Categories
Health

New Rule Raises Query: Who’ll Pay for All of the Covid Checks?

Spurred by rising Covid cases and the Delta variant’s spread, a wave of major employers announced the same rule for unvaccinated workers this week: They will need to submit to regular surveillance testing. The new requirement raises a thorny question: Who pays for those coronavirus tests?

Doctors typically charge about $50 to $100 for the tests, so the costs of weekly testing could add up quickly. Federal law requires insurers to fully cover the tests when ordered by a health care provider, but routine workplace tests are exempt from that provision.

“It’s really up to the employer,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “They can require employees to pick up the tab.”

Employers have so far taken a range of approaches, from fully covering the costs to having unvaccinated workers pay full freight.

The U.S. government will pay for its unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus testing, Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary, said at a news briefing Friday.

President Biden announced rules on Thursday that amount to a two-tier system for the country’s four million federal employees. Those who do not get vaccinated will have to social-distance, wear face coverings and comply with limits on official travel. Those who do get vaccinated will have no such requirements.

The unvaccinated will also have to submit to regular coronavirus testing. Each federal agency will come up with a plan for testing its unvaccinated work force. The costs and procedures of each agency’s testing protocols will depend on the number of unvaccinated people they need to monitor.

“The agencies are going to be implementing this program themselves, so they’ll be in charge of how that moves forward,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.

Among the employers taking a different approach is Rhodes College in Tennessee: It will have unvaccinated students, faculty and staff pay a $1,500 fee per semester to cover the costs associated with a weekly coronavirus testing program.

Rhodes, a small liberal arts college, estimates that three-quarters of its employees are vaccinated. It is still collecting information about the vaccination rate among its 2,000 students, and it strongly encourages vaccination. But it is waiting until full Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccines before mandating them.

Updated 

July 31, 2021, 11:42 a.m. ET

“This is not a punishment,” said Meghan Harte Weyant, the college’s vice president for student life. “For students who choose to return to campus unvaccinated, they will have to cover their costs. This is intended to ensure that students who are vaccinated do not have to bear that cost.”

Other employers are having workers chip in for the costs of coronavirus testing. MGM Resorts, which owns many hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, will charge a $15 co-pay for the testing at an on-site clinic for unvaccinated workers, multiple news outlets reported last week. Workers will also have the option to be tested at an outside provider.

MGM Resorts did not respond to a New York Times request for comment on the new policy.

These disparate approaches could provide a menu of options for workplaces still deciding who will pay for unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus tests, and how much.

New York and California started testing requirements for unvaccinated state workers this week, but neither has specified who will pay for the service. Neither governor’s press office responded to a Times request for comment.

Many states and cities still have free coronavirus testing sites that they started earlier in the pandemic. Long Beach, Calif., announced this week that it would require testing for unvaccinated city workers. In a statement to The Times on the new rule, the city said that workers “will have the option to do their mandated testing for free at the Long Beach Health Department” when the requirement takes effect in mid-August.

But many Americans also get tests at doctor’s offices and pharmacies, which will typically bill patients and their insurance for the service.

Understand the State of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

Federal law requires insurers to fully cover coronavirus tests ordered by health care providers, meaning the doctor cannot apply a deductible or co-payment to the service. Rules written by the Trump administration, and continued into the Biden administration, excluded routine workplace testing from that requirement.

In practice, insurers do often end up covering employer-mandated tests — it’s hard to tell from a doctor’s bill whether a workplace ordered the care — but they could start reviewing cases of patients who suddenly have claims every week for the same service.

“If they are starting to see a significant number of people who have these tests submitted every week, or twice a week, under federal law they would be within their authority to say this looks like routine workplace testing and not cover it,” said Professor Corlette of Georgetown.

This means unvaccinated workers who have to obtain their own coronavirus testing could have to pay their own fees. Some patients have faced surprise medical bills for coronavirus tests, which can range from a few dollars to over $1,000.

Some of those bills were the result of an employer-mandated test. In the last year, The Times has asked readers to send in their medical bills for coronavirus testing and treatment, and reviewed multiple cases of surprise charges for a workplace-required test.

That includes Marta Bartan, who needed a coronavirus test to return to a job last summer working as a hair colorist in Brooklyn. As The Times reported, she received a $1,394 bill from a hospital running a drive-through site.

“I was so confused,” she said at the time. “You go in to get a Covid test expecting it to be free. What could they have possibly charged me $1,400 for?”

Categories
Health

New Rule Raises Query: Who’ll Pay for All of the Covid Checks?

Spurred by rising Covid cases and the Delta variant’s spread, a wave of major employers announced the same rule for unvaccinated workers this week: They will need to submit to regular surveillance testing. The new requirement raises a thorny question: Who pays for those coronavirus tests?

Doctors typically charge about $50 to $100 for the tests, so the costs of weekly testing could add up quickly. Federal law requires insurers to fully cover the tests when ordered by a health care provider, but routine workplace tests are exempt from that provision.

“It’s really up to the employer,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “They can require employees to pick up the tab.”

Employers have so far taken a range of approaches, from fully covering the costs to having unvaccinated workers pay full freight.

The U.S. government will pay for its unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus testing, Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary, said at a news briefing Friday.

President Biden announced rules on Thursday that amount to a two-tier system for the country’s four million federal employees. Those who do not get vaccinated will have to social-distance, wear face coverings and comply with limits on official travel. Those who do get vaccinated will have no such requirements.

The unvaccinated will also have to submit to regular coronavirus testing. Each federal agency will come up with a plan for testing its unvaccinated work force. The costs and procedures of each agency’s testing protocols will depend on the number of unvaccinated people they need to monitor.

“The agencies are going to be implementing this program themselves, so they’ll be in charge of how that moves forward,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.

Among the employers taking a different approach is Rhodes College in Tennessee: It will have unvaccinated students, faculty and staff pay a $1,500 fee per semester to cover the costs associated with a weekly coronavirus testing program.

Rhodes, a small liberal arts college, estimates that three-quarters of its employees are vaccinated. It is still collecting information about the vaccination rate among its 2,000 students, and it strongly encourages vaccination. But it is waiting until full Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccines before mandating them.

Updated 

July 30, 2021, 7:36 p.m. ET

“This is not a punishment,” said Meghan Harte Weyant, the college’s vice president for student life. “For students who choose to return to campus unvaccinated, they will have to cover their costs. This is intended to ensure that students who are vaccinated do not have to bear that cost.”

Other employers are having workers chip in for the costs of coronavirus testing. MGM Resorts, which owns many hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, will charge a $15 co-pay for the testing at an on-site clinic for unvaccinated workers, multiple news outlets reported last week. Workers will also have the option to be tested at an outside provider.

MGM Resorts did not respond to a New York Times request for comment on the new policy.

These disparate approaches could provide a menu of options for workplaces still deciding who will pay for unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus tests, and how much.

New York and California started testing requirements for unvaccinated state workers this week, but neither has specified who will pay for the service. Neither governor’s press office responded to a Times request for comment.

Many states and cities still have free coronavirus testing sites that they started earlier in the pandemic. Long Beach, Calif., announced this week that it would require testing for unvaccinated city workers. In a statement to The Times on the new rule, the city said that workers “will have the option to do their mandated testing for free at the Long Beach Health Department” when the requirement takes effect in mid-August.

But many Americans also get tests at doctor’s offices and pharmacies, which will typically bill patients and their insurance for the service.

Understand the State of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

Federal law requires insurers to fully cover coronavirus tests ordered by health care providers, meaning the doctor cannot apply a deductible or co-payment to the service. Rules written by the Trump administration, and continued into the Biden administration, excluded routine workplace testing from that requirement.

In practice, insurers do often end up covering employer-mandated tests — it’s hard to tell from a doctor’s bill whether a workplace ordered the care — but they could start reviewing cases of patients who suddenly have claims every week for the same service.

“If they are starting to see a significant number of people who have these tests submitted every week, or twice a week, under federal law they would be within their authority to say this looks like routine workplace testing and not cover it,” said Professor Corlette of Georgetown.

This means unvaccinated workers who have to obtain their own coronavirus testing could have to pay their own fees. Some patients have faced surprise medical bills for coronavirus tests, which can range from a few dollars to over $1,000.

Some of those bills were the result of an employer-mandated test. In the last year, The Times has asked readers to send in their medical bills for coronavirus testing and treatment, and reviewed multiple cases of surprise charges for a workplace-required test.

That includes Marta Bartan, who needed a coronavirus test to return to a job last summer working as a hair colorist in Brooklyn. As The Times reported, she received a $1,394 bill from a hospital running a drive-through site.

“I was so confused,” she said at the time. “You go in to get a Covid test expecting it to be free. What could they have possibly charged me $1,400 for?”

Categories
World News

Israel Parliament votes in new authorities, ending Netanyahu rule

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

ABIR SULTAN | AFP | Getty Images

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, approved its new government – and for the first time in 12 years a new prime minister – with a wafer-thin 60:59 votes on Sunday.

The vote that ushered in the leadership of a very diverse and cobbled together coalition of right, left, centrist and Islamist parties ousted Israel’s longest-serving leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. It also saves Israel the prospect of a fifth election in less than two years.

Now, after fighting back and trying several policy options to stay in power, Netanyahu will step aside and Israeli tech millionaire and lawmaker Naftali Bennett, whom many consider more right-wing predecessor, to take over as prime minister.

Sunday’s Knesset vote was shrouded in chaos and derision as some right-wing lawmakers, including those of Netanyahu’s Likud party, insulted Bennett, calling him a “traitor” and “liar” for the alliance with left and Arab parties. At least four politicians were kicked out of the meeting by spokesman Yariv Levin.

Bennett, a former Netanyahu adviser, continued his pre-vote speech amid the heckling heckling, praising Netanyahu as “working hard and faithfully for the State of Israel”. But he also pushed for the need for new leadership.

“We stopped the train at the edge,” said Mr. Bennett. “It is time for various leaders from all parts of the people to stop trying to stop this madness.”

In a statement, US President Joe Biden congratulated Bennett and other leaders of the new administration and cabinet.

“I look forward to working with Prime Minister Bennett to strengthen all aspects of the close and lasting relationship between our two nations. Israel has no better friend than the United States working closely together, and as we continue to strengthen our partnership, the United States remains steadfast in its support for Israel’s security. “

‘We’ll be back soon’

The 71-year-old right-wing leader is a lightning rod in its twelfth year and has long been a dividing line in Israeli society. An Israeli expert told CNBC that the country’s last elections in March – the fourth in less than two years due to the complex and polarized nature of Israeli politics – really came down to whether the country wanted “Bibi or no Bibi”. where the outgoing Prime was used became the minister’s popular nickname.

Speaking to the Knesset in English, Netanyahu said: “We’ll be back soon.”

“If we have to be in the opposition, we will keep this up – until we overthrow this dangerous government and return to run the state,” he said in a defiant address, saying he spoke for millions of Israelis who are for him have voted.

A combination of file photos shows Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett giving a speech in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, and Yesh Atid Party leader Yair Lapid giving a speech in Tel Aviv, Israel, on March 24, 2021.

Ammar Awad; Amir Cohen | Reuters

He also slammed a bill proposed by the new government that would limit a prime minister’s term to eight years, four years less than his term in office.

Netanyahu himself faces several allegations of corruption, which he denies. He had been looking for ways to avoid prosecution, which would have been a lot easier if he had stayed in power. Meanwhile, he can still remain the leader of the Likud party.

The outgoing prime minister attracted international criticism and attention for his persistent military action against Gaza in May, in which Israeli air strikes killed more than 250 Palestinians, including 66 children, in response to rocket volleys by Hamas that killed Israel during course 12 of the fighting .

Future challenges

The new coalition that is now taking power is led by centrist lawmaker Yair Lapid, a former television presenter and former finance minister and head of the Yesh Atid party, and his unlikely government partner, Naftali Bennett, who leads the minority Yamina party.

It is very unusual for a minority party leader to become prime minister, but that was what it took Bennett to join Lapid’s coalition – and his alliance with Lapid was the only way the coalition could get enough Knesset seats to hold one To have majority.

So the deal for Lapid and Bennett is based on the agreement that Bennett will become Prime Minister by 2023, with centrist Lapid as Secretary of State. At this point, if the party alliance survives, Lapid will assume the office of prime minister.

It is also the first time in Israeli history that its government includes an Arab party that aims to represent the country’s 21% Arab minority.

The government is expected to focus on social and economic issues that foster consensus among its disparate members rather than divisive ones such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian statehood.

But there are serious challenges ahead. The fragile coalition between Lapid and Bennett and the parties whose support they had to win to achieve the magic number of a majority of 61 seats in the Knesset is a risk to itself, analysts say. The only thing that seems to hold them together is a shared desire to take Netanyahu off the bench. But because of the incredibly narrow majority of 61 seats in the 120-member parliament, it would only take one move for the government to collapse.

And in view of the sometimes extreme differences of opinion between the parties, especially between right-wing and Islamist politicians in Israel, this danger of standstill and collapse remains a constant threat.

Categories
Health

OSHA Points Covid Office Security Rule, However Just for Well being Care

During the Trump administration, OSHA passed a policy to largely limit Covid-related inspections to a small number of high-risk industries such as healthcare and emergency aid. Meat wrap was not included in this high-risk group – studies showed it was a major source of virus transmission.

