Department of Justice Suit Against New York Presbyterian May Be Part of a Larger Antitrust Enforcement Trend
On March 26, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New York-Presbyterian Hospital (NYP), claiming NYP used illegal anticompetitive terms in their contracts with payors. In the related press release, the DOJ stated that “New York-Presbyterian uses its market power to protect its margins, impede competition from rival hospitals, and prevent employers and unions from creating [budget-conscious health plans].” According to the complaint, NYP imposes restrictions in its contracts that prevent payors from offering plans that do not place NYP in the plan’s most-favored tier. Additionally, payors are required to include all NYP hospitals in their networks if they want to include any NYP hospital, and that NYP prevents payors from offering lower copays when patients receive care at non-NYP facilities. The DOJ claims NYP’s actions constitute violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts that restrain fair trade.
NYP has more than 450 locations in the greater New York City area; the DOJ’s new suit claims that NYP “has substantially higher prices than its competitors, even though its major competitors offer similarly high-quality healthcare.”
A spokeswoman for NYP stated, “We do not seek to exclude any other hospital from any insurer’s network. Nor do we require more favorable treatment than any other hospital,”
In our reporting on an earlier case brought by a union against NYP alleging anti-steering conduct in violation of federal antitrust law, we noted that the DOJ was investigating “potential unlawful agreement between NYP Health Care System and health insurance companies relating to steering restrictions and contracting conduct”. This recent suit appears to be the result of that investigation.
This case is very similar to a recent suit filed by the DOJ (along with the Ohio Attorney General) against an Ohio health system, claiming that the system’s use of all-or-nothing terms (requiring insurers to include all of its providers in their networks) inflates costs for policyholders and disadvantages competitors. In our reporting on the case, we examined the DOJ's language and raised the question of whether this type of enforcement could become more common for the DOJ.
The Ohio and NYP suits may indicate more federal interest in challenging the use of anticompetitive contract terms by dominant healthcare systems. Will these high-profile cases be enough to get other healthcare systems to reconsider their use of anticompetitive contract terms? Only time will tell.
Leave A Comment