It’s been a busy month in healthcare antitrust land, both for federal regulators and private plaintiffs, as we saw an explosion of enforcement actions challenging both proposed mergers and anticompetitive conduct that stemmed from previous mergers. From New Jersey to Utah, large health systems such as HCA are being increasingly scrutinized and coming under fire for garnering and using their market power in anticompetitive ways.   Merger Challenges Fresh from its appeals court win in the Hackensack Meridian and Englewood merger challenge, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is continuing its …

See case page: Sidibe v. Sutter Health   The antitrust action against Northern California hospital giant Sutter Health is a saga that continues to give and capture the attention of antitrust regulators and stakeholders around the country. After Sutter’s landmark settlement with the California attorney general in state court in 2019 and a jury verdict in March 2022 clearing Sutter of anticompetitive allegations in a decade-long federal class action, many thought the Sutter chapter had finally closed, albeit somewhat anti-climatically. Not so fast. In late April, plaintiffs in the federal action …

Consistent research has shown that consolidation in the health industry leads to an increase in healthcare costs without improved quality of care. Though many healthcare mergers have previously gone unchecked, antitrust enforcers are increasingly using their statutory and regulatory authority and the court system to address healthcare consolidation concerns.[1] In California, the attorney general has had the statutory authority to review non-profit hospital mergers for decades but the limited oversight does not extend over all anticompetitive transactions and behavior. This session, the legislature introduced AB 2080 aimed to broaden existing …

See case page: Sidibe v. Sutter Health   After nearly ten years of litigation and a month-long trial in Sidibe v. Sutter Health in the federal district court in San Francisco, a nine-person jury delivered a unanimous verdict finding that Sutter Health did not engage in anticompetitive conduct and did not cause consumers to pay higher prices or premiums as alleged by the class plaintiffs. The jury answered no on two key questions to plaintiffs’ case, that 1) Sutter Health did not use tying practices in its insurer contracts; and 2) …

See case page: Sidibe v. Sutter Health   Northern California hospital giant Sutter Health is again in the spotlight this month as the jury trial began in Sidibe v. Sutter Health in the District Court for the Northern District of California after nearly ten years of litigation. Many may recall the recent antitrust lawsuit led by California attorney general against Sutter Health, UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT) v. Sutter Health, which settled in state court on the eve of trial in October 2019. While the settlement sent shockwaves across the …

See case page: UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health On August 27, nearly two years after the parties reached a proposed settlement agreement, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo of the San Francisco Superior gave the final approval to the settlement of the high profile antitrust case against Sutter Health. The final settlement was stalled several times along the way, first due to the coronavirus pandemic, then the court’s rejection of the compliance monitor, and most recently disputes over attorney fees, which was the subject of the preliminary approval hearing on July …

Healthcare entities have continued to actively pursue proposed mergers and affiliations during —and in part driven by— the coronavirus pandemic. Since the settlement of the Sutter Health antitrust lawsuit, the proposed affiliation of Cedars-Sinai Health System and Huntington Memorial Hospital in California has emerged as the leading case that has captured the attention of health policy experts as to its antitrust implications. The Source also weighed in on the case with an amicus brief filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In this post, we further detail the background …

See case page: Sidibe v. Sutter Health   As all eyes were fixated on UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health (UEBT), the landmark state antitrust lawsuit that the California attorney general brought against Sutter Health, another long-standing litigation against Sutter in federal court for similar claims has largely gone under the radar. With the final judgment in the state action set to be approved in state court this July, we turn our attention to Sidibe v. Sutter Health, the other case to watch in the ongoing antitrust challenge against …

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 …

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 …