Health Rights Group says Maharashtra bill fails to curb private hospital fees

A coalition of health‑rights activists has challenged a newly introduced Maharashtra bill, arguing that it falls short of regulating the fees private hospitals can charge patients. According to The Hindu, the Health Rights Group (HRG) examined the draft and concluded that it contains no provisions to cap treatment rates in the private sector.

The group’s campaign has focused on direct engagement with legislators. Representatives met with all 21 members of the Joint Legislative Committee (JLC) who are MLAs, urging the state Health Minister to organise a statewide consultation that would bring together hospitals, patient‑rights organisations, and other health‑sector stakeholders. HRG says such a dialogue is essential to ensure that any legislation truly addresses the cost burden on patients.

The bill, introduced by the Maharashtra government, is part of a broader effort to overhaul the state’s health‑care framework. While it seeks to improve infrastructure, expand insurance coverage and strengthen public hospitals, critics note that it leaves private providers largely unchecked. In India, private hospitals account for a substantial share of inpatient care, especially in urban areas, and their pricing practices have long been a source of controversy. Without statutory caps or transparent pricing mechanisms, patients often face unpredictable out‑of‑pocket expenses, a situation that the HRG says the bill does not remedy.

Historically, attempts to regulate private hospital fees in Indian states have met with mixed success. Some states, such as Tamil Nadu, have introduced price‑control committees that set maximum tariffs for certain procedures, while others rely on market competition, which many argue fails to protect low‑income patients. The Maharashtra proposal, therefore, arrives at a time when civil society groups are pressing for more robust consumer protections across the health sector.

If the Health Minister agrees to convene the requested consultation, the next steps could include drafting amendments that introduce price caps, mandatory disclosure of treatment costs, or a grievance redressal mechanism. Until such measures are adopted, the HRG warns that the bill’s current form may do little to alleviate the financial strain faced by patients seeking private care.

The outcome of this debate will likely influence not only Maharashtra’s health policy but also set a precedent for other Indian states grappling with the balance between private health‑care growth and affordable access for their citizens.