In this month’s Litigation and Enforcement Highlights, we provide the latest updates on several proposed provider mergers, many of which were fueled by the continued pandemic. With the increased consolidation came increased antitrust scrutiny. So far this year, we’ve seen a mixed bag of wins and losses for federal and state enforcement agencies that seek to block the mergers.   FTC Concedes in Failed Challenge of Jefferson-Albert Einstein Merger In its first major loss in a healthcare merger challenge in recent years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officially dropped its …

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought national attention to the inner workings of the healthcare industry, exposing many of its shortcomings and issues. Many are now taking a renewed look at the U.S. healthcare system as a whole and the underlying problems that arise from the actions of its various players. Early this year, healthcare transactions that have largely escaped federal antitrust review are now being hauled into the spotlight in new attempts to promote greater competition in the healthcare market.   Physician Consolidation Garners Attention as the FTC Seeks to …

We kick off the new year with a handful of new developments in healthcare litigation and enforcement that transpired at the end of 2020. In price transparency, a pair of legal challenges intended to block transparency efforts in drug pricing and hospital pricing, respectively, were denied by the circuit courts. On the antitrust front, the Federal Trade Commission saw both victory and defeat in its challenges of proposed mergers that would lessen competition in the healthcare markets.   Judges Refuses to Block California’s Drug Pricing Transparency Law SB 17 On …

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the nation, it has put economic stress on smaller healthcare providers, giving larger health systems the opportunity to gain market power through more rampant merger and acquisition activity. In response, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice also stepped up their antitrust enforcement efforts. In this year-end Litigation and Enforcement Highlights issue, we round up federal enforcement challenges of provider mergers in 2020 and look at the latest status of these actions.   Jefferson Health/Albert Einstein (Pennsylvania) The Federal Trade Commission …

Editor’s Note: An abbreviated summary of this case appears in the research report “Preventing Anticompetitive Contracting Practices in Healthcare Markets”, which provides a detailed analysis of anti-tiering/anti-steering clauses, including economic justification and procompetitive use and states that have restricted its use in healthcare contracts.   The antitrust case against Sutter Health in California has drawn the attention of state regulators and policymakers across the country, spawning legislative reform efforts to curb dominant hospitals’ market power. Prior to this, an enforcement action against Atrium Health, a large health system on the …

The private antitrust case against Blue Shield/Blue Cross (BCBS) reached a preliminary partial settlement last month after eight years of litigation. A driving force for this settlement may have been the April 2018 district court ruling that was seen as a serious blow to the defendants. In two antitrust suits that have been consolidated in Alabama federal court (put into Multi-District Litigation),[1] healthcare providers and employer subscribers sued BCBS companies across the country, alleging horizontal market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs claim …

See case page: UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health In August, The Source reported on the preliminary approval hearing for the proposed settlement of California’s high-profile antitrust suit against Sutter Health. Among other issues, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo of the Superior Court of San Francisco was particularly troubled by the selection process of the independent compliance monitor and required supplemental filings from the parties regarding the selection and outreach process employed in the selection of Jesse Caplan of Affiliated Monitors, whom the parties jointly requested to appoint (see The Source …

See case page: UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health After much delay due to the pandemic induced hiatus, the preliminary approval hearing for the proposed settlement agreement in the Sutter Health antitrust case resumed on August 12 at the Superior Court of San Francisco. At the hearing, plaintiff attorneys on behalf of both class members UEBT and the Attorney General addressed in turn questions with respect to specific proposed terms raised in a tentative ruling by Judge Anne-Christine Massullo.[1] One key issue the court rested on was the selection …

See case page: UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health At a July 9 hearing at the Superior Court of San Francisco, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo denied Sutter Health’s motion to delay the approval hearing of the preliminary settlement agreement due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an encouraging ruling as there was much speculation and concern that Sutter’s request is a thinly veiled attempt to walk back the historic settlement reached last December amidst the chaos of COVID-19. In a California Healthline quote last month, The Source Executive Editor …

After much anticipation and a round of public comments on the draft guidelines released in January, the Department of Justice (DOJ), along with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), officially issued the final Vertical Merger Review Guidelines, replacing the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines originally issued in 1984. The updated guidelines govern how federal antitrust agencies evaluate vertical, as well as other non-horizontal mergers. The guidelines outline three main sources of evidence for potential adverse competitive effects from vertical mergers: 1) Foreclosure and Raising Rivals’ Costs, 2) Access to Competitively Sensitive Information, and …