The
Department
of
Justice
and
the
state
of
Ohio
filed
an
antitrust
lawsuit
against
OhioHealth
this
week,
alleging
the
health
system
used
“all-or-nothing”
contracting
practices
to
force
payers
to
include
every
hospital
and
physician
affiliated
with
OhioHealth
in
their
networks.
Essentially,
the
lawsuit
claims
that
the
Ohio-based
health
system
has
used
its
market
dominance
to
impose
restrictive
payer
contracts
that
harm
competition
and
drive
up
healthcare
costs
for
patients
and
employers.
According
to
the
lawsuit,
OhioHealth
requires
payers
to
include
all
of
its
hospitals
and
employed
physicians
in
their
networks
if
they
want
access
to
any
of
them,
which
has
prevented
payers
from
selectively
contracting
with
lower-cost
facilities
or
excluding
higher-priced
ones.
The
DOJ
argues
this
has
left
payers
with
little
negotiating
leverage,
as
well
as
hurt
their
ability
to
design
more
affordable
health
plans.
“Americans
deserve
low-cost,
high-quality
healthcare
—
not
anticompetitive
hospital
system
contracts
that
make
healthcare
less
affordable,”
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
said
in
a
statement.
The
DOJ
and
Ohio
contend
that
OhioHealth’s
provisions
violate
federal
and
state
antitrust
laws
by
suppressing
competition
among
hospitals
and
physician
groups
in
central
Ohio.
The
complaint
alleges
that
foreclosing
rivals
from
competing
for
inclusion
in
payer
networks
helped
OhioHealth
maintain
its
dominant
market
position
while
insulating
it
from
price
competition.
OhioHealth
is
one
of
the
largest
healthcare
systems
in
Ohio,
spanning
16
hospitals,
three
joint
venture
hospitals
and
more
than
200
ambulatory
care
sites.
It
has
a
significant
presence
in
the
Columbus
region,
where
regulators
say
its
scale
gives
it
substantial
bargaining
power
over
commercial
insurers.
The
lawsuit
comes
amid
heightened
federal
scrutiny
of
hospital
consolidation
and
contracting
practices,
as
lawmakers
seek
to
rein
in
healthcare
costs
that
continue
to
rise
faster
than
wages
and
inflation.
The
government
is
asking
the
court
to
block
OhioHealth
from
using
the
disputed
contract
provisions
and
to
restore
competition
in
the
affected
markets.
The
health
system
has
denied
the
allegations,
saying
that
its
contracting
practices
are
lawful
and
benefit
patients
by
ensuring
broad
access
to
care.
This
type
of
lawsuit
is
part
of
a
broader
wave
of
antitrust
enforcement
targeting
hospital
consolidation
and
restrictive
contracts
nationwide.
In
recent
years,
the
DOJ
and
state
attorneys
general
have
challenged
similar
“all-or-nothing”
or
“full-service”
contracting
practices
in
markets
from
California
to
Florida,
arguing
that
such
terms
harm
payer
competition
and
increase
healthcare
prices.
Outcomes
in
those
cases
may
influence
how
courts
view
OhioHealth’s
contracts.
Photo:
imageBROKER/Harry
Laub,
Getty
Images