Anticompetitive contracting practices have been under antitrust enforcement scrutiny from both state regulators and private parties in recent years. In California, hospital giant Sutter Health faced several high-profile lawsuits for its alleged anticompetitive contracts. While the state case led by the California attorney general settled earlier this year, the federal class action is on its way to the 9th Circuit appeal. HCA Healthcare, a large health system in North Carolina, appear to be the next health system under litigation fire for similar practices. Three separate actions have been filed by …

As federal agencies including the FTC and DOJ step up antitrust enforcement efforts in response to Biden’s executive order to revamp competition in the healthcare market, more and more healthcare entities are turning to less traditional consolidation that did not previously trigger antitrust scrutiny, such as “cross-market” mergers, which involve providers that do not directly compete in the same geographic market.[1] This month in Litigation and Enforcement Highlights, we take a look at the latest merger review and conditional approval of a proposed cross-market transaction in California, the third of …

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 …