Millionaire Nick Begich Would Fight To Dismantle The Programs That Ensure Alaskans’ Economic Security And Access To Affordable Health Care

There Were 108,116 Alaskans Who Received Medicare In 2021, The Most Recent Year Of Data Available. [Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed 6/7/24]

There Were 112,221 Alaskans Who Received Social Security As Of June 2024. [Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, accessed 6/7/24]

2022: Begich Blamed Americans For High Health Care Costs, Which He Argued Were Largely Driven By “Poor Diet” And A “Lack Of Exercise.” QUESTION: “What would you do to bring down the costs of health care, including the high cost of prescription medications, and how would you improve health care access?” BEGICH: “In 1960, health care costs were less than 6% of GDP. Today, we are approaching 20%. High health care costs are driven by a combination of factors, but some of these are behavioral in nature: poor diet, lack of exercise and a marginal emphasis on early screening. These factors have led to a substantial increase in the number of Americans with heart disease, diabetes, late-stage cancers and related conditions. Simply stated, we must encourage healthier living if we are to meaningfully drive down the costs of health care. That said, reciprocal licensure, drug and medical device patent reform, permitting cross-border purchase of prescription drugs, drug price negotiation, expanding insurance populations across state lines, direct primary care insurance models, provider price transparency (i.e. published costs) and encouraging greater competition within the generic drug market will all support improved competitiveness and allow Americans to receive better choices at a lower price.” [Alaska Beacon, Candidate Comparison Tool, 9/30/22]

Begich, Whose Own Net Worth Was Bolstered By Family Wealth, Called Social Security A “Ponzi Scheme […] Used To Prop The System Up” Despite Over 100K Alaskans’ Reliance On It

Begich Called Social Security A “Ponzi Scheme […] Used To Prop The System Up.” BEGICH: “But the entire Social Security trust fund has been invested in nothing but government debt. We get some of the lowest yield as a result of 100% allocation to that asset. Why don’t they diversify? The Left will say we don’t want to risk people’s Social Security. That is not why. The truth of the matter is because we run these huge deficits, we need someone to buy all the debt we’re producing.”That’s you through your Social Security. That trust fund has been invested in government debt from the get go. And it’s a Ponzi scheme and it’s used to prop the system up.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 1:49:18-1:49:43, 7/20/23]

There Were 112,221 Alaskans Who Received Social Security As Of June 2024. [Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, accessed 6/7/24]

Begich Supported Tightening Medicaid Work Requirements Even Though They Disproportionately Threaten Healthcare Coverage For Alaska Natives

Begich Supported “Tightening Work Requirements For Able-Bodied Medicaid Recipients.” “Alaska has some of the world’s highest healthcare costs. Reforms are needed to drive down the cost of healthcare. Political rhetoric isn’t going to do it. It’s going to require commitment, tenacity, and hard work. We need to explore price and cost innovations around direct primary care and preventative medicine while protecting patient-doctor relationships. We can find cost savings by increasing competition, negotiating prescription drug prices, and tightening work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients.” [Nick Begich for Congress, accessed 9/7/22]

Medicaid Work Requirements Would Disproportionately Threaten Healthcare Coverage For Alaska Natives Because They “Are Likelier To Live In Areas With Limited Job Opportunities.” “Medicaid is an important source of coverage for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), a population that faces high unemployment and persistent health disparities, including a high uninsured rate, barriers to care, and significant physical and mental health needs. […] Taking away Medicaid from people not meeting work requirements will put coverage at risk for all people subject to these policies, but especially for AI/ANs, who are disproportionately likely to be unemployed. That’s because AI/ANs not only are likelier to live in areas with limited job opportunities, but also have other barriers to employment. The AI/AN unemployment rate averaged 11.3 percent from 2014 through 2018, almost 90 percent higher than the 6.0 percent rate for all other adults and higher than the unemployment rate for other adults in nearly all states. […] AI/ANs could be at disproportionate risk of losing coverage under a Medicaid work requirement, threatening their recent coverage and health outcome gains.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/10/20]

Lack Of Internet Access And Other Forms Of Red Tape May Make It Difficult For Alaska Natives “To Stay Covered Even If They Are Already Working Or Should Qualify For Exemptions.” “Requiring work or work-related activities as a condition of Medicaid eligibility would also make it harder for AI/ANs to stay covered even if they are already working or should qualify for exemptions. When Medicaid eligibility depends on completing specified hours of work activities each month, enrollees have to submit documentation each month to stay covered. AI/ANs may face particular barriers to manage this additional red tape. For example, Arkansas required enrollees to report compliance with work requirements only using the Internet; AI/ANs are disproportionately likely to live in rural areas and more likely than other enrollees to lack Internet access.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/10/20]

Begich Served As A Fellow For The Club For Growth, Which Advocated For Converting Social Security To Private Retirement Accounts, Repealing The Affordable Care Act, And Turning Medicare Into A Voucher Program

Begich “Recently Completed A Fellowship With The Club For Growth, America’s Leading Free-Enterprise, Limited-Government Advocacy Group.” “As a lifelong Republican, Nick Begich has held a variety of professional and political roles with the intent of growing opportunity through entrepreneurship. […] Additionally, Nick recently completed a Fellowship with the Club for Growth, America’s leading free-enterprise, limited-government advocacy group.” [Nick Begich for Congress, Archived 3/1/22]

Image: see original report, p. 28

[Nick Begich for Congress, Archived 3/1/22]

Begich’s LinkedIn Page Listed His Location As “Washington, District Of Columbia” When He Served As A Fellow At Club For Growth Starting In June 2020. [LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

Image: see original report, p. 28

[LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

Begich Claimed He Wanted To Find “Market-Based Solutions” For Health Care. “Healthcare reform means more choices and lower costs for Alaskans. I’m committed to finding practical, market-based solutions. #Alaska” [Twitter, @NickforAlaska, 12/28/23]

Image: see original report, p. 28

[Twitter, @NickforAlaska, 12/28/23]

• The 2017 ACA Repeal Bill Would Have Removed Subsidies That Allowed Families To Purchase Private Healthcare In The ACA Marketplace. “First, the bill attacks people’s ability to purchase private insurance. It eliminates the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) subsidies that allow individuals and families to afford health plans in the ACA’s marketplaces, replacing them with tax credits that favor the wealthy.” [ACLU, 3/16/24]

The Club For Growth Advocated For Social Security To Be Converted To Personal Retirement Accounts. “Entitlement programs are the single largest drivers of our nation’s mounting debt and must be reformed immediately before it’s too late. Not only is our current entitlement system bankrupting our nation, it is simply unsustainable in its current form.[…]Create Social Security personal retirement accounts that workers would own and could use to build nest eggs for retirement. [Club for Growth, Accessed 9/14/24]

• Social Security Privatization Would Be So Costly It Could Cause A Recession. “Privatizing Social Security will escalate federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline-all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. The 2004 Economic Report of the President included an analysis of the fiscal impact over time of the most commonly discussed privatization proposal by the president’s commission. It found that the federal budget deficit would be more than 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) higher every year for roughly two decades, with the highest increase being 1.6 percent of GDP in 2022. The national debt levels would be increased by an amount equal to 23.6 percent of GDP in 2036. That means that, thirty-two years from now, the debt burden for every man, woman, and child would be $32,000 higher because of privatization.[…]As a result, the economy would be likely to grow more slowly than it would otherwise.” [The Century Foundation , 12/14/04]
• Social Security Privatization Was Unsuccessful In Chile And The UK. “A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps,”more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”[…]In the United Kingdom, which began encouraging workers to divert payroll taxes to personal investment accounts in 1978, many citizens were victimized by poor investment choices as well as unscrupulous brokers. The national government was left with substantial new administrative expenses, lost tax revenues, and responsibilities to bail out some failed private pension plans. Indeed, the problems were so wide-ranging that even the most enthusiastic supporters of private accounts now say that the United Kingdom simply did not do it right.”[The Century Foundation , 12/14/04]

Club For Growth Supported Repealing The Affordable Care Act And Enacting “Medicare Reform That Utilizes A Premium-Support Function To Replace The Current System.” “Policy Recommendations: Repeal Obamacare. Enact Medicare reform that utilizes a premium-support function to replace the current system. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Create Social Security personal retirement accounts that workers would own and could use to build nest eggs for retirement.” [Club for Growth, Accessed 9/7/24]

Image: see original report, p. 30

[Club for Growth, Accessed 9/7/24]