Some labor groups praised OSHA under President Donald J. Trump for enforcing health care safety regulations, including proposed fines of over $ 1 million for violations in dozens of health and nursing homes. However, critics accused the agency of largely failing to punish meat processors for lax safety standards, such as a lack of adequate distancing from workers.

Mr Walsh said the risks for most non-healthcare workers had decreased as cases decreased and vaccination rates increased. He also noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines last month, telling vaccinated individuals that they generally do not need to wear a mask indoors, played a role in OSHA’s decision on one dispense with the broader Covid-19 standard.

“OSHA has adjusted the rule to reflect the reality on the ground, the success of the vaccine effort, as well as the latest guidance from the CDC and the changing nature of the pandemic,” Walsh said on the call.

David Michaels, an OSHA chief during the Obama administration, said the CDC guidelines made it difficult to implement a broader OSHA rule. “In order to justify an emergency standard, OSHA needs to demonstrate that there is great danger,” said Dr. Michaels. “To do this, the CDC should have clarified its recommendation and said that there is a great danger for many workers.”

Without such clarification, said Dr. Michaels, now a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health, would have employer groups likely challenged any new OSHA rule in court, arguing that the CDC guidelines indicated that a rule was unnecessary.

Dr. Michaels said the new standard was an overdue move, but it was disappointing that no Covid-specific standard had been issued for industries such as meat packaging, corrections and retail. “If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be major drivers of infection,” he said.

Categories
Business

E-Commerce Mega-Warehouses, a Smog Supply, Face New Air pollution Rule

And the industry is growing. Last year, Inland Empire, a region near the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach where retailers and manufacturers offload billions of dollars in goods, added 23 million square feet of new warehouse space, covering nearly 500,000 square feet Football fields.

“Where we live, these warehouses are popping up like Starbucks,” said Ivette Torres of the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, a local nonprofit that campaigned for warehouses to address their role in air pollution.

Operators of warehouses larger than 100,000 square feet (roughly two soccer fields) must earn points to offset the emissions from the trucks coming and going from the warehouses. Operators can earn these points by purchasing or using zero-emission trucks or farm vehicles, or by investing in other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, e.g. B. by installing solar panels in the camps or installing air filters in local homes, schools and hospitals. Or they could choose to pay a fee if they fail to meet it.

Many camps are much larger. A planned site comprises 40 million square meters of industrial buildings, an area roughly the size of Central Park in New York.

Known as the “indirect source rule”, the effort is unusual as it targets primarily emissions from the trucks servicing the warehouses rather than the warehouses themselves. Similar approaches have been used in the past to deal with heavy traffic through sports stadiums or shopping centers to meet.

The regulator estimates their plan will cut nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 15 percent and result in up to 300 fewer deaths, up to 5,800 fewer asthma attacks and up to 20,000 fewer days off work between 2022 and 2031. The district estimates that the public health plan could be up to $ 2.7 billion, roughly three times the projected cost.

The region, which includes parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County, has a population of 18 million people – more than most states.

Categories
Health

Medicare must OK rule giving seniors entry to FDA-approved medical units

Mina De La O | Digital vision | Getty Images

Dr. Anand Shah is an oncologist and former FDA Assistant Commissioner and former Chief Medical Officer of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. He is also an advisor to Morgan Stanley.

Navigating public and commercial health insurance to cover innovative medical products can be a never-ending cycle of bureaucracy.

Medical technologies classified as “safe and effective” by the Food and Drug Administration – the global gold standard for regulating drugs and devices – are not always covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, adding the added hurdle for companies Proof of their requirements must be met Product is “reasonable and necessary”.

Unlike medications, which are typically covered by CMS immediately after FDA approval, seniors can only access many FDA cleared or approved medical diagnoses and devices if they can participate in a CMS approved clinical trial. These studies can take years – additional data and a lengthy regulatory process to determine coverage criteria – and in the meantime sustain potentially life-saving medical interventions from Medicare beneficiaries.

A new policy, due to go into effect in mid-March, would have allowed seniors and their doctors to decide whether or not they needed these devices. However, it was postponed along with other pending regulations when the Biden Administration took office. The proposed Medicare Innovative Technologies Coverage Policy, postponed until May 15 for regulatory review, leverages existing FDA legal expertise under the Breakthrough Devices program to identify a limited number of promising medical technologies, and offers these products a short Medicare warranty. granted on the day of FDA approval.

