logo
Senators begrudgingly move hospital ‘price caps' bill

Senators begrudgingly move hospital ‘price caps' bill

Yahoo20-03-2025

Hospital administrators like Baptist Health Floyd's Michael Schroyer, left, and Goshen Health's Randy Christophel, urged senators to reconsider a bill establishing "price caps" on their services. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Nearly every lawmaker on the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee voted in favor of a house priority bill on Wednesday, but few seemed happy about it.
'This is probably the worst bill — collectively, as a total — that I have seen in many years,' said Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg. 'I have to support this bill because of the (hospital assessment fee) language … assuming (it) might help the HAF continue through the legislative process.'
This bill needs surgery.
– Sen. Mike Crider, R-Greenfield
House Bill 1004 would implement 'price caps' on nonprofit hospital charges and restructure a provider tax to increase federal reimbursements for health care entities. While the latter was universally praised, eight of the ten senators who voted to advance the bill flagged the attempt to control pricing.
Leising went on to express her dismay after repeatedly hearing about the need for an amendment but seeing no such language introduced before the committee. Due to its financial impact, the bill must also move through the Senate Appropriations Committee.
'The other part of this bill, I think, is really not workable at all. And it's just very disappointing to me,' Leising continued. 'But I hope that the people in appropriations take this seriously.'
Like other legislators, Leising had concerns about whether adding price caps tied to Medicare would hurt hospitals, especially rural or critical access facilities like those in her southeastern Indiana district.
Others questioned why insurers weren't getting the same scrutiny while acknowledging that the majority of the state's residents are covered by an insurance type that can't be regulated by the state.
Rep. Martin Carbaugh, R-Fort Wayne, understands the struggles to regulate insurers as the chair of the House insurance committee.
'For the past several years, we've been looking for ways to lower the cost of health care in the state and save taxpayers money in the process,' said Carbaugh. '(But)I don't believe that this bill is exactly in a form that's going to pass into law.'
Michael Schroyer, the president of Baptist Health Floyd in New Albany, committed to working with legislators on the bill, even offering to review the hospital's finances one-on-one. He reported losing $4 million alone in February, despite high patient volume, as costs for pharmaceuticals, supplies and salaries were up a collective 30%.
'We want health care costs to come down as well … we're at the mercy of so many others because we can't control what we're charged for the things we need to care for patients,' Schroyer told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. '(Insurance companies) have a big part in this that affects our costs because we spend millions of dollars a year negotiating, doing pre-authorization (and) dealing with denials.'
The sole dissenting vote came from Fort Wayne Republican Sen. Liz Brown, who detailed the years of effort and millions of dollars spent to try to reduce health care costs.
'There is a lot of work to do; this bill didn't do it,' Brown said. 'I'm hearing car prices are going up and everything in between, but somehow it's only the hospitals' responsibility to bring down costs.'
Senators balked at the notion of establishing price caps, which would be based on Medicare rates. A nonprofit hospital charging a private insurer more than 265% of that rate, which is established on the federal level but varies from facility to facility, would be penalized with an excise tax.
Those entities would also lose their nonprofit status, meaning they'd have to pay state taxes.
In his introduction, Carbaugh pointed to a Rand Corp. study that identified Indiana hospitals are the eighth-highest cost nationwide, regardless of nonprofit status. That analysis found that, nationwide, commercial payers were charged 2.5 times what hospitals charged Medicare for the same service. In Indiana, the rate was even higher at 3.4 times the cost of Medicare.
Hospitals take heat during dueling health care hearings​
But Rand's report was repeatedly criticized in committee for not truly mirroring the money received by hospitals since the analysis is based on what employers pay, which adds in insurer charges and overhead.
'If you set a cap on how we get paid, that money saves the insurance company. It's up to them whether they pass it on or not,' said Randy Christophel, the CEO and president of Goshen Health. 'We have been reducing our costs significantly over the last four or five years and we have not seen those dollars passed along to our regional employers.'
Schroyer said his hospital charged 207% of Medicare, according to RAND, but specialities like open heart procedures or neurosurgeries cost more. With even one charge above the 265% threshold, Schroyer would lose his nonprofit status under House Bill 1004.
But Schroyer and other hospital systems praised the inclusion of changes to the hospital assessment fee, which would leverage additional dollars in federal reimbursements to hospitals.
'If we didn't pass the HAF changes, my hospitals would be losing $35-50 million a year. And that's unsustainable,' said Schroyer.
Sen. Tyler Johnson, an emergency care physician, expressed a concern about 'increased bureaucracy that will require increased administrative costs,' something he said would 'probably (go) back to the patients at a time when we're trying to figure out how to lower costs.'
The bill, he worried, wouldn't lower costs or improve accessibility, but would rather 'make it worse for our rural communities.'
He, and other lawmakers, asked those testifying in support of the bill if they would support price caps in other industries. Such supporters included Gov. Mike Braun's administration, mainstay employer-focused organizations and Families USA, a national organization representing consumers.
CONTACT US
'This bill is a major step forward for the state to curb the growth of unchecked health care consolidation, particularly on hospitals and its impact on rising and unaffordable health care across the state,' said Sophia Tripoli, the group's strategic and innovative health policy thought leader. 'Local institutions … have now become large corporate entities focused on maximizing revenue rather than improving health.'
Despite the hours of testimony, senators seemed unconvinced by the arguments of those supporting price caps. It was a stark contrast to the House, where the bill advanced easily and with the support of nearly every Republican lawmaker.
'My concern … is we're arbitrarily taking this cookie-cutter approach to how we're going to do health care in Indiana with a hope and a prayer that it's going to reduce costs and increase access,' said Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington. 'I have not heard one argument that that is going to be the case.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cardiac Risk Warning for Lamotrigine Challenged
Cardiac Risk Warning for Lamotrigine Challenged

