Older Wisconsin residents struggling to manage prescription drug costs, have new data on how much they might save as a new federal rule kicks in early next year.

The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law two years ago, includes several provisions designed to address affordability issues for people needing medications.

Most of the changes are meant to help Medicare enrollees. Starting January 1, the new rule will cap out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 annually for those under Medicare's Part D.

David Bowen, advocacy director for AARP Wisconsin, detailed the estimated savings.

"Medicare drug plan enrollees nationwide, who reach the new out-of-pocket cap," said Bowen, "will see an average savings of roughly $1,500, or 56%, in 2025."

At the state level, the analysis predicts these savings will benefit nearly 50,000 Wisconsinites next year.

Other IRA provisions have already kicked in, including a $35 cap on monthly insulin costs for Medicare recipients. Drug makers have criticized these changes, arguing they will hurt innovation.

Bowen said the pending out-of-pocket changes mean older people dealing with health issues, such as diabetes, will get much-needed relief when refilling their prescriptions.

Collectively, he said these moves should get to the core of the cost issue consumer advocates have been talking about for years.

"We have older Wisconsinites that are choosing either limiting their supply of their prescriptions," said Bowen, "or they literally are taking resources that are used to pay for other essentials to sometimes cover the cost."

Last month, the Biden administration unveiled price-reduction agreements for the first group of Medicare-covered drugs included in negotiations with manufacturers.

The lower cost of those drugs takes effect in 2026.

Experts are advising Connecticut consumers to be cautious with what they buy at late-summer fairs and festivals.

As fun as the events can be, people can run into issues with the quality of merchandise or find counterfeit products. Other possible scams include fake social media posts advertising fair merchandise.

Kristen Johnson, communications director for the Better Business Bureau Serving Connecticut, said people need to be mindful of how they purchase items at fairs.

"If you're purchasing something that's, say, $10 or $20, you might want to just use cash, knowing, of course, that if there's an issue, it's going to be very difficult to get your money back," Johnson noted. "But if you're purchasing a big-ticket item like, say, you're going to The Big E and you're buying something big, you definitely want to use a credit card. That offers the most protection for you to get your money back."

Technology poses challenges for people to stay safe from scams. Digital wallet and peer-to-peer apps are some of the only ways vendors will take money. While it can make paying for items easier, it can be harder to get your money back if you need to. Johnson pointed out being an educated consumer and knowing about scams ensures people have fun at the fair. If you feel you've been scammed, report it to BBB.org/scamtracker.

Some fair and festival scams such as fortunetelling can be dangerous. A Connecticut woman lost almost $23,000 to an impostor of an established psychic's business. The scammer told the woman to keep coming back for increasingly expensive sessions to free her mother's spirit from purgatory.

Johnson emphasized it is one thing to have a free psychic reading but quite another when the sessions escalate.

"Watch out for emotional manipulation," Johnson advised. "Some psychics may use techniques that involve very vague or general statements that could really apply to anyone. They might exploit people's emotions by predicting negative outcomes such as bad health or bad luck."

While escalated sessions can lead to extortion, they can also lead to identity theft. Since psychic services are a $2 billion-a-year business in the U.S., scammers will take advantage of an opportunity. Johnson noted unlike licensed professionals, street psychics operate without oversight, making it harder for a person to get their money back.


get more stories like this via email

Consumer groups are calling for the withdrawal of a bill that would change the way California's auto lemon law works - before the legislative session ends this week. Assembly Bill 1755's backers say it would reduce delays in getting reimbursed for a defective new car.

Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said it would also mean if a problem arises more than six years after the sale, the lemon law no longer applies.

"It would shorten the statute of limitations for filing a lemon-law case to just one year after the warranty expires. Right now it's four years after you find out you have a claim," she explained.

The bill would also require consumers to file a formal written complaint instead of simply calling the dealer. Bill co-author State Senator Tom Umberg said in a statement that the bill "is a necessary step towards streamlining and strengthening California's 'Lemon Law' to get drivers out of the judicial system and back on the road more quickly."

General Motors is the biggest backer of the bill. Shahan suggests car manufacturers are looking for ways to avoid paying to repair or replace vehicles.

"What they're trying to do is reduce their warranty compliance costs, like last year alone, Ford paid out $1.9 billion in warranty repairs, and they're under pressure by Wall Street to reduce their warranty costs," she continued.

She added the bill would also mean that manufacturers would no longer have to pay off the amount people may still owe on a lemon car. So some people may not be able to get a buy-back unless they can come up with thousands of dollars up front.

A controversial Illinois law signed earlier this month has pushed landlords and tenants even further apart.

Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Landlord Retaliation Act, which puts restrictions on landlords. The measure prevents them from terminating leases, increasing rent or threatening a tenant with a lawsuit over disputes. Further restraints include barring them from refusing to renew a lease after a tenant has filed a code violation complaint.

John Bartlett, executive director of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization, supported the measure and views it as another layer of protection for tenants.

"A lot of tenants end up getting retaliated against because they've complained to a governmental agency or requested an inspection because of poor maintenance issues in a building," Bartlett pointed out. "What it does is it creates a presumption, a rebuttable presumption, for eviction court, that a tenant can defend themselves against the eviction."

Bartlett seeks more landlord accountability and believes one solution to curb tenant discrimination and retaliatory behavior is a just cause for eviction law. It permits landlords to evict tenants for any or no reason as long as notice is given before eviction papers are filed in court. Under Illinois law, a landlord must notify a tenant in writing of the intention to terminate a lease. A 30-day notice is required for month-to-month leases, and a 60-day notice for a yearly lease.

Although the Landlord Retaliation Act passed Springfield's House and Senate chambers by nearly 2-1, the legislation has drawn the ire of some landlords.

Paul Arena, director of legislative affairs for the Illinois Rental Property Owners Association, opposed the measure, claiming it prevents landlords from standing up for themselves and creates liability for making ordinary and necessary management decisions such as a rent increase to cover rising costs or a change of property rules or a decision not to renew a lease.

"The way the law is written, if a tenant calls and said, 'My drain is plugged up,' and the landlord comes that very day and unplugs their drain, then the presumption in the law now is that any action the landlord takes for a year following that request is presumed to be in retaliation for having made that request," Parena argued.

He warned the measure could prove to hurt the people it is designed to help the most by decreasing the number of landlords entering the market and higher rents in an already tight housing market.


get more stories like this via email