The proposed policy would be a critical step forward for Medicare beneficiaries to make informed decisions about their care.

Currently, the FDA has approved, authorized, or cleared at least 26 breakthrough diagnoses and devices. These medical products include in vitro diagnostic and imaging platforms for implants and wearable devices that cover a range of diseases, including Ebola, traumatic brain injury, severe emphysema, and heart disease.

As an oncologist who helped develop this medical device policy at CMS, I have looked after many patients who have not had access to state-of-the-art tests such as next-generation DNA sequencing as part of a cancer screening because Medicare does not allow them. The same product can often be obtained by the patient through a commercial insurance policy, which many do not get under the Medicare program after aging. As a last resort, the patient has no choice but to pay out of pocket.

Seniors deserve access to FDA-named breakthrough medical devices – narrowly defined by Congress to include the most promising new technologies, such as those that can treat life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions – once the FDA deems them safe and effective.

It is important that the proposed rule maintain the same high standards required by both the FDA and the CMS. In addition, the existing FDA requirements for post-market surveillance will be maintained. This policy bridges the void for patients who would otherwise not have access to the latest FDA authorized technology while waiting for CMS coverage. Still, it encourages researchers to continue collecting real-world evidence of health outcomes that are specific to Medicare beneficiaries.

Patient protection is maintained as MCIT uses existing procedures to restrict access to new technology when safety or efficacy concerns arise.

There is no disadvantage in approving this policy change. Seniors will have more treatment options, and medical technology innovators can work with CMS to carefully examine these patients over a four-year period, generating meaningful real-world evidence to prove that a new device is “sensible and necessary.” “Is Medicare coverage decision and potentially offers more permanent security.

This policy also encourages early investors to support innovation for the most pressing medical conditions as it creates a clear and predictable path – from investing to developing medical products to regulatory review and subsequent patient access.

If the federal government wants to incentivize investment in developing transformative medical innovations and expand choices for our seniors while promoting rigorous evidence generation, MCIT offers a clear way forward. Too many lives depend on it.

Correction: This editorial has been updated to correct the name of the agency that needs to approve the rule in the headline. It’s CMS.

Categories
Business

China Is Set to Rule Electrical Automotive Manufacturing

ZHAOQING, China – Xpeng Motors, a Chinese start-up for electric cars, recently opened a large assembly plant in southeast China and is building a suitable factory nearby. It has announced plans for a third.

Another Chinese electric car company, Nio, has opened a large factory in central China and is preparing to build a second a few kilometers away.

Zhejiang Geely, owner of Volvo, showed off a huge new electric car factory in east China last month that could rival some of the largest assembly plants in the world. Evergrande, a troubled Chinese real estate giant, has just built electric car factories in the cities of Shanghai and Guangzhou and hopes to produce nearly as many all-electric cars as all of North America by 2025.

China is building electric car factories almost as quickly as the rest of the world put together. Chinese manufacturers are using the billions they have raised from international investors and personable local executives to bring established automakers to market.

Success is far from assured. Players include startups, electronics manufacturers, and other newbies to the auto industry. They bet that drivers in China and beyond will be willing to spend $ 40,000 or more on brands they have never heard of.

Chinese automakers acknowledge that the experience brings some advantages to the mainstream auto companies. But they insist that their plans work.

“We have the will and we have the patience,” said He Xiaopeng, chairman and general manager of Xpeng, in an interview. “I think we will find it very challenging, but we also have to move forward.”

The Chinese industry is on the move. China will produce over eight million electric cars a year by 2028, estimates LMC Automotive, a global data company, compared to a million last year. Europe is well on the way to producing 5.7 million fully electric cars by then.

General Motors and other North American automakers have plans to catch up. In April, President Biden urged the United States to step up its electric vehicle efforts. During a virtual visit to an electric bus factory in South Carolina, he warned: “At the moment we are running far after China.”

North American automakers are well on their way to building just 1.4 million electric cars a year by 2028, compared to 410,000 last year, according to LMC.

Global auto companies are helping China’s leadership. Volkswagen started recently Third Chinese electric car factory built.

Thanks to the nationwide rollout of over 800,000 public charging stations supported by the government, China already has the infrastructure for electric cars. That’s almost twice as much as the rest of the world, although US drivers who tend to live in single-family homes find it easier to hook up their cars at home.