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Cardiac Risk Warning for Lamotrigine Challenged

Real-world data from two new studies showed no increased risk for cardiac issues in older adults with epilepsy taking the antiseizure medication (ASM) lamotrigine (Lamictal) vs levetiracetam. The findings add to growing evidence that may eventually lead the FDA to reconsider its current cardiac safety warning, researchers said. The FDA added the cardiac warning label in 2020 based on in vitro studies and case reports of arrhythmias in some patients with underlying heart disease who were taking the drug. However, as reported by Medscape Medical News at that time, several groups challenged the severity of the warning — particularly given that clinicians had been prescribing lamotrigine for three decades without the widespread evidence of such risks. The first new cohort study used data from US Medicare claims and UK claims for more than 53,00 total patients. Its findings showed no difference in new diagnoses of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) between patients initiating the use of lamotrigine and those initiating the use of levetiracetam. Results from the second cohort study, which used Medicare data of nearly 12,000 new lamotrigine users and nearly 150,000 new levetiracetam users, showed no significant between-group differences in incidence of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac arrest (VA/SCA). The study was prompted by the FDA's safety warning, which was based on limited evidence, lead author Gloria Y.F. Ho, PhD, told Medscape Medical News . 'Our study was done in people, had a comparator, and also looked at several subgroups. And we did not find an increased risk' for cardiac outcomes, said Ho, visiting scholar at the Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. The findings for both studies were published online on June 11 in Neurology . Closing the Evidence Gap Lamictal accounts for 'about 10% of all antiseizure medication use,' the investigators noted in a press release. It remains first-line therapy for certain forms of epilepsy, according to the American Epilepsy Society (AES) and the American Academy of Neurology. The drug inhibits voltage-gated sodium channels, which is a mechanism also implicated in regulating cardiomyocyte excitability. In October 2020, the FDA updated the lamotrigine label to warn about its potential to prolong QT interval, induce new arrhythmias, and slow ventricular conduction in patients with structural or functional heart disease on the basis of an in vitro electrophysiologic study and some case reports. In addition, rodent studies have shown prolonged QT interval time with high-dose lamotrigine vs placebo or a low dose of the drug. 'However, it is uncertain whether these findings are applicable to human physiology,' Ho and colleagues wrote. They added that other studies have often been underpowered to detect rare outcome risks. 'In such instances, real-world data sources can help provide valuable insights to fill this gap,' they noted. Class III Evidence In the first study, led by Samuel W. Terman, MD, from the Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, participants were included if they had filled their first ASM prescription following a first seizure or epilepsy diagnosis, with no prescriptions for this drug class in the previous year. The full patient population included 40,554 patients from Medicare (3038 lamotrigine users and 37,516 levetiracetam users) and 13,098 patients from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD; 8694 lamotrigine users and 4404 levetiracetam users). In the Medicare group, the median age of those receiving lamotrigine vs levetiracetam was 61 vs 74 years. In the CPRD group, the median age was 34 vs 48 years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for VT/VF was 0.73 for lamotrigine vs levetiracetam in the Medicare dataset and 0.75 for lamotrigine vs levetiracetam in the CPRD dataset. The cumulative incidences were 1.7% vs 2.3% and 0.2% vs 0.3%, respectively. In addition, lamotrigine showed a 'slightly, but nonsignificantly, lower 2-year absolute difference' in cumulative VT/VF incidence in both datasets, the researchers wrote. Sensitivity analyses assessing such things as atrial or any arrhythmias and existing cardiovascular diagnoses showed similar results. 