A program to help Washingtonians automatically save for retirement is in the final stretch in Olympia.

The Washington Saves program created by Senate Bill 6069 passed in both chambers is awaiting concurrence. It would create an automatic savings program for workers and could benefit about 1.2 million people in the state who currently do not have access to a savings program through their work.

Cathy MacCaul, advocacy director for AARP Washington, said many people do not think about savings in their 20s and 30s but will struggle if they only rely on Social Security when they retire.

"If people just save about $1,000 a year and they do that consistently up to the time they retire, they financially will be in a great position to actually afford their own retirement," MacCaul explained.

MacCaul noted Social Security provides $1,600 on average per month, and emphasized people are 15 times more likely to save for retirement if money is deducted automatically from their paychecks, as in the proposed program. Washington state's legislative session is scheduled to adjourn today.

Rep. Kristine Reeves, D-Federal Way, was the sponsor of the House version of the Washington Saves bill. She said the program will be a boon for small businesses.

"Being able to pick out a retirement package that meets their needs is tough and quite costly if you're a small-business owner," Reeves acknowledged. "This is an opportunity for us to help ensure that both small business owners but the employees of small businesses are getting access to retirement security from the first day they start working."

A lack of savings will cost the state nearly $4 billion by 2040, according to research from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

John Scott, retirement savings project director for Pew, said the retirement savings option will help ease reliance on other programs.

"When people don't save enough for retirement, some of those folks will need some help in old age, and so they will turn to social assistance like Medicaid," Scott explained. "Anything we can do to help folks be prepared for retirement means that it'll be less of a fiscal concern for taxpayers in the state."

Fifteen states already have similar savings programs in place, including California and Oregon.

Congress faces increasing pressure to adopt changes to keep Social Security on firm financial ground in the years to come.

North Dakota retirees are sharing their thoughts about key challenges facing the program. It is not losing money as fast as once thought but a recent federal report predicted Social Security will be unable to pay full benefits a decade from now if moves are not made ahead of time.

Eddie Johs, a retiree from Fargo and an AARP volunteer, receives Social Security benefits in addition to a pension. He feels he is one of the lucky ones who does not rely solely on monthly payments from the safety net.

"I realize many people don't have a pension," Johs noted. "Social Security is just a lifeline for those people."

He said some self-employed individuals and those receiving lower wages face barriers in securing larger nest eggs. Johs will attend a Social Security Summit hosted by AARP next Tuesday at the Fargodome from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. He hopes fellow retirees listen in to what elected officials and others have to say about potential solutions and the program's impact.

Congress has long been at odds over how to address the solvency issue. Democrats often push for higher earners to be taxed on more of their income, while some Republicans have floated raising the retirement age. Johs suggested a variety of changes are likely needed but he is skeptical about asking people to work longer for the benefits they've earned.

"People that work construction or work outside, city employees, that'd be tough to work at age 65 and up when you do outdoor physical work," Johs stressed.

Currently, the full benefit retirement age is 66 for those born in 1955, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in later years. In the U.S. House, the Republican Study Committee has called for what it describes as "modest adjustments" to the retirement age to account for increases in life expectancy.

As advocacy groups take a victory lap for moving lawmakers to finally allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for 10 widely-used medicines, a new report detailed how the makers of those drugs have gouged billions of taxpayer and consumer dollars.

Kyle Herrig, senior adviser for the group Accountable.US, said drugmakers have exploited U.S. patent laws to control prices for decades.

"These kinds of tactics keep prices high for the consumers," Herrig pointed out. "And often lead to patients skipping doses, disproportionately impacting lower-income Black and Latin American communities."

Drugmakers have routinely paid competitors to delay the introduction of cheaper generic versions of popular drugs. They have also kept prices high by resetting patent protections by slightly altering a drug to secure a second patent. Drug companies have long argued high prices are necessary to finance the development of new lifesaving medicines.

Even though U.S. taxpayers invested nearly $12 billion in the research and development of the drugs negotiated by Medicare, Herrig said pharmaceutical makers have also flooded the courts to keep prices high.

"Despite taking billions of taxpayer dollars for drug development, these big pharma companies unleashed an army of patent attorneys to keep lifesaving medication exclusive and more expensive for seniors and other patients," Herrig contended.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., worked with groups including AARP to push Congress to allow Medicare to use its purchasing power to bring down drug prices. She said medications do not work if you cannot afford them.

"It is fine to make profits, but not to the extent that you're actually hurting Americans' health," Klobuchar asserted. "In the United States of America, no one should be forced to choose between filling their prescriptions or filling their grocery carts."

Oregon has more than 270,000 veterans. Many of them may not know they're eligible for home modification grants through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. An AARP survey found 60% of veterans aged 45 and older weren't aware of grants available through the VA.

Juanita Jimenez-Soto, AARP national veterans and military families manager, said her organization analyzed five grants from the VA and developed a guide to help veterans navigate through them.

"They allow you to buy, build or modify a home to meet their long term needs. Now these grants provide eligible veterans with a disability rating of one all the way to 100% up to $117,000 to pay for renovations," she explained.

Jimenez-Soto noted financial aid for home modifications are free for people who qualify. The VA offers more than $150 million through these grant programs each year.

AARP's survey also found that nearly a quarter of veterans say they would need financial aid to stay in their current home. Jimenez-Soto added that it's important for people to think not just about their current needs but also what they might need in the future.

"We find that a lot of times veterans may not need that modification - that handrail in the bathroom or that ramp - but as you age your body will change sometimes," she continued.

Jimenez-Soto said veterans need to remember they earned these benefits.

"Sometimes a veteran may not think that they are deserving of those benefits. Maybe someone else who's also served, they think, 'Well they could need it more.' The thing is, there is enough money out there in these programs to apply for them and get them," she said.