With a slower deployment of charging stations outside of China, automakers elsewhere plan to continue building some plug-in hybrids with small gasoline engines for a few more years. However, the market for fully electric cars is already larger than for plug-in hybrids, and the lead of electric cars is growing rapidly. Automakers like GM plan to completely eliminate gasoline and diesel engines over the next 15 years.

Name recognition will be a major challenge for the new Chinese cars. The brands are mostly unknown even to Chinese drivers. On streets full of Buicks, Volkswagens and Mercedes-Benzes, it was difficult for them to stand out.

E-commerce company Alibaba and two state-backed companies have set up a joint venture for electric cars called IM Motors, which is scheduled to begin delivering cars early next year.

Evergrande called his brand Hengchi, pronounced “Hung-cheh”. An electric car craze has brought Hong Kong-traded shares in the company’s Evergrande New Energy Vehicle electric car unit to nearly the same market cap as GM

Evergrande plans to manufacture and sell one million all-electric cars annually by 2025. So far none have been sold.

Geely, an industry veteran with recognized brands in China, has named his electrical brand Zeekr, which rhymes with “seeker”. The delivery of the cars is planned for October.

The Zeekr will be manufactured in a new electric car factory near Ningbo on China’s east coast. The factory is a cavernous space with miles of white conveyor belts and rows of cream-colored 15-foot robots made by ABB of Sweden. It has an initial capacity of 300,000 cars per year, is larger than most Detroit auto plants, and has space for expansion.

“The most important thing is that China has the market,” said Zhao Chunlin, general manager of the factory.

Mr. He named Xpeng, pronounced “X-Pung”, after himself. Xpeng’s niche feature is a cooing Siri-like voice assistant that controls the car’s internet services like directions and music, as well as computer-aided driving on the highway. Xpeng plans to produce 300,000 cars a year by 2024. it sold less than a tenth as many last year.

Mr. He made his first fortune developing a cell phone browser company, UCWeb. He sold it to Alibaba in 2014 and became president of Alibaba’s Mobile Business Services division. That same year, he helped two former Guangzhou Auto State executives set up Xpeng.

Three years later, Mr. He took direct control of Xpeng and left Alibaba, which also acquired a small stake in the automaker. Mr. He said his second child had been born and that he wanted to tell his son that he ran a car company. Mr. He holds 23 percent of Xpeng’s shares, while Alibaba holds 12 percent.

Chinese government officials helped with this. A state-owned company in Zhaoqing, a 1,000-year-old jade carving town near Guangzhou, donated $ 233 million to Xpeng in 2017 to build its first factory with an annual capacity of around 100,000 cars. The city has since subsidized the company’s interest payments according to Xpeng’s regulatory filings.

The City of Wuhan helped Xpeng buy land and borrow money for a new plant at low interest rates. The Guangzhou government also helped Xpeng build its factory in that city, said Brian Gu, vice chairman and president of Xpeng.

Last year, after weathering the pandemic, Xpeng benefited from Wall Street, where Tesla’s rise sparked investor appetites for the industry. The Chinese company raised $ 5 billion through an initial public offering and subsequent share sales. It spends part of the money on new factories and part on research and development, especially on autonomous driving.

Xpeng’s deep pockets are visible in costly automation in the Zhaoqing factory. Robots lift 44-pound car roofs made from dark-tinted glass, apply aerospace adhesive, and press into place. Waist-high robots slide across the gray concrete floor and carry instrument panels as they play an instrumental version of Celine Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On”. (The robots were programmed that way, company officials explained.)

The construction of the factory took only 15 months, which was considerably faster than the assembly plants in the west. Yan Hui, the general manager of the plant’s final assembly area, said decisions were made faster than at the German auto parts maker where he used to work.

“Every design change took a long time – characters, characters, even characters in German,” he said. “But at Xpeng, we can just make the change.”

Although many of the electric car brands are new to China, their owners already have ambitions abroad. Xpeng starts exporting cars to Europe, starting with Norway. Chery, a large state-owned automaker in central China, announced last week that it would start exporting gasoline-powered cars to the US next year, followed by electric cars.

The United States will be a difficult market. The Trump administration imposed 25 percent tax on cars imported from China in 2018, which has slowed exports. Many electric car parts are subject to the same tariffs. This makes it more difficult, but not impossible, for Chinese companies to deliver electric cars in kits for assembly in the United States.

Chinese companies currently see great potential for building their brands.

Michael Dunne, managing director of ZoZo Go, a consulting firm specializing in the electric car industry in Asia, said the industry’s prospects were clear: “China will be the global dominator in electric car manufacturing.”

Liu Yi and Coral Yang contributed to the research.