- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,306
- Reaction score
- 21,766
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Politico recently reported on how lots of states hoping to rein in health care costs have collided with opposition from hospitals, which in many places are the largest local employers. (The examples here are mostly from blue states, but the recent flexing by GOP legislative leaders in Indiana about high hospital prices has also largely come to naught.) The more money they suck up, the more economically and politically powerful they become.
Minnesota wanted to curb health spending. Mayo Clinic had other ideas.
Minnesota wanted to curb health spending. Mayo Clinic had other ideas.
Mayo Clinic issued an ultimatum to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic lawmakers earlier this month: Kill a proposed health affordability bill, or say goodbye to $4 billion in new hospital investments.
Minnesota lawmakers responded quickly — by watering down an ambitious proposal in the final days of the legislative session, which ended last week.
The threat from the world-renowned health system is the latest salvo against attempts to rein in rapidly growing health spending — and demonstrates how those efforts sometimes flounder against industry heavyweights.
Hospitals have similarly, if more quietly, pushed back on proposals in other states. In Connecticut and Oregon, they have opposed giving the state more power to limit the growth in health care costs. And in Massachusetts, hospitals are pushing the state to “reimagine” their spending targets, including accounting for unpredictable hospital costs like travel nurses and rapid inflation.
“People are so afraid to touch this because [hospitals] are the economic engines,” said Massachusetts state Sen. Cindy Friedman, a Democrat who chairs the legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Care Financing. “It’s a business, and people are making huge amounts of money. … That’s what you’re up against.”