Healthcare / Antitrust

Subscribe to Healthcare / Antitrust via RSS

Last week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a press release highlighting recent and forthcoming actions by the FTC, Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which they say will further promote competition, thereby lowering costs and increasing the quality of care in the U.S. health care market. In addition to highlighting recent actions by each of the agencies (e.g., the FTC’s proposed non-compete rule), the release states that the three agencies are entering into new partnerships to increase interagency cooperation and advance a “whole-of-government” approach to protect health care competition, including:Continue Reading FTC, DOJ, and HHS Announce Interagency Initiatives to Promote Healthcare Competition

Today, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law HB6669, “An Act Protecting Patients and Prohibiting Unnecessary Health Care Costs” (“the Act”), which seeks to reduce the costs of health care services for Connecticut residents. The Act is extensive and is aimed at increasing competition in the health care market, heightening price transparency, and reducing prescription drug costs. We have summarized key provisions of the Act below.Continue Reading Connecticut Governor Signs Health Care Legislation to Reduce Costs and Increase Competition

Antitrust enforcement has been heating up over the last few years in several areas – notably in healthcare and labor.[1] As the antitrust climate intensifies and spreads, private equity (PE) firms are starting to feel the heat, finding themselves the focus of increased antitrust scrutiny. Significantly, antitrust enforcement and litigation risks are moving from the portfolio companies to the PE firms themselves. Three areas of heightened risk stand out: interlocking directorates, roll-ups, and PE divestiture buyers.[2]Continue Reading Hot Antitrust Enforcement Climate Reaches Private Equity

The Department of Justice (DOJ) lost its third jury trial in its mission to secure criminal convictions against companies and executives accused of labor-side antitrust violations on March 22, 2023, when a jury in Maine acquitted four home healthcare staffing executives of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In United States v. Manahe, the DOJ charged Faysal Kalayaf Manahe, Yaser Aali, Ammar Alkinani, and Quasim Saesah with entering into an approximately two-month conspiracy between April and May 2020 not to hire each other’s caretakers and to fix caretaker wages.[1] After the district court declined to dismiss the indictment, holding the DOJ had successfully alleged a per se conspiracy to fix wages and allocate employees, the case proceeded to a two-week trial. At trial, defendants—all immigrants from Iraq, many of whom served as translators for U.S. forces there—admitted that they discussed setting wage levels and refraining from hiring each other’s employees, and even drafted an agreement with signature lines that outlined the terms of defendants’ discussions.[2] Defendants argued that they never reached an agreement in violation of Section 1 because the draft agreement was never signed. Defense counsel emphasized in opening statements that in defendants’ culture, “when dealing with business matters . . . the only way to confirm a commitment is to put it into a formal written contract.” Given the verdict, it appears the jury agreed.Continue Reading DOJ Loses Third Consecutive Antitrust Labor Trial

What Happened?

On Friday, February 3, the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) announced its withdrawal of three policy statements on health care antitrust enforcement: (1) The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Enforcement Policy Statements in the Healthcare Area (Sept. 15, 1993); (2) The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Healthcare (Aug. 1, 1996); and (3) The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statement of Antirust Enforcement Policy Regarding Accountable Care Organizations Participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Oct. 20, 2011) (together, the “Healthcare Statements”). It has been reported that the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), which shares antitrust enforcement authority with the DOJ (together the “Agencies”), intends to withdraw the Healthcare Statements as well. Assuming the FTC follows the DOJ’s lead, the withdrawal of the Healthcare Statements may be the most significant antitrust enforcement development under the Biden Administration to date and is likely the most significant healthcare antitrust development in decades.Continue Reading Department of Justice Withdraws Key Healthcare Antitrust Policy Statements

It is widely reported that healthcare is a top antitrust enforcement priority in the U.S. The healthcare industry has undergone a transformation over the over the last twenty years and now comprises 17.7% of the U.S. gross domestic product and over $3.795 trillion of the U.S. government budget. Mega-deals among national payors and household names have grabbed headlines and been targets of enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (collectively, “the Agencies”).
Continue Reading Private Equity & Healthcare: Antitrust Enforcement in 2023–PE Roll-Ups in the Cross Hairs

Representing a sizable portion of the American economy, few industries in the United States have received more attention from the press, legislators, and antitrust agencies than the healthcare industry—particularly in recent years. Recent developments at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reaffirm that healthcare remains a top antitrust enforcement priorities in the United States.
Continue Reading U.S. Healthcare Industry Remains Antitrust Enforcement Priority

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal recently voiced skepticism of Kentucky’s Certificate of Need (“CON”) laws while simultaneously ruling that they met the Fourteenth Amendment’s “rational basis” test.[1]
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Questions Efficacy of State “Certificate of Need” Laws, Question Whether Reduces Competition