Dixon council inks agreement with OSF Saint Katharine that allows enrollment in drug discount program
May 20—DIXON — The Dixon City Council on Monday, May 19, approved an agreement with OSF HealthCare marking its commitment to providing care to low-income and uninsured patients.
The memorandum of understanding is basically a formality because OSF Saint Katharine Medical Center, a non-profit and a Catholic health system, as part of its policy already provides care to all individuals regardless of their ability to pay. It's really intended to fulfill a prerequisite for the hospital to participate in a federal assistance program that provides drug discounts to hospitals and clinics that qualify, Dixon Mayor Glen Hughes said.
The 340B Drug Discount Program, authorized under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, provides significant discounts on outpatient drugs for certain safety-net health care providers, primarily those that serve a higher number of low-income and uninsured patients, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration website.
In Lee County, the median household income is about $68,459 a year compared to about $80,306 a year across Illinois. About 11.7% of people in Lee County are living in poverty, which is nearly equal to the estimated 11.6% statewide, according to the U.S. Census 2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates data.
That data also estimates that 3.6% of people in Lee County do not have health care coverage, which is less than the estimated 6.2% for all of Illinois.
The agreement "does not create any substantive legal requirements on the part of the city," City Attorney Rob LeSage told the council, adding that the agreement doesn't impose any cost or liability requirements on the city.
"We're just making that statement that we have an understanding with them and that we're supporting the fact that they are providing services to an above-average lower-income or Medicaid clientele," Hughes said.
OSF Saint Katharine is "effectively doing these things already, and by memorializing this in this standard form of agreement...you wave the magic wand, and now they are eligible to receive pharmaceuticals at a lower cost," LeSage said.
"This agreement marks a significant milestone in our continuing efforts to improve healthcare access and affordability for the communities we serve," OSF Saint Katharine President Jackie Kernan said. "By participating in this program, we can extend our resources, making sure that our patients receive the medications they need at a lower cost. We thank the city of Dixon for their partnership and shared vision in making this initiative possible."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca sues Utah attorney general over new drug pricing law
AstraZeneca, a major pharmaceutical company, has sued Utah's Attorney General Derek Brown over a recently passed state law allowing for lower pricing in pharmacies. The lawsuit concerns how SB69, passed during the 2025 state legislative session, deals with Section 340B of the federal Public Health Service Act. The suit was filed in May in the U.S. District Court of the District of Utah. The lawsuit argues that SB69 violates federal law by expanding the 340B drug discount program to unlimited pharmacies. The 340B drug discount program is designed to provide pricing benefits to specific eligible health care entities. It requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer products at steeply discounted rates for a specific list of entities. 'Because such price controls can disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets, Congress carefully crafted Section 340B and limited participation in the program to fifteen — and only fifteen — types of covered entities," per the lawsuit. It also points out that for-profit pharmacy chains, such as CVS and Walgreens, were not included in the list of covered entities. AstraZeneca's suit seeks for an order declaring that SB69 violates federal law and is unconstitutional. It also seeks to stop Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike from enforcing SB69 against AstraZeneca in any manner. The Utah Attorney General's Office said Friday it had no comment on the lawsuit. SB69, which was sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, defines terms related to the 340B drug discount program and prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from setting certain restrictions. Under the law, manufacturers cannot prohibit or restrict pharmacies from contracting with 340B entities. They also cannot deny these 340B entities access to specific drugs. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' per the suit. 'The state law requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' The suit says that SB69 extends Section 340B price caps beyond the scope of the federal program, requiring manufacturers to make discounted drugs available for sale at any and all pharmacies 'authorized by a 340B entity to receive the drug.' It alleges that the law extends the discounts to new categories of transactions that are not covered by the program, thus conflicting with federal law requirements. The suit argues that the law conflicts with federal law, specifically court rulings that 'make clear that the federal 340B statute does not obligate manufacturers to deliver discounted drugs to unlimited contract pharmacies." According to the suit, SB69 also violates federal patent law, which 'prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods.' 'It requires manufacturers like AstraZeneca to offer steeply discounted prices for the sale of their patented drugs, thereby extending federal price caps to an additional category of patented drug sales (contract pharmacy sales) that federal courts have held fall outside of the 340B program. It also argues that SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution's takings clause.
Epoch Times
18 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Judge Rules Federal Rule on Gender Discrimination Violates Catholic Beliefs
A rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violates the beliefs of members of a Catholic association, a federal judge ruled on June 5. The HHS rule requiring members of the Catholic Benefits Association to perform transgender procedures 'violates their sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny,' U.S. District Judge Peter Welte
19 hours ago
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. -- Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
