Tag: DOJ

  • DOJ takes on health insurers for price-fixing

    DOJ takes on health insurers for price-fixing

    In a significant move, the DOJ filed a “statement of interest” in federal court this week, siding with hundreds of physicians who accuse top insurers and a firm formerly known as MultiPlan — now rebranded as Claritev — of conspiring to fix prices for out-of-network care.

    The DOJ’s involvement doesn’t just add legal firepower. It sends a signal that this case matters. More importantly, it casts a harsh spotlight on how major insurers including UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Cigna and Elevance may have skirted antitrust laws through a so-called “third-party intermediary” — and whether Wall Street has been too confident in the impunity these corporations usually enjoy.

    According to reports, the DOJ rebuffed Claritev’s argument that there was no price-fixing conspiracy simply because insurers may use the company’s algorithm differently. The Sherman Antitrust Act, the DOJ pointed out, is clear: even setting a “starting point” for prices — if done in coordination — can be anti-competitive. And sharing sensitive pricing data through a middleman? That’s also potentially illegal.

    As someone who spent years inside the health insurance industry, I can tell you that what’s at stake here is nothing short of enormous. If this lawsuit proceeds, we might finally get a clearer picture of how these corporations — working together under the cover of a “neutral” analytics firm — manipulated payment rates to increase profits, all while starving frontline health care providers.

    Claritev and its insurer partners, of course, deny the allegations and have moved to dismiss the case. But the DOJ’s filing now stands in their way.

    Some history: The backstory adds even more weight to the DOJ’s action. In 2023, a New York Times investigation uncovered how Claritev (then MultiPlan) operated under a perverse incentive: the more it “saved” insurers and their corporate clients by underpaying doctors, the bigger the cut Claritev and insurers took for themselves. That same year, Senator Amy Klobuchar called on federal regulators to investigate what she and many providers viewed as algorithm-enabled price-fixing. She even introduced legislation to stop corporations from using AI tools to coordinate pricing.

    The DOJ statement of interest comes just weeks after the agency launched an investigation into UnitedHealth Group’s Medicare billing practices. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the DOJ “is examining the company’s practices for recording diagnoses that trigger extra payments to its Medicare Advantage plans, including at physician groups the insurance giant owns.”

    For years, insurers have been able to hide behind complex data systems, AI algorithms and opaque contracting practices to squeeze providers — and boost profits. Investors have generally assumed that neither Congress nor federal regulators would seriously challenge that model.

    But this latest move by the DOJ suggests otherwise. Maybe — just maybe — the Trump Administration will be tougher on insurers than investors expected. And if that is true, it would be a long-overdue course correction – for doctors, patients and taxpayers.

    [Note: This post was originally published on Wendell Potter’s Substack, HEALTH CARE un-covered.]

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Will the DOJ let UnitedHealth control more of the US health care system

    Will the DOJ let UnitedHealth control more of the US health care system

    Why would the biggest health insurer in the nation buy a health care data analytics company? More  knowledge, more power, more ability to drive profits its way. So, unsurprisingly, UnitedHealth plans to buy Change Healthcare. Will the US Department of Justice allow it and give UnitedHealth even more control of the US healthcare system?

    The American Hospital Association wants the Justice Department to stop the purchase because UnitedHealth will have too much “sensitive data.” In this instance, the public should be squarely aligned with the AHA because UnitedHealth will have even greater ability to drive up costs and restrict access to care if this merger goes through.

    Krista Brown and Olivia Webb report for The American Prospect that if the Justice Department permits UnitedHealth and Change to merge, it would have serious consequences for doctors, patients and the US health care system. UnitedHealth would have “access to all its competitors’ business secrets.”  The merger would allow UnitedHealthcare to steer more people to its own doctors. It could create inequities among people who wanted to buy insurance. It’s likely to undermine the public health further.

    UnitedHealth already has over 70 million members in the US, and it has contracts with 6,500 hospitals, and 1.4 million health care providers. Among other things, it owns Optum, a  data analytics subsidiary, Optum Rx, a pharmacy benefit manager, and Optum Bank, which gives patients loans. It also owns DaVita’s dialysis doctors.

    Through its Optum subsidiary, UnitedHealth is on a path to taking over the US healthcare system single-handedly. UnitedHealth could literally establish a private single-payer entity over time, with the purchase of Change Healthcare.

    So what exactly does Change Healthcare do that is so valuable? It is the insurers’ middleman. It reviews the claims doctors submit for payment to determine whether they are legitimate and accurate. Claims they reject are money in the insurers’ pockets. To do its job, Change’s employees know exactly what each entity with which it contracts covers, what each provider bills, and what each insurer pays. In short, Change has mountains of data between doctors and insurers and pharmacies and insurers.

    Optum currently performs these services for UnitedHealth. But, a merger with Change would mean that the company that has been independent of UnitedHealth–the only other large company that performs these services–would be owned by UnitedHealth and no longer independent.

    Right now, there is a “firewall” between Optum and UnitedHealth to protect against anti-competitive practices. But, as the American Hospital Association argues, it easily could be the case that “sensitive and strategic information sharing” goes on between Optum and UnitedHealth. After all, Optum’s employees work for UnitedHealth and not for its competitors, and they know that.

    If Optum merges with Change Healthcare, UnitedHealth will be able to prioritize its physicians and otherwise design its health insurance to look better than its competitors. There’s no evidence that costs would come down; if history and experience are considered, there’s lots of reason to be concerned that costs will go up. Moreover, there is a legitimate fear that Optum’s racially biased data–discovered in 2019 as leading to the possible undertreatment of Black patients– would lead it to discriminate against people of color and poor people and charge them more for their health care.

    Let’s hope that the Department of Justice decides that the dangers of allowing this merger outweigh any possible benefits.

    Here’s more from Just Care: