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 …

As unrelenting consolidation in healthcare provider and insurer markets continues, policymakers need additional options to protect the public from escalating healthcare prices and low-quality care. High healthcare prices result from multiple factors, including third-party payers dampening consumers’ price sensitivity, patients and providers demanding expensive healthcare technologies, and healthcare markets consolidating. While these factors are visible, dominant insurers and healthcare providers can also use terms in their insurer-provider contracts in anticompetitive ways that thwart competition and lead to higher prices or lower quality but remain hidden from public view. With support …

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 …

See case page: UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health When Sutter Health reached a preliminary settlement agreement with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra restricting its anticompetitive practices, antitrust experts breathed a collective sigh of relief on clinching a favorable outcome. Then came COVID-19. As with all other aspects of business and life, the pandemic has turned existing order upside down. Will it throw a wrench in the all but finalized case that would’ve served as strong guidance to other health systems in the country? The terms of the …