'This study provides class III evidence that lamotrigine did not significantly increase the 2-year cumulative incidence of VT/VF in adult patients with epilepsy,' the investigators wrote. They added that the findings 'do not support concerns regarding lamotrigine increasing arrhythmias.' No Risk in Patients With Heart Disease Using 2007-2019 data of Medicare-insured patients with epilepsy and aged at least 65 years, Ho and her team assessed 11,786 new users of lamotrigine (mean age, 74 years; 64% women) and 147,130 new users of levetiracetam (mean age, 77 years; 60% women). Results showed similar incidence of VA/SCA between the two treatment groups (7 vs 8.2 per 1000 person-years; P =.15) and a nonsignificantly higher adjusted HR of 0.84 for the lamotrigine vs levetiracetam groups ( P =.13). The HRs for VA and SCA individually were similar at 0.86 and 0.83, respectively. Secondary analyses showed no increased risk for VA/SCA in lamotrigine vs levetiracetam users with a baseline history of cardiac conditions, such as heart disease or heart failure. However, lamotrigine users with a baseline history of arrhythmias had a significantly reduced risk for VA/SCA (HR, 0.51) and for the use of any antiarrhythmic drugs (HR, 0.67). The investigators noted that although 'it has been postulated that lamotrigine increases the risk for VA/SCA because of its pharmacodynamic properties,' this assertion was based on studies that did not include older at-risk adults, including those with a history of heart disease. The new findings 'do not support' the current FDA warning label, they added. 'Lamotrigine is a very common and effective drug. Because of the FDA warning, it may limit its use in people who could benefit from it. Because they have a history of heart disease, they may not be able to get the prescription and this could affect the clinical management of epilepsy,' Ho said. Still, she recommended that clinicians evaluate patients on a case by case basis. 'At the end of the day, people in this age group may have other comorbidities and may be taking other medications. So I cannot just say, 'This is safe. Go ahead and use it,'' she said. Ho also noted that the findings may not be generalizable to younger patients because they used Medicare data of individuals older than 65 years or generalizable to those without epilepsy because the drug is also prescribed as a mood stabilizer for bipolar disorder. Two Studies, Same Conclusion In an accompanying editorial, Leah J. Blank, MD/MPH, assistant professor of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that both groups of investigators used real-world data and advanced analysis techniques to answer safety questions surrounding the drug. Although Blank pointed out both studies were observational and retrospective in nature, she wrote that the researchers accounted for all of that in their measures. 'Together, these data suggest that lamotrigine likely is safe in clinical practice and can continue to be used as an effective and well tolerated antiseizure medication,' Blank wrote. She also told Medscape Medical News that she prescribes the medication in her own practice. 'The studies were important because lamotrigine is an excellent antiseizure medication and it appears to be very well tolerated. Patients tend to like it and do well on it,' said Blank. 'It's reassuring that two different groups, using slightly different methods, came to the same conclusion that there is not an increased risk for cardiac events in people taking lamotrigine,' she said. Blank said it is worth noting that the human data do not support the FDA warning label. Asked whether it would be taking the new findings into consideration regarding its safety warning, a spokesperson for the FDA told Medscape Medical News that, in general, it does not comment on specific studies. Rather, the organization 'evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.' In addition, a representative for the AES told Medscape Medical News that the organization is not currently working on a statement based on these studies at this time.

Trans youth health care choices are for families, not government to decide
Trans youth health care choices are for families, not government to decide

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trans youth health care choices are for families, not government to decide

When Michigan parents need to make a medical decision for their child, they know whose input they want: their child's doctor and health care team, their family and friends and other trusted people in their lives who they know will put their child's well-being first. But as a family medicine doctor, I've never seen a parent wonder what their state legislator thinks. They frequently wonder what the best research shows, or ask about the established guidelines of reputable medical organizations, but they don't ask their house representative if they should breastfeed, nor their senator if they should have a C-section. Parents have always been entrusted with having conversations with medical professionals, weighing the evidence, and making the best decisions for their children. Why, then, are Republicans in Lansing trying to take away parents' ability to decide what medical care is right for their children? Why are they pushing harmful legislation (House Bills 4466-4468) that would criminalize pediatricians for following the recommendations of every major medical association in the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists? Because transgender children have become the new political scapegoat, and legislators who do not know them, their stories, their families, their dreams, or anything about their medical care do not trust parents to make thoughtful, informed decisions on what's best for their future. Parents considering what type of care their child needs deserve the right to talk individually with trained experts; to have their questions answered privately; to engage with a full care team of physicians, psychologists, and social workers; to receive detailed, specific information that applies to their child and their needs, free from bias and government interference. Kids and their families need our support, not our government's targeted legislative attack. The truth is, most of these parents already know intimately what the research has proven time and again: Medical care for transgender young people is life-saving care. These vulnerable children are more likely to be bullied, threatened and attempt suicide than their peers. Providing essential medical care ensures access to social, medical and psychological support while navigating the complexities of adolescence and leads to improved emotional health outcomes. Those who claim to sincerely question this health care are also in favor of banning further research – a convenient solution, and not one genuinely invested in people's well-being. Transgender young people are already on the frontline of so many fights for which they did not ask. We cannot allow the government to ban essential medical care and criminalize healthcare providers who have dedicated their lives to helping all children – not just the ones who fit a certain mold. Attempts to ban medical care makes these children more depressed, anxious and vulnerable. This legislation will only make kids less safe. You don't need to know everything about transgender people or transgender health care to know that it's wrong for the government to interfere with parents and doctors making personal health care decisions that follow all major medical guidelines, and it's wrong for Republican legislators to bully a small group of children who make up less than 1% of the population and use them as political pawns to distract us from real issues facing Michiganders. You only need to know that parents need the freedom to make decisions for their children's health care in the privacy of their doctor's office, without having the harmful rhetoric of extremist politicians forced upon them. That's the kind of protection transgender young people really need right now. Dr. Lauren Snyder is a board-certified family medicine physician in Michigan. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Trans youth and their families need no government meddling | Opinion

What's in RI's proposed $14.3B budget? Help for primary care, RIPTA funds and 'Taylor Swift tax'
What's in RI's proposed $14.3B budget? Help for primary care, RIPTA funds and 'Taylor Swift tax'

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

What's in RI's proposed $14.3B budget? Help for primary care, RIPTA funds and 'Taylor Swift tax'

PROVIDENCE – Rhode Island House Democrats have unveiled a new $14.3 billion state budget that seeks to bolster the finances of primary care doctors, hospitals and nursing homes without raising income taxes on the wealthy. The proposed tax and spending plan for the year starting July 1 would raise Medicaid reimbursement rates to inject, including federal dollars, $45 million into primary care, $38 million into hospitals and $12 million into nursing homes. Funding for primary care practices would come in part from a new health insurance fee estimated to generate $30 million per year. Although it spares the well-heeled an income tax hike, the House budget resurrects a tax proposed a decade ago on second homes worth more than $1 million, branded the "Taylor Swift tax" after the Watch Hill vacation home of the famous pop star. Proceeds would go to fund the state's low-income housing tax credit. The budget would inject $15 million into the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, the same amount of money lawmakers added to the statewide bus system a year ago but less than half of the $33 million the agency says it needs to plug a budget hole and avoid service cuts. The extra RIPTA funding will come from a 3-cent-per-gallon hike in the gas tax slated to go into effect July 1 and tweaks to the formula that distributes transportation funds. A 1-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax is already set to go into effect in July. The budget, a rewrite of the $14.2 billion tax and spending plan Gov. Dan McKee proposed in January, was quickly passed on an 11-3 vote by the House Finance Committee on June 10, setting it up for a vote before the full House on June 17. "All our colleagues have heard, the Senate has heard and we decided that we needed to take action now," House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters about the money for primary care. "We've heard that our reimbursement rates are low, and that's the primary cause of the health care shortage. We wanted to address that immediately." Senate President Valarie Lawson in an email applauded budget investments in healthcare, RIPTA and child care, suggesting it won't have much trouble passing that chamber. As expected, the House abandoned several of McKee's proposals, including a 50-cent hike in the cigarette tax, buying an office building from Citizens Bank in East Providence and a tax on digital advertising that the governor hoped would pull in $9.5 million next year and $23.5 million annually by 2030. But the House budget agreed with the governor on other proposals, including a new fee on electric vehicles and charging the state's 5% hotel tax to short-term rentals of whole homes on sites such as Airbnb. Other budget highlights include: Truck tolls. The House accepted McKee's plan to turn on the legal-again tolls on tractor trailers in the first half of 2026 and collect an estimated $10 million in state revenue. Washington Bridge: $22 million in state dollars to match federal funds to build a new westbound Washington Bridge. Education: The House proposal would spend $16.5 million more on education than McKee proposed and $59 million more than the current-year budget. Conveyance tax: A 63% increase in the real estate conveyance tax on all home purchases, which doubles for the portion of a sale over $800,000 is proposed with proceeds going to services for homeless Rhode Islanders. The tax increase is projected to raise $8.4 million next year. Airbnb: Extends the 5% state hotel tax to whole-house rentals, something lawmakers rejected last year but McKee's budget expects will generate $4.7 million per year, with a part of the collections also going to homeless services. DMV: A $1 hike in the Division of Motor Vehicles "technology fee" to $3.50 per transaction. Superman Building: The House budget included a provision, already passed as a standalone bill in the Senate, that would exempt the owner of the vacant Industrial Trust Tower in Providence from sales tax on construction materials while claiming a maximum in other state incentives. Parking: The state's 7% sales tax would be charged to parking, generating $3.2 million per year. Nicotine pouches: The tax applied to the wholesale cost of tobacco products would be expanded to synthetic nicotine pouches such as Zyn, generating $12 million per year. Vacation home tax: The "Taylor Swift Tax" would not go into effect until the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2026 and no estimate was provided of how much it would eventually raise. Longtime advocates of increasing taxes on Rhode Island's highest-earning residents hoped the budget pressure facing the state this year would convince top lawmakers that the time was now right to do it. They proposed a 3% surcharge on income above $625,000, which was estimated to generate $190 million in annual revenue. And as lawmakers waited for the final details of the budget to be hammered out on June 10, the Working Families Party camped outside the State House with a box truck showing illuminated messages of support for a tax hike, such as, "Save Rhode Island. Tax the Rich." But Shekarchi told reporters that lawmakers decided against a tax hike, at least until the state knows whether Congress is going to pass a tax cut bill that could slash Medicaid funding and shift more costs to states. "We don't know what's going to happen in Washington," Shekarchi said. "We don't know what changes are going to be made in the federal tax code. We felt comfortable enough to do the non-owner-occupied taxes over a million dollars at this time, and we will revisit that issue when we have more clarity from Washington." But Working Families Political Director Zack Mezera said what's happening in Washington is even more reason to make the "1% pay their fair share," not an excuse. 'Today's budget shows that state leadership would rather raise gas taxes for working families than increase taxes on millionaires," Mezera wrote in a news release. "As President Trump and his allies advance destructive cuts that could cause over 240,000 Rhode Islanders to lose Medicaid and hundreds of educators and care workers to lose their jobs, we need bold action to raise revenue now – otherwise working people and small businesses will be paying the price for years." With $15 million from the budget to fill a $33 million projected shortfall, it looks as though RIPTA is going to need to scale back what it does, but Shekarchi said it would not necessarily mean large layoffs or route cuts. "I think they need to look at everything," he said. "Maybe it's smaller buses, maybe it's addressing the ride schedule, maybe it's a slight fare increase, maybe it's looking at management positions. That's why we mandated, when we gave them $15 million last year, they do an efficiency study and find out the solutions." Despite the prospect of having to make painful cuts this summer, RIPTA CEO Christopher Durand said the bus system is "grateful" for the additional permanent state revenue. "The agency has long needed a consistent funding stream to allow us to better support getting Rhode Islanders to work, school and healthcare," he said in an email. "The last time the agency saw a permanent change in its funding structure was over ten years ago; this is a needed improvement, which we are thankful for." This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI's proposed $14.3B budget: Primary care; RIPTA; 'Taylor Swift tax'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store