Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
PartialHealthcare / Prescription Drug Costs

Lower prescription drug costs for Inland Empire families and seniors by empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers and capping out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 per month.

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 verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

PartialFact-checker reviewConfidence: 80%

Independently verified both cited roll calls from the primary House Clerk XML (fetched directly). Aguilar (D-CA, name-id A000371) voted Yea on H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act (Roll Call 420, 12-Aug-2022, Passed 220-207), which became law and enacted the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (now operating; CMS has selected drugs and published negotiated prices) and a $35/month out-of-pocket insulin cap for Medicare beneficiaries -- fully delivering the negotiation mechanism and the insulin cap for the 'seniors' named in the promise. He also voted Yea on H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act (Roll Call 102, 31-Mar-2022, Passed 232-193), whose $35 insulin cap for privately-insured families passed the House but died in the Senate, so the 'families' half of the insulin cap was not realized. Not FULL because the private-insurance insulin cap failed. Not CHAMPIONED because Aguilar's documented role is two supporting votes on bills he did not author/lead -- beyond a single vote but short of leading/driving. Substantial parts became law, so above ATTEMPTED. PARTIAL is the party-neutral fit; an identical record from either party would rate the same.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See 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 arguments

These 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.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →