Michigan hospitals, activists disagree on price-gouging claims
LANSING, (Mich.) WLNS — Shopping for the right hospital could save you money, according to the Michigan Health Purchasers Coalition (MIHPC). The group claims hospitals are ripping off patients when it comes to drug costs, but hospitals deny this.
Bret Jackson, the president of MIHPC, says excessive costs are keeping people from getting the care they need.
'People not taking the drug that they need to be healthy because of the cost of what they have to pay out of their pocket,' said Jackson.'It really is the difference between living a healthy life or suffering.'
According to data provided by MIHPC, hospitals spent just more than $4 billion on drugs in 2023, but patients paid more than $13 billion for those same drugs.
Jackson said hospitals don't have to charge as much as they do.
'Some hospitals are overcharging patients for drugs. I don't think they need to, I think they are getting reasonable rates for drugs that they are dispensing to patients, and I think they need to do right by the parents that they serve…'
Many patients pay what's called a co-insurance, usually around 20% of the total cost of care. For patients with Medicare, drug prices are often much lower. One example from the MIHPC was Humira, a drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis.
With Medicare, the drug costs about $1,800. Without Medicare, Humira can cost around $13,000 for the exact same drug.
Laura Appel, the Vice President of the Michigan Health and Hospital Association, rejects the claims of over-pricing.
'We reject the claim of price gouging. The coalition chose a few items to analyze. We think that their dataset is incomplete,' said Appel.
Appel said the coalition failed to recognize multiple important cost factors involved with these drugs.
'Just the cost of the drug, that is not the cost of receiving the drug in the hospital, and keeping it at the right place at the right temperature, and paying pharmacists and pharmacy taxes, and making sure that the drug is not expired,' said Appel. 'Hospitals do everything that they can to keep costs down and still serve their communities.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
6 hours ago
- Business Journals
Sutter Health among Premier's 15 Top Health Systems for 2025
Story Highlights Sutter Health ranked third among large health systems nationwide. Premier's 15 Top Health Systems list evaluated 338 systems. Top-ranked systems outperformed peers in mortality rates and efficiency. Sutter Health was ranked among the best in the nation in Premier's 15 Top Health Systems in the United States. The annual list ranks health systems based on clinical outcomes, extended outcomes, operational efficiency and patient experience. A total of 338 health systems were evaluated for the 2025 Premier's 15 Top Health Systems list. GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY Find Local Events Near You Connect with a community of local professionals. Explore All Events To help spotlight the top hospitals and health systems across the nation, The Business Journals is partnering with Premier, a technology-driven, health care improvement company, to publish its annual rankings, including its 100 Top Hospitals ranking. Sutter ranked No. 3 among five large health systems, following two based in Texas. It earned five stars, indicating performance in the top quintile, for clinical outcomes, which consider risk-adjusted mortality, complications, hospital-acquired infections, 30-day mortality and readmissions. It also received four stars for operational efficiency and patient experience. Sutter is one of the largest employers, nonprofits and companies in the Sacramento region. It reported nearly $18 billion in revenue for fiscal 2024 and employs about 17,500 people in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Yolo counties. This year's top performers on Premier's 15 Top Health Systems rankings were Houston Methodist in Houston, Texas; Saint Francis Health System in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and CHI Memorial in Chattanooga, Tennessee, each of which topped its respective size category. Only health systems with at least two short-term, general, acute care hospitals with separate Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Certification Numbers were included in the analysis. Rankings were based on Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data, and data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Care Compare website. Health systems do not apply to be considered. The health systems on this year's rankings outperformed peer systems by 22% on inpatient mortality rates. They also had fewer infections and shorter stays compared to peers. If the performance of this year's 15 Top Health Systems were extrapolated to all Medicare inpatients, more than 171,000 lives could be saved in-hospital and the typical patient could be released a half-day sooner. Here are this year's 15 Top Health Systems: Large Health Systems 1. Houston Methodist City: Houston, TX System type: Parent 2. Baylor Scott & White Health City: Dallas, TX System type: Parent 3. Sutter Health City: Sacramento, CA System type: System 4. Intermountain Health City: Salt Lake City, UT System type: Parent 5. UCHealth City: Aurora, CO System type: Parent Medium Health Systems 1. Saint Francis Health System City: Tulsa, OK System type: Parent 2. HCA Continental Division City: Denver, CO System type: Subsystem 3. HCA Mountain Division City: Cottonwood Heights, UT System type: Subsystem 4. HCA Central and West Texas Division City: Austin, TX System type: Subsystem 5. CHI Health City: Omaha, NE System type: Subsystem Small Health Systems 1. CHI Memorial City: Chattanooga, TN System type: Subsystem 2. CHRISTUS Spohn Health System City: Corpus Christi, TX System type: Subsystem 3. CHI Saint Joseph Health City: Lexington, KY System type: Subsystem 4. Health First City: Rockledge, FL System type: Parent 5. Baptist Health Care (Florida) City: Pensacola, FL System type: Parent
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Why Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) Soared On Thursday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) stands against other best-performing stocks on Thursday. Oscar Health snapped a five-day losing streak on Thursday, jumping 10.6 percent to close at $15.65 apiece as investors resorted to bargain-hunting while waiting for more concrete developments on the Trump administration's Medicare Advantage review. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a $5-trillion tax-and-spending package that shaves as much as $900 billion in Medicaid, which servers over 70 million low-income households. A close up of a patient and a healthcare professional engaging in conversation, showing the company's commitment to patient care. Now, Senate Republicans to broaden savings by looking for supposed inefficiencies in the Medicare program for senior citizens. In the first quarter of the year, Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) registered a 55-percent increase in attributable net income of $275 million versus the $177 million registered in the same period last year. Revenues rose by 42 percent to $3.046 billion from $2.142 billion year-on-year. Overall, OSCR ranks 5th on our list of best-performing stocks on Thursday. While we acknowledge the potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.
