中新网北京2月6日电(记者 赵方园)据新京报报道，湖北襄阳、宜昌多家医院涉嫌将无精神疾病人员收治 入院，虚构诊疗项目以套取医保基金。涉事医院之一的襄阳恒泰康医院在股权穿透后，实际控制人为A 股上市公司爱尔眼科董事长、实际控制人陈邦。爱尔眼科于2月6日回应中新网称，涉事医院并非爱尔眼 科上市公司体系内企业，作为投资人之一，陈邦并不直接参与恒泰康的经营管理。 2月6日开盘，爱尔眼科股价跌超5%。 据报道，襄阳恒泰康医院医生在确认就诊村民无精神问题后，仍表示可通过虚构病情帮助其住院并获取 医保报销，"病历要写成酒精引起的精神行为障碍……如果你纯粹地戒酒，酒精依赖医保是不给报销 的，我们把它写成酒精所致的精神问题，才能报医保。" 天眼查显示，襄阳恒泰康医院成立于2019年，是爱尔医疗投资集团成员，由湖南恒泰康康复医疗产业发 展有限公司100%控股，在股权穿透后，实际控制人为A股上市公司爱尔眼科实际控制人陈邦。 湖南恒泰 康康复医疗产业发展有限公司官网截图 湖南爱尔健康产业发展有限公司则由爱尔医疗投资集团有限公司持股90%，其公司董事长为张跃文、董 事为李力、陈邦。同时，爱尔医疗投资集团有限公司系A股上市公司爱尔眼科的 ...

Core Insights - The phenomenon of "one drug, two prices" in pharmacies is drawing significant consumer attention, particularly regarding the price discrepancies between in-store purchases using health insurance cards and online prices [1][2] - Consumers are struggling to understand the rationale behind these price differences, especially when they are using funds from their health insurance accounts [1] - The issue is partly attributed to the longer settlement periods associated with health insurance payments, which may lead pharmacies to pass on costs to consumers [1] Group 1 - The media has reported on a consumer's experience of purchasing medication at a pharmacy with a health insurance card, only to find that the prices were significantly higher than those available online [1] - There is a growing concern that some pharmacies may be exploiting the "one drug, two prices" model as a means to siphon off health insurance funds, especially if other pharmacies follow suit [1] - The National Healthcare Security Administration has initiated measures to improve the efficiency of health insurance settlements with designated medical institutions, which may help address these pricing discrepancies [1] Group 2 - The ongoing issue of "one drug, two prices" cannot continue, and there is a call for stricter enforcement, improved settlement efficiency, and heightened public awareness [2] - Pharmacies that focus on exploiting consumers rather than providing competitive pricing may face the risk of being driven out of the market due to increasing competition from online sales and other pharmacies [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the phenomenon of "dual pricing" in pharmacies, where the price of a medication differs significantly depending on whether a consumer pays with cash or through their medical insurance card, raising concerns about fairness and transparency in pricing practices [1][2][3] Group 1: Pricing Discrepancies - A specific case is highlighted where a medication priced at 18 yuan costs 26 yuan when paid for with a medical insurance card, representing a nearly 50% increase [1] - This pricing discrepancy is not isolated, as similar experiences have been reported by other consumers in different regions, indicating a potential widespread issue [1][3] Group 2: Cost Transfer and Justifications - One explanation for the price difference is the longer settlement period for medical insurance payments, which incurs a 2% to 3% fee that pharmacies may pass on to consumers [2] - However, this rationale is questioned, as the extent of the price increase cannot be solely attributed to these fees, suggesting that pharmacies may be exploiting the situation for additional profit [2] Group 3: Consumer Impact and Perception - Consumers express frustration over the higher costs associated with using their medical insurance cards, feeling that they are unfairly penalized despite the funds being their own [3] - The article warns that if such pricing practices are normalized, it could lead to broader skepticism about the medical insurance system and diminish consumer confidence in participating in insurance programs [3] Group 4: Regulatory Concerns - The article calls for regulatory scrutiny of these pricing practices, emphasizing that consumers should not be subjected to discriminatory pricing and that medical insurance funds should not be exploited [3]