• Converting Medicare Into A “Premium Support” System Would “Replace Its Guarantee Of Health Coverage With A Flat Payment That Beneficiaries Could Use To Help Them Purchase Private Insurance.” “Some policymakers and analysts have proposed to convert Medicare to a ‘premium support’ system — that is, replace its guarantee of health coverage with a flat payment that beneficiaries could use to help them purchase private insurance or, in some versions, traditional Medicare. But proponents have crafted a widely diverse set of proposals that they call premium support, and some leading proposals of recent years — such as the plan from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that the House approved in April — differ greatly, in design and rationale, from the premium support concept that Henry Aaron and Robert Reischauer introduced in 1995.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/26/11]
• Converting Medicare Into A “Premium Support” System “Would Likely Lead To A Two-Tier Health Care System” Where Only The Very Wealthy Could Afford The Best Care. “Premium support — no matter what form it takes — raises several very important and challenging issues that may seem manageable in theory but would be extremely hard to resolve satisfactorily in practice. And failure to resolve these challenges satisfactorily would likely lead to a two-tier health care system: the affluent would receive the most up-to-date medical care (since they could buy comprehensive coverage by supplementing the premium support payment with their own funds), while those of modest means who could only afford the coverage that their premium support payment buys would increasingly find medical advances out of their reach.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/26/11]
• Converting Medicare Into A Premium Support System Could Increase Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Medicare Beneficiaries By Over $6,000. “Myth: Premium support will reduce Medicare’s costs. Fact: Premium support plans don’t reduce costs, they shift them onto the patient. The rising cost of premiums will quickly outstrip the value of the fixed federal contribution, and seniors will have to pay more in either premiums or out-of-pocket payments for care. The Congressional

Budget Office estimates that Ryan’s original Medicare proposal would raise out-of-pocket costs for the typical 65-year-old Medicare beneficiary in 2022 by $6,240. They haven’t estimated the cost of the latest plan yet.” [Physicians for a National Health Program, 8/14/12]

Begich Served As The President Of The Board Of Directors For The Alaska Policy Forum, Which Opposed Medicaid Expansion

Nov. 2018-Oct. 2021: Begich Served As The President Of The Board Of Directors For The Alaska Policy Forum. [LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

Image: see original report, p. 31

[LinkedIn, Nicholas Begich III, Accessed 9/7/24]

• The Alaska Policy Forum Was “A Self-Described Free-Market Think Tank.” “A self-described free-market think tank that publishes the earnings of thousands of public employees in Alaska is not so open when it comes to disclosing its financial supporters – including the conservative Outside group that has funneled large grants its way. One of the values of the Alaska Policy Forum is not disclosing donors, but the source of its limited money is less important than the group’s focus on transparency in government, fiscal accountability and school reform, said David Boyle, executive director.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/14/14]

Alaska Policy Forum CEO Bethany Marcum: “Medicaid Expansion Is Failing Alaskans” And Created “A Dependency Crisis.” “It’s time for a reality check. Since Alaska expanded Medicaid to able-bodied adults in 2015, our state has experienced cost overruns, unexpected—but predictable—over-enrollment, and is facing a dependency crisis. Some—local lawmakers and local lobbyists included— would have you believe that Medicaid expansion has benefited our state. But it’s time to face the facts: Medicaid expansion is failing Alaskans.” [Alaska Policy Forum, Bethany Marcum, 2/20/19]

The Alaska Policy Forum Called For The State Government To “Spend Less On Health Care” By “Reconsidering Medicaid Expansion.” “A recent update by Health Management Associates (HMA) shows that Alaska’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollment remains disproportionately high, and enrollment is maintaining a high growth rate more than five years after Medicaid expansion began in Alaska. […] The combined impact of high Medicaid enrollment rates, year after year, with far above average Medicaid reimbursement rates, is certainly contributing to Alaska’s highest-in-the-nation health care spending, and could also be significantly affecting the high price of health care services. If Alaskans want to see themselves and their government spend less on health care, reconsidering Medicaid expansion and renegotiating reimbursement rates with the federal government are the first steps.” [Alaska Policy Forum, 9/21/20]

Dropping Medicaid Expansion Would Cause 41,000 Alaskans To Lose Medicaid Coverage. “If Alaska dropped the Medicaid expansion in response to the loss of enhanced federal financing, the state would forgo an additional $2 billion over the 2020-2029 period, and by 2029, 41,000 Alaskans estimated to be covered in the expansion group would lose Medicaid coverage.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 7/21/17]

Begich Opposed The Inflation Reduction Act, Which Lowered Health Care Costs By Capping Prescription Costs, Including A $35 Cap On Insulin Costs

Begich Opposed The Inflation Reduction Act. Moderator: “Do you support the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, August of 2022?” In response, Begich held up a sign reading, “No.” [YouTube, Anchorage Daily News, [24:34], 8/31/22] (VIDEO)

The IRA Capped Annual Prescription Costs For Medicare Recipients At $2k. The IRA capped annual prescription drug costs for people on Medicare at $2,000 per annum. [Augusta Chronicle, 8/17/22]

The IRA Allows Medicare To Begin Negotiating The Prices Of Certain Drugs Beginning In 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act allows Medicare to begin negotiating the prices of certain drugs beginning in 2026. [Augusta Chronicle, 8/17/22]

The Inflation Reduction Act Will Cut Prescription Drug Prices. The Inflation Reduction Act will cut prescription drug prices. The bill caps annual out of pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 per year. [Congressional Joint Economic Committee, 8/12/22]

The IRA Improves The Affordability Of Healthcare In Medicare And ACA Marketplaces. The IRA includes “provisions to improve the affordability of healthcare for Medicare and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace enrollees.” [CHIRBlog, 8/12/22]

Center for Budget And Policy Priorities: The Inflation Reduction Act Will Lower Medicare Costs. “The bill will reduce Medicare’s drug costs in several ways. It will require the federal government to negotiate with manufacturers to obtain lower prices for some high-cost drugs, require drug companies to pay rebates to Medicare if their prices rise faster than overall inflation, and repeal a Trump Administration rule on drug rebates. The bill will also improve Medicare’s drug benefit by placing a $2,000 annual limit on out-of-pocket drug spending, capping out-of-pocket insulin expenses at $35 a month, eliminating cost sharing for vaccines, and expanding eligibility for the low-income drug subsidy. Currently there is no limit on total out-of-pocket or insulin spending. In total, these changes will save the government about $250 billion over ten years and will also lower premiums and cost sharing for Medicare beneficiaries.” [Congressional Joint Economic Committee, 8/12/22]

The Inflation Reduction Act Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Drug Prices. “The Inflation Reduction Act allows the federal government to negotiate prices for some of the drugs that Medicare spends the most money on, a long sought-after goal by Democrats and some Republicans.” [NBC News, 8/16/22]

The Inflation Reduction Act Capped The Cost Of Insulin At $35 A Month For Patients On Medicare. “The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden, is set to lower the cost of prescription drugs - including cancer medications, blood thinners and insulin - for millions of Americans, experts say. […] The cost of insulin will be capped at $35 a month for patients on Medicare under the new law.” [NBC News, 8/16/22]

The IRA’s Drug Pricing Provisions Would “Save Medicare Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars Over 10 Years” Which Would “Encourage Pharmaceutical Companies To Keep Price Increases To No More Than The Rate Of Inflation.” “The legislation would save Medicare hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years, with the majority of the savings coming as a result of prescription drug price negotiations and the rebates that would encourage pharmaceutical companies to keep price increases to no more than the rate of inflation, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” [AARP, 8/7/22]

IRA Drug Pricing Provisions Will Allow Many Seniors To “Get The Same Medications They Do Now” But Would “Cost Them And Medicare Less.” The access to the same medication and lower costs “means beneficiaries would be able to get the same medications they do now, but some of those drugs would cost them and Medicare less. The savings would not be the result of any cuts to the Medicare program.” [AARP, 8/7/22]

Health Affairs: “The IRA Is Likely To Be Transformative For The Medicare Program, Both In Its Protections For Patients And In Its Elements Designed To Lower Prices Over Time.” “Even though its negotiation provisions have been narrowed from previous versions of the Democrats’ proposals, the IRA is likely to be transformative for the Medicare program, both in its protections for patients and in its elements designed to lower prices over time. But it will have a much smaller impact on patients needing high-cost drugs who are not eligible for Medicare.” [Health Affairs, 8/10/22]

Drug Price Negotiation Was Estimated To Save $288 Billion. “these negotiations are poised to save Medicare a lot of money, since the prices are currently set by manufacturers. These savings - as well others generated by additional prescription drug provisions - are being treated as $288 billion in new revenue that will be brought in over 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.” [Vox, 7/28/22]