American Hospital Association, ACR urge administration to protect imaging from tariffs

Both the American Hospital Association and the American College of Radiology recently urged the Trump administration to protect medical imaging from the impact of tariffs. 

The two organizations submitted separate comments to the feds in response to a request for information on importing processed minerals and derivative products. AHA—which represents nearly 5,000 organizations and 270,000 affiliated physicians—noted Friday that these materials are crucial to MRI, CT, PET and radiation therapy services. 

The hospital trade group highlighted a recent survey, which found that 82% of healthcare experts expect tariff-related expenses to raise hospital costs by at least 15%. About 90% of supply chain professionals anticipate procurement disruptions, the hospital association added. 

“The AHA urges the administration to consider tariff exceptions for critical minerals and derivative products that are used for medical purposes,” Akinluwa (Akin) A. Demehin, MPH, VP of quality and safety policy, wrote to the administration on May 16. “These exceptions could be coupled with continued engagement with multiple stakeholders—hospitals and health systems, device and drug manufacturers, mining and mineral processors and others—to explore approaches to making the supply chain for critical minerals used in medical devices and therapies more resilient and, when feasible, less dependent on international sources.”

Demehin noted that multiple minerals, essential to healthcare diagnostics and treatment, are “heavily dependent” on international sources, “especially China.” These include rare earth materials such as gadolinium (used for contrast fluid to enhance MRIs) and lutetium (for producing high-resolution PET/CT scans). The latter, along with yttrium, also is a critical component of radiopharmaceuticals used to shrink certain kinds of tumors, the AHA noted. All the yttrium used in the U.S. is imported, with about 93% coming from China. 

“Tariffs on these and other critical minerals used in healthcare could lead to disruptions in the availability of these critical patient care tools,” Demehin added. “Lastly, the AHA is concerned about the potential for tariffs to raise the costs of delivering care to hospitals and health systems. Tariffs on critical minerals could have a particularly significant impact on complex medical devices that are higher cost and lower volume, in part due to requiring specialized parts and customization to meet the needs of healthcare providers.”

Meanwhile, the American College of Radiology also submitted its own separate comments on May 7 in response to the same request for information. ACR, which represents over 40,000 physicians, noted that contrast agents and radiopharmaceuticals are used in millions of advanced medical imaging studies in the U.S. annually. In many cases, there are no available alternative materials. Tariffs on these items “almost certainly” would drive up the cost of procedures while potentially disrupting patient access. 

“Any increase in the cost of these materials would, by necessity, be passed directly to U.S. patients and payers,” wrote ACR CEO Dana H. Smetherman, MD, MPH, MBA. “As these materials are components of medical procedures and can only be administered by appropriately qualified healthcare providers, we do not believe these materials are the intended target of the investigation. Rather, ‘pharmaceuticals’ are generally understood to be patented, generic or over-the-counter products purchased by patients and self-administered for a prescribed period. Accordingly, we strongly recommend exclusions or deferrals for radiologic contrast agents and radiopharmaceuticals.” 

The two comment letters are in response to the Section 232 national security investigation of pharmaceuticals and ingredients issued by Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. Section 232 allows for the imposition of tariffs on imports that threaten national security, ACR noted in a news update published May 15. 

The American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and American College of Cardiology also recently urged the