Apollo Hospitals, Max Healthcare, and Fortis rise up to 5%

Hospital stocks such as Apollo Hospitals, Max Healthcare, Global Health, Narayana Health, Yatharth Hospitals, and Fortis Healthcare gained up to 5% on Monday, October 6, after the government announced revised rates under the Central Government Health Services Scheme ( CGHS) for nearly 2,000 medical procedures. The new rates will be applicable from October 13. This is the first major revamp in over a decade.

In the past, several hospitals empanelled under the CGHS had refused to offer cashless treatments, citing outdated package rates that failed to reflect medical inflation over the last decade.

As a result, patients often had to pay upfront and wait months for reimbursement. The updated framework introduces a multi-tiered rate structure based on four parameters – accreditation, hospital type, city category, and ward entitlement, with a 5% reduction for general wards.

NABH-accredited hospitals will serve as the benchmark for rates, while non-accredited facilities will be paid 15% lower. Rates will also vary by city tier, with tier-2 and tier-3 cities priced 10% to 20% below those in tier-1 locations.

Hospitals have largely welcomed the move, saying it should improve receivables and streamline cashless transactions. A preliminary assessment by DAM Capital indicates an average 25-30% increase across key procedures.

Among listed players, Fortis, Max, Narayana Health, and Yatharth are expected to benefit the most, given their higher exposure to government schemes — Yatharth’s share is around 35%. Other hospital chains such as Apollo Hospitals (9% exposure), Max Healthcare (21.8%), Global Health (18%), and Narayana Health (18%) are also likely to see some positive impact.

Apollo Hospital touched a day high of 3.7% at Rs 7,730 per share, while Fortis Healthcare gained 5% to Rs 1,027. Global Health touched an intra-day high of Rs 1,347, higher by over a percent.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)