Act (2022), which for the first time authorized Medicare to negotiate drug prices — a partial, not full, realization of the goal. Per KFF (verified), the IRA lets Medicare negotiate only a small, phased-in number of drugs (10 Part D for 2026, +15 for 2027, +15 Part D and Part B for 2028, +20 for 2029 and later), selected from the 50 highest Part D and 50 highest Part B spend drugs and subject to many exclusions — NOT all prescription drugs. Schiff publicly claims credit ("Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, which we passed last Congress, prescription drugs will be more affordable"), and his own accomplishments page cites helping pass the IRA, which "lowered the cost of certain prescription drugs to $35 a month for seniors on Medicare." His stated aim to expand negotiation to ALL drugs (VA-style) remains unfulfilled; as a first-term senator in the minority (in office since Dec. 2024) he has enacted no such expansion. Not CHAMPIONED — he was a supporting vote (House Roll Call 420, 220-207), not lead author of the negotiation provisions (Wyden/Pallone/Neal/Pelosi drove them), so there is no leadership evidence for the negotiation authority itself. Because concrete, lasting partial delivery occurred (government now negotiates some drug prices) but the "all drugs" promise was not met, PARTIAL is correct rather than ATTEMPTED (no clean failure) or FULL/CHAMPIONED.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.