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 …

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 …

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: 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 …

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 UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health case page.   The high-profile antitrust case against Sutter Health settled on the eve of trial in October 2019, when the Northern California hospital giant reached a preliminary settlement agreement with the California Attorney General’s office and class action plaintiffs after five years of litigation. The terms of the settlement were released late December, which include both monetary compensation for the private plaintiffs and injunctions against Sutter’s conduct that will restore competition and promote transparency in the provider market. In this …

See UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health case page.   The lawsuit alleging anticompetitive conduct by Sutter Health is scheduled to begin trial on October 7, 2019 in the Superior Court of San Francisco. In the case, California Attorney General and private parties United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) and Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT) allege that Sutter Health used its position as a dominant provider of hospital services in Northern California to demand anticompetitive contract terms from insurance carriers.[1],[2] Since the factual allegations and legal claims made in both the …

The Lower Health Care Costs Act, released in May 2019 by Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, addresses many inefficiencies in healthcare markets and has the potential to both increase competition and lower costs for healthcare services. The 195-page draft federal bill, also known as the Alexander-Murray Bill (S 1895), contains more than three dozen provisions designed to address health care costs. The bill is divided into five titles: 1) Ending Surprise Medical Bills, 2) Reducing the Prices of Prescription Drugs, 3) Improving Transparency in Health Care, 4) Improving Public …

*Updated: October 10, 2018 On Wednesday, October 10, President Trump signed into law both bills passed by Congress to ban gag clauses in pharmacy contracts: the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act (S.2554) affects employer-sponsored and individual drug plans and the Know the Lowest Price Act (S.2553) will affect Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage plans. Trump expects an immediate impact on drug prices and remarked at the signing: “All our citizens deserve to know the lowest price available at our pharmacies, and now that’s what they’ll be getting.”   *Updated: …

*Updated: September 27, 2018 On Tuesday, September 25, the House voted to pass the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, so the bill currently awaits President Trump’s Signature. In addition, both the House and Senate passed the Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018 (S.2553), which bans gag-clauses in Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part D plans. In a tweet on September 17, President Trump expressed his support of legislation that will remove gag clauses. As a result, gag-clauses at pharmacy counters will likely be prohibited, so pharmacists will be …