May Signal Zero COLA for 2016 .To counter concerns over the cost of "fixing" the Notch and the financial solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, TSCL backs an alternative "capped-cost" solution. "The Notch Fairness Act" would provide Notch Babies born from 1917 through 1926, or their survivors who receive benefits based on their accounts, a choice of either improved monthly benefits, or a lump-sum of ,000 payable over a four-year period. Recent surveys of TSCL members show more than 75% favor the lump-sum legislation. .TSCL enthusiastically supports H.R. 1030, H.R. 1795, and H.R. 2305, and we were pleased to see support grow for each one this week. .The bill would limit price increases in drugs covered by Medicare Part D plans to the rate of inflation or drug makers would be forced to pay a penalty in the form of a rebate. "Since Social Security benefits only grow at the rate of inflation, it would help level the playing field if the cost of prescription medications were required to be adjusted in like fashion," Johnson notes. Research on typical retiree costs conducted by Johnson has found that from 2000 to 2019, annual cost – of – living adjustments (COLAs) increased Social Security benefits by 50 percent but spending on prescription drugs grew five times faster — 253 percent — over the same period. .TSCL's members and supporters tend to be older, less affluent seniors. They are also, to a large extent, Notch victims — those individuals who receive lower Social Security benefits because they were born between the years 1917 and 1926. .Pressure is on Congress and President Obama to reach a deficit reduction agreement to address rising federal debt. Many analysts expect that cutting annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) will be a central part to any agreement. That would not only cut the benefits of more than 53 million Social Security recipients, but those of Railroad Retirement recipients, military and federal worker retirees as well. .Drug companies and some patient groups have long criticized proposals like this last rule, saying it would reduce innovation and access to certain medications. In addition, drug makers are particularly leery of the approach since Democrats want to use it more broadly to allow Medicare to directly negotiate prices. .for a Worker With Average Earnings, Retiring at Age 65 .Over one million Medicare recipients in my home state of Indiana would face reductions in choice and difficulty receiving care if provider incentives are cut. Instead of reducing access to healthcare, it is time to shift focus to the big picture of improving the economy through job creation so more people are able to contribute to their own healthcare. It is not time to chip away at benefits to the men and women who built this great country. Individuals who contributed to Medicare for decades rely on that investment for their well-being.