Healthcare cost and policy

DOJ's OhioHealth settlement

Originally posted by

Usain Bolt is the fastest man ever and even he should be impressed with the speed the DOJ drove a settlement with OhioHealth. The settlement is good news for people who believe in market competition.

DOJ filed the complaint in February and the settlement came this week. For an antitrust case, that’s a sprint.

OhioHealth runs 16 hospitals across Ohio. The DOJ complaint calls it the dominant system in Columbus and alleges it used that position to force insurers into all-or-nothing contracts. If an insurer wanted OhioHealth in any network, it had to include OhioHealth in every network, place it in the most favored benefit tier, and limit what it could tell members about price.

Those terms block narrow networks and tiered plans, and they take away a plan sponsor’s ability to steer members toward lower-cost, higher-value care. Your price goes up because of leverage, not value.

The proposed settlement would void the anti-competitive terms and install a five-year monitor, pending a public comment period and a judge’s sign-off. The DOJ filed a similar case against NewYork-Presbyterian in March. The same language sits in carrier contracts across the country.

When I talk about the negative aspects of market consolidation, this is a prime example.

Originally posted on LinkedIn, where the discussion and source links live in the comments.

About the author

Chris Vanderwolk is Director of Compliance and Innovation at OneDigital | Kistler Tiffany Benefits General Agency, where he helps brokers and employers navigate the regulatory complexity of employee benefits. An ERISA attorney with more than 19 years in the benefits industry, he specializes in translating what the law actually requires into language people can use.